CorText Manager around the world

@article{Nyoni2024,

title = {Targeting smallholder farmers for climate information services adoption in Africa: A systematic literature review},

author = {Rejoice S. Nyoni and Guillaume Bruelle and Regis Chikowo and Nadine Andrieu},

url = {https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rejoice-Nyoni/publication/378042161_Targeting_smallholder_farmers_for_climate_information_services_adoption_in_Africa_A_systematic_literature_review/links/65c4aad71e1ec12eff7bfac7/Targeting-smallholder-farmers-for-climate-information-services-adoption-in-Africa-A-systematic-literature-review.pdf},

doi = {/10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100450},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-02-07},

journal = {Climate Services},

abstract = {Seventy percent of smallholder farmers in Africa depend on rainfed farming systems, making them vulnerable to climate variability and extremes. Climate information services (CIS) adoption by smallholder farmers in Africa presents a promising solution for adaptation to climate variability. This paper unravels the complexities around climate services for smallholder farmers and explores opportunities to tailor CIS for the resources of smallholder farmers. We use a systematic literature review approach to assess how the human, social, physical/technical, natural and financial capitals may affect awareness, access and use of CIS by smallholder farmers. The study is based on 33 papers from Africa. Majority of the studies gave emphasis on education, information communication and technology literacy levels and advisory services as influencing CIS access, use and uptake. The results highlight that better resourced smallholder farmers have higher access and are more likely to adopt CIS. The human capital emerged as an important component of CIS adoption as it directly determines how the farmer makes decisions on the farm. The natural capital determines the specific preference for CIS when the financial and economic capitals enable farmers acting according to the information received. The social capital provides a basis for farmers to benefit from compounded resources. Thus, the livelihood resource capitals of the target farmers must be considered in CIS information production and dissemination to improve the chances of CIS adoption by vulnerable groups that is illiterate, women, elderly, farmers in agroecological zones prone to climate extremes and poorly resourced farmers.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Malanski2020b,

title = {Mapping the research domains on work in agriculture. A bibliometric review from Scopus database},

author = {Priscila Duarte Malanski and Benoît Dedieu and Sandra Mara de Alencar Schiavi},

url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016720311864},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.050},

issn = {0743-0167},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-10-27},

urldate = {2020-10-27},

journal = {Journal of Rural Studies},

abstract = {Near to half of world population lives in rural areas, and agriculture is responsible for 28% of global employment. Structural changes in agriculture impacting labor and the low attractivity of employment and working conditions in this sector are the major issues for the permanence and renewal of the rural workforce. Promoting decent work is essential to reach sustainable development. According to the ILO definition, decent work involves a wide range of conditions linked between them that include and go beyond farming work (e.g. gender equity, workplace security, fair income, among others). This complex situation requires for scientists the analysis of the diverse topics, as well as the development of interdisciplinary approaches to deal with this diversity. A review of the scientific literature is necessary to summarize the knowledge that has been produced and identify the current trends related to work in agriculture. In order to provide a background in this topic, the aim of this study was to review the state of the international literature related to work in agriculture, through a bibliometric analysis of scientific articles indexed in Scopus bibliographical database. Our findings show that USA, UK, France and China are the leaders in the scientific landscape according to: geographical production of knowledge, main journals and authors, and most-cited articles. The analysis of work in agriculture is declined in five main research domains: 1) social issues in rural areas; 2) labor market; 3) household strategies of labor allocation, 4) work organization in livestock farms; and 5) occupational health in farms. These research domains are investigated by four main scientific communities that prevail in the international literature: 1) agricultural economics; 2) ergonomics; 3) social issues for rural development; and 5) livestock farming systems. Besides those mainstream research, three major research trends emerged: 1) migration and precarious employment condition; 2) work issues in advisory services; and 3) labor governance in global value chains. These trends reflect ongoing transformations in agriculture that are important to think about the future of the work in this sector and its impacts on sustainable development. We show for the first time the characteristics of the main scientific communities that have performed the most relevant research indexed in Scopus database related to work in agriculture over the past 10 years. This review offers an overview in an interdisciplinary topic, and provides a benchmark for future cutting-edge research. The ILO definition of decent work can be a guideline for focus and deepen specific topics, since our findings indicate that several of them are linked to work-related issues in agriculture, which could support sustainable development on this sector.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Malanski2019b,

title = {Characteristics of “work in agriculture” scientific communities. A bibliometric review},

author = {Priscila Duarte Malanski and Sandra Mara de Alencar Schiavi and Benoît Dedieu },

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-019-0582-2},

doi = {10.1007/s13593-019-0582-2},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-06-19},

urldate = {2019-06-19},

journal = {Agronomy for Sustainable Development},

volume = {39},

number = {36},

abstract = {Work is a central concern for sustainable farming systems and rural communities, especially regarding specific issues of the agricultural sector, as the strong decrease in rural employment and the less attractive working conditions. Many articles covering diverse related topics have been published. However, the few studies analyzing the state of worldwide scientific research on work in agriculture give only a fragmented view, since they focus on specialized topics and disciplines. To fill this knowledge gap, the aim of this study was to review the state of research on work in agriculture addressed by the scientific literature, through a bibliometric analysis by country, institution, journal, author, and keywords. Our main finds are that (1) work in agriculture issues is divided into six main research domains: occupational health and safety, labor market and rural employment, labor and farm sustainability, work organization, agricultural policy and agrarian changes, and labor and family farms; (2) these research domains are analyzed by five scientific communities: ergonomics, agricultural economics, livestock farming systems, rural sociology, and agricultural policy; (3) the reference authors, most-cited articles, and main journals were identified for each scientific community; (4) USA, France, and China arise as leaders in the scientific landscape. We show for the first time the characteristics of the main scientific communities worldwide that have performed the most relevant research related to work in agriculture over the past 10 years. This review provides a benchmark for future research on agricultural work-related topics and encourages collaborations between researchers from different scientific communities for interdisciplinary innovation, which support sustainable working conditions in agriculture.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ruiz2015indicators,

title = {Indicators of agricultural intensity and intensification: a review of the literature},

author = {Irune Ruiz-Martinez and Elisa Marraccini and Marta Debolini and Enrico Bonari},

url = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01277628},

doi = {10.4081/ija.2015.656},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

urldate = {2015-01-01},

journal = {Italian Journal of Agronomy},

volume = {10},

number = {2},

pages = {74--84},

abstract = {Since the 1960s, research has dealt with agricultural intensification (AI) as a solution to ensure global food security. Recently, sustainable intensification (SI) has increasingly been used to describe those agricultural and farming systems that ensure adequate ecosystem service provision. Studies differ in terms of the application scales and methodologies, thus we aim to summarize the main findings from the literature on how AI and SI are assessed, from the farm to global levels. Our literature review is based on 7865 papers selected from the Web of Science database and analysed using CorText software. A further selection of 105 relevant papers was used for an in-depth full-text analysis on: i) farming systems studied; ii) related ecosystem services; iii) indicators of intensity; and iv) temporal and spatial scales of analysis. Through this two-step analysis we were able to highlight three main research gaps in the AI research indicators. Firstly, the farming systems analysed for assessing AI are often quite simplified or monoculture-oriented, and they do not take the diversity and complex organisation of farming systems into account. Secondly, these studies mainly focus on northern countries or developing countries, whereas there is a gap of knowledge in Mediterranean areas, which are the areas with a high complexity of farming systems and diversity in ecosystem services. Finally, AI is mostly assessed through nitrogen inputs and economic yield, which are used the most both at very local and global levels. Intermediate regional or local levels, which are relevant for policy implementation and local planning, are often neglected. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}