CorText Manager around the world

@article{Malanski2022b,

title = {International research on labor in agri-food value chains: A bibliometric review from web of science},

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

url = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03833144/document},

doi = {https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.852178},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-09-01},

journal = {Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems},

volume = {6},

pages = {852178},

abstract = {Value chains are an important driver for the current labor dynamics in the agri-food sector, and agri-food value chain sustainability strongly depends on decent work conditions. An increasing literature body have been investigated the interactions between chain agents and how it impacted labor issues. Our aim was to map the scientific landscape of the scientific knowledge on labor in agri-food value chains. We performed a bibliometric review of 343 articles indexed in the Web of Science based on descriptive and network analysis of articles metadata, which covered authors, journals, citation times, keywords and countries. We showed that labor in agri-food value chains has an international audience, despite that knowledge production was largely built by a restraint leading scientific network. Overall, the scientific knowledge is organized into four main research domains on labor in agri-food value chains: (1) labor governance in global value chains through standards, (2) employment in value chains and impacts on socioeconomic conditions of rural areas, (3) gender issues and value chains, (4) labor and upgrading in global value chains. The controversies in the international literature regarding labor issues in the agri-food value chains, and blind spots of current research are discussed.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Lowans2021,

title = {What is the state of the art in energy and transport poverty metrics? A critical and comprehensive review},

author = {Christopher Lowans and Dylan Furszyfer Del Rio and Benjamin K. Sovacool and David Rooney and Aoife M. Foley},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988321002668},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105360},

issn = {0140-9883},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-09-01},

urldate = {2021-09-01},

journal = {Energy Economics},

volume = {101},

pages = {105360},

abstract = {This review investigates the state of the art in metrics used in energy (or fuel) and transport poverty with a view to assessing how these overlapping concepts may be unified in their measurement. Our review contributes to ongoing debates over decarbonisation, a politically sensitive and crucial aspect of the energy transition, and one that could exacerbate patterns of inequality or vulnerability. Up to 125 million people across the European Union experience the effects of energy poverty in their daily lives. A more comprehensive understanding of the breadth and depth of these conditions is therefore paramount. This review assessed 1,134 articles and critically analysed a deeper sample of 93. In terms of the use of metrics, we find that multiple indicators are better than any single metric or composite. We find work remains to be conducted in the transport poverty sphere before energy poverty metrics can be fully unified with those of transport poverty, namely the stipulation of travel standards. Without such standards, our ability to unify the metrics of both fields and potentially alleviate both conditions simultaneously is limited. The difficulties in defining necessary travel necessitate the further use of vulnerability lenses and holistic assessments focused on energy and transport services.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Loconto2018,

title = {The land sparing – land sharing controversy: Tracing the politics of knowledge},

author = {Allison Loconto and Marion Desquilbet and Théo Moreau and Denis Couvet and Bruno Dorin},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.014},

doi = {10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.014},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

journal = {Land Use Policy},

volume = {96},

abstract = {Feeding 9 billion people by 2050 on one hand, and preserving biodiversity on the other hand, are two shared policy goals at the global level. Yet while these goals are clear, they are to some extent in conflict, because agriculture is a major cause of biodiversity loss, and the path to achieve both of them is at the heart of a public controversy around ‘productive’ land use and biodiversity conservation. Over the years, the scientific, policy, civil society and agri-business communities have been engaged in producing evidence that can support a land sparing policy (separating intensive agricultural production from biodiversity conservation) or a land sharing policy (integrating the two in larger and more extensive landscapes). This paper contributes to this debate by analyzing land sparing and land sharing (LSS) as a socio-technical controversy. Through the analysis of large and small corpora of scientific, policy, corporate social responsibility and sustainability standards documents we explore the ethical underpinnings and social networks that support the opposing sides of this controversy. We explore these linkages in order to explain how the concept of land sparing achieved dominance in the scientific literature and how the concept has been taken up in international policy, business and civil society circles. We examine the convergences and divergences in alliances between actors in this controversy in order to map how specific actors have promoted the concept of land sparing as the best way to used land for biodiversity and food production.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}