58 research outputs found
The olive quick decline syndrome (OQDS) diffusion in Apulia Region: an apparent contradiction according to the agricultural model
The agricultural models and innovations are not neutral, in relation both to the goals and to the territorial impacts, with special reference to the ecological and social dimensions. This awareness has become the key to observe the olive quick decline syndrome (OQDS) that has affected the Apulia, a land of secular olive trees characterizing landscape and economy. By an inductive approach and according to data on the provincial level, we have verified the correlation between the ways of land use and the OQDS diffusion. In fact, in the Lecce and Brindisi provinces affected by the phenomenon we have observed an unexpected distribution of herbicides and the location of experimental fields with chemical products. The hypothesis is that the pathogens have damaged the weaker plants, that is to say those in polluted and poor soils, while the zones with a higher presence of organic agricultural land result less affected by the OQDS. Data on the local scale could be very important to know the correlation in greater detail, and make clearer the OQDS focus origin, as well as to better understand the territorial impact.Les modĂšles agricoles et les innovations ne sont pas neutres quant Ă leurs objectifs et leurs effets territoriaux (notamment dans leurs dimensions Ă©cologique et sociale). Nous utilisons cette clĂ© dâobservation pour analyser le complexe du dessĂšchement rapide des oliviers (CDRO) qui a affectĂ© les Pouilles, terre oĂč les oliviers sĂ©culaires marquent le paysage et lâĂ©conomie. Par une approche inductive et sur la base des donnĂ©es Ă lâĂ©chelle provinciale, nous avons vĂ©rifiĂ© la corrĂ©lation entre les modalitĂ©s dâutilisation de la terre et la diffusion du CDRO. Dans les provinces de Lecce et Brindisi, affectĂ©es par le phĂ©nomĂšne, nous avons observĂ© une distribution massive dâherbicides et la prĂ©sence de champs dâexpĂ©rimentation de produits chimiques. LâhypothĂšse est que les pathogĂšnes ont affectĂ© les plantes les plus faibles, câest-Ă -dire celles qui sont dans des terrains pauvres et polluĂ©s. Par contre, les zones moins affectĂ©es comptent une plus grande prĂ©sence de terrains conduits selon les modalitĂ©s de lâagriculture biologique. Les donnĂ©es Ă lâĂ©chelle locale pourraient aider Ă affiner lâĂ©tude des corrĂ©lations et Ă rendre plus claire lâorigine de lâĂ©picentre du CDRO, ainsi quâĂ mieux comprendre lâimpact territorial
La Strategia europea di bioeconomia: scenari e impatti territoriali, opportunitĂ e rischi (Roma, 25 settembre 2020)
Lâapproccio ecosistemico come strumento di mitigazione del rischio ambientale. Unâapplicazione per la valutazione della gestione del âcaso Xylellaâ
Il rischio ambientale di matrice antropica Ăš il risultato dellâalterazione dellâecosistema e della gestione del territorio diretta
da logiche competitive e di speculazione. La mitigazione del rischio ambientale richiede, dunque, oltre la conoscenza
dellâambiente, delle sue criticitĂ e degli impatti antropici, un approccio che ponga al centro lâecosistema e il territorio.
Pertanto, si propone lâapproccio ecosistemico su base scientifica come strumento di valutazione e mitigazione dei rischi
ambientali e dei costi ecologici e socioeconomici connessi, in fase ante operam, in corso dâopera e post operam. Tale
approccio Ú stato applicato al «caso Xylella» permettendo di verificare come le scelte di gestione se ne siano profondamente
discostate producendo significativi effetti territoriali. Tuttavia, essendo il caso Xylella ancora in corso si ritiene che, alla
luce di tale approccio, sia possibile operare una rivalutazione delle scelte adottate al fine di contenere gli impatti antropici,
mitigare e ridurre i rischi connessi.The Ecosystem Approach as an Environmental Risk Mitigation Instrument. An Application for the Evaluation
of the «Xylella Case» Management.
The environmental risk by human activities is the outcome of the ecosystem alteration and the territory management
driven by competitive and speculative logics. The environmental risk mitigation requires, in addition to the knowledge
of the environment, its level of criticality and the human impact, an approach that places at the centre the ecosystem and
the territory. Therefore, we propose the ecosystem approach based on the scientific methodology as a mitigation and an
evaluation instrument of the environmental risks and linked ecological and socioeconomic costs, in the ante operam, in
progress and post operam phases. This approach applied to the «Xyella case» has allowed to verify as the management
choices, that disagree with this approach, have produced very important territorial effects. However, because the âXylella
caseâ is in progress, we think that is possible reconsider the made choices in order to limit the human impacts, mitigate
and reduce the linked risks.Lâapproche Ă©cosystĂ©mique comme instrument de mitigation du risque environnemental. Une application pour
lâĂ©valuation de la gestion du « cas Xylella »
Le risque environnemental gĂ©nĂ©rĂ© par les activitĂ©s anthropiques est le rĂ©sultat de lâaltĂ©ration de lâĂ©cosystĂšme et de la gestion
du territoire dirigée par les logiques compétitives et de la spéculation. La mitigation du risque environnemental demande, en
plus de la connaissance de lâenvironnement, de ses criticitĂ©s et impacts anthropiques, une approche centrĂ©e sur lâĂ©cosystĂšme
et le territoire. Donc, nous proposons lâapproche Ă©cosystĂ©mique basĂ©e sur la mĂ©thodologie scientifique comme un instrument
dâĂ©valuation et mitigation des risques environnementaux et des couts Ă©cologiques et socioĂ©conomiques liĂ©s, dans les phases
ante operam, en cours de développement et post operam. Cette approche a été appliqué au « cas Xylella » en permettant
de vĂ©rifier comment les choix de gestion sont trĂšs loin de cette approche et ont produit dâimportants impacts territoriaux.
Cependant, puisque le cas Xylella est en cours de développement, nous pensons qui est possible de reconsidérer les choix
adoptés au but de limiter les impacts anthropiques et réduire les risques dérivants
How can the concept of landscape-grabbing provide a reflection on sustainable rural systems?
peer reviewedRural areas face huge transformations due to driving forces that are mainly on the international or global scale. Local populations are required to adapt to maintain their livelihood but are often obliged to migrate or to undertake radical transformations that alter their lifestyles, including their agricultural practices (Barcus et al., 2022). This process questions territorial sovereignty, as well as the freedom of present and future generations to choose how they will manage the local environment and its resources. Transformations often occur as a result of land grabbing, which occurs when companies, governments, or wealthy individuals buy and divert land from small scale land owners for their agenda. One variation of this process is green grabbing (Fairhead et al., 2012), when the appropriation of land and resources is specifically for supposed environmental ends.
In many places around the world, other grabbing mechanisms occur when people are obliged to change their land use practices, thus altering the landscape. This leads to feelings of expropriation and abuse through a variety of financial, legal, cultural, physical, mental and environmental pressures. The series of rapid land use changes which are linked to development strategies, policies based on utilitarian and competitive logic, the privatization of public places and commons, commodification and large-scale production models, but also environmental regulations, affect peopleâs sense of place. The land grabbing concept is not adequate to describe the observed phenomenon, and thus, Ciervo and Cerreti (2020) suggested using the concept âlandscape grabbingâ. Based on the draft concept presented in Geotema, this paper aims to scrutinize both the landscape and political geography literature to assess the interest of this concept within the conceptual map of the geographical research and points out the interest of this approach to better understand rural areas and reflect on their sustainability.Landscape grabbing10. Reduced inequalitie
La Strategia di bioeconomia Ăš sostenibile? Territori, impatti, scenari.
Da alcuni anni, nel mondo della politica e dei media, avanza incalzante lâidea della bioeconomia come nuova frontiera dellâeconomia âverdeâ, la panacea capace di coniugare lavoro e ambiente. Ma Ăš davvero cosĂŹ? Cosa sono le Strategie di bioeconomia europea e italiana? Tali Strategie sono in sintonia con la teoria bioeconomica di Georgescu Roegen fondata sullâidea di unâeconomia compatibile con la vita e le leggi della natura? Tali Strategie rappresentano unâopportunitĂ o un rischio per le economie locali? Che effetti produrranno sul paesaggio e i patrimoni territoriali? Sugli assetti socio-ecologici? Come incideranno sulle dinamiche ad effetto climatico? Quali impatti produrranno sulle matrici vitali, sulla salute e sulle comunitĂ territoriali? Quali gli scenari geopolitici connessi
I movimenti a difesa dellâambiente e i processi di legittimazione/delegittimazione attraverso la lettura dello spazio fisico, virtuale e mediatico. I casi di Friday for Future-Italia e del Movimento NO TAP-Salento
Innovating for sustainable growth. A bioeconomy for Europe. Un punto di vista geografico-economico critico
La cosiddetta âbioeconomiaâ promossa dalla Commissione Europea corrisponde davvero alla rivoluzione economica propagandata? Produce benefici per lâambiente e la societĂ ? Eâ unâopportunitĂ per gli Stati membri e per lâindustria? A quale paradigma e a che tipo di modello produttivo fa riferimento? Presenta potenziali rischi? Per chi? In definitiva, la bioeconomia Ăš realmente la âpanaceaâ cosi come sostenuto da alcune istituzioni e divulgato dai media?Is the so-called "bioeconomy" really an economic revolution, as promoted by the European Commission? Do the environment and society benefit from it? Is it an opportunity for the EU member states and their industries? What production model does it refer to? Does it present any risks? If yes, to whom? In the end, is bioeconomy really a âsilver bulletâ, as claimed by some institutions and media
- âŠ