Agriculture et développement durable

Lairez, Juliette; Feschet, Pauline

doi:10.3917/edagri.laire.2016.01.0013

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This combination of expertise and calibration using data sets is a significant improvement over other available tools (Bohanec & Raikovic, 1990; Guillaume & Charnomordic, 2011), even if the latter are still useful for developing ES indicators (Dumont et al, 2022; Ricou et al, 2014). In the literature, indicators can be used to assess general concepts such as sustainable development (Lairez et al, 2016) or biodiversity, not all aspects of which can be simply quantified. One of the merits of composite indicators is their ability to grasp such “concepts” globally using criteria of different natures: continuous or discrete, quantitative or qualitative, as discussed above for the plant biodiversity conservation indicators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A set of ecosystem service indicators for European grasslands based on botanical surveys

Taugourdeau,

Louault,

Michelot‐Antalik

et al. 2024

Grassland Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGrasslands provide a wide range of ecosystem services (ESs). However, there is currently no method for easily diagnosing the level of ESs produced. Our aim was to develop ES indicators based on botanical surveys, which are readily available data and integrative of grassland spatiotemporal variability.MethodsBased on academic knowledge and expertise, we identified several simple vegetation criteria that we aggregated using a multicriteria analysis tool to construct indicators of the level of ESs provided by grasslands. In this study, the indicators were calculated from over 2000 botanical surveys spread over a wide biogeographical gradient.ResultsAnalyses of correlation between the various indicators show that “forage supply” and “diversity conservation” were not correlated. “Forage availability” and “nitrogen availability for the vegetation” were positively linked together and negatively linked to the robustness of the plant community to extreme events. A temporal approach highlights that the “biodiversity conservation” score decreased from 1970 to 2010 and that “nitrogen availability for the vegetation” was lower in 1970 and 1980 than in 2000 and 2010.ConclusionsThese results show that our aggregation method based on a large data set of botanical surveys could be appropriate for studying temporal dynamics of ESs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A set of ecosystem service indicators for European grasslands based on botanical surveys

Taugourdeau,

Louault,

Michelot‐Antalik

et al. 2024

Grassland Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The more innovative the solution, the less likely it is that standardized methods will be suitable for assessment, particularly in the upstream phases of projects. That means that at least a standard method has to be adapted or, in some cases, that a specific one has to be developed (Lairez et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability assessment in innovation design processes: place, role, and conditions of use in agrifood systems. A review

Perrin

Bertoluci

Angevin

et al. 2023

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facing the ecological and social crisis that the agrifood systems cross, a profound transformation of food systems is required, necessitating systemic and sustainable innovations. Sustainability assessments are generally performed to identify and/or validate the improvement in sustainability conferred by a designed artifact relative to the current or standard situation. However, they can have many other benefits in the design process. Here, we review the place, role, and conditions of use of sustainability assessment in innovation design processes in agrifood systems. By cross-referencing published findings and our own experience, we formalize a design process highlighting the place of sustainability assessment, whether design is intended for the creation of an agricultural or food artifact. We identify three types of assessment: initial diagnosis, screening between solutions at the ideation stage, and evaluation at the prototyping and development stages. We discuss ways of performing each of these assessments and highlight general key points about sustainability assessment. A first set of key points relate to criteria and indicators, a second set to the role of stakeholders, a third one to the adaptive nature of the assessment, and the last one to the uncertainty consideration. These key points provide guidance for efficient assessment in the design of innovations to increase the sustainability of agrifood systems. Thus, we demonstrate that the design process of innovations for sustainable agrifood systems requires (1) to formalize the place and mode of assessment, (2) to make use of relevant sustainability criteria and indicators, (3) to reinforce participatory practices, and (4) to adapt the assessment to the context of the designed artifact, to facilitate choices between imperfect solutions. Such an approach aims to promote innovations that meet the expectations of the system’s direct stakeholders, but also integrate the needs of invisible actors such as the environment or the well-being of populations.

show abstract

“…The DPSIR model represents causal interactions between a system and its environment: a driving force (D) creates pressure (P) on a system in a given state (S), which creates impacts (I). In response to these impacts, the system responds (R) with adaptations [47,48].…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability of Maize Farming Systems to Climate Change: Farmers’ Opinions Differ about the Relevance of Adaptation Strategies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change has negative impacts on maize cultivation in southwestern France, such as soil erosion and water stress. The vulnerability of maize farming systems to climate change must be assessed before considering potential adaptation strategies. This study focused on eliciting and understanding criteria that maize growers use to assess the vulnerability of their farming systems to climate change. To this end, we surveyed maize growers in two consecutive stages: a qualitative stage, to elicit vulnerability criteria, and a quantitative stage, to test the genericity of criteria related to the adaptation strategies. The qualitative stage identified 144 criteria that farmers used to assess vulnerability to climate change, while the quantitative stage showed that farmers’ opinions about the adaptation strategies differed. Many factors explained these differences, including structural (e.g., soil type) and psychological factors (e.g., interest in agroecology). Our typology of farmers revealed that their interest in agroecology and technology, as well as their perceptions of the risks of climate change and their attachment to their production systems, influence the type of adaptations they identify as relevant (i.e., intensification strategies, slight adjustments or agroecological innovations). Farmers’ perceptions should be considered when providing individual advice and assessing vulnerability, by including criteria related to their psychological characteristics.

show abstract

Agriculture et développement durable

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

A set of ecosystem service indicators for European grasslands based on botanical surveys

A set of ecosystem service indicators for European grasslands based on botanical surveys

Sustainability assessment in innovation design processes: place, role, and conditions of use in agrifood systems. A review

Vulnerability of Maize Farming Systems to Climate Change: Farmers’ Opinions Differ about the Relevance of Adaptation Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About