Publications

@article{DiMasso2015,

title = {Constructing food sovereignty in Catalonia: different narratives for transformative action},

author = {Marina Di Masso and Christos Zografos},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-014-9528-0 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-014-9528-0},

doi = {10.1007/s10460-014-9528-0},

issn = {0889-048X},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-06-01},

journal = {Agriculture and Human Values},

volume = {32},

number = {2},

pages = {183--198},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {Food sovereignty can be conceptualized as a political proposal for social change in the field of agri-food relations. However, specific strategies of how to achieve this transformative potential are diverse, and context-dependent. The paper explores this diversity by examining discourses on the food sovereignty construction process in Catalonia. Using Q methodology we have explored visions held by individuals participating in the social movement for food sovereignty, identifying five discourses: activism, anti-purism, self-management, pedagogy, and pragmatism. Key strategies of transformation include social mobilization, institutional negotiation, self-management, education to foster value change, and politics of the possible. The relevance assigned to ideological affinity explains different views on the subject of transformation, particularly regarding the involvement of the administration and the productive sector. As regards transformative strategies, discourses assign differing importance to the role of agency for effecting social transformation, which influences their assessment of individual actions as an effective means for social change. Forms of individualized and classic collective action currently coexist within the Catalan agri-food movement, but such diversity is not acknowledged as an effective alliance towards food sovereignty. Moreover, all discourses agree to a dual definition of food sovereignty, both as a process, that is, as democratization of the decision-making process in the agri-food sector, and as a result, that is, establishing an agri-food model alternative to the neo-liberal one. However, the discourses share an unclear view of democracy as decentralized collective decision-making that does not make explicit how this model should be implemented to achieve social control of the agri-food system.},

keywords = {Agricultural Economics, Ethics, Evolutionary Biology, general, History, Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Velazquez2011,

title = {Rethinking the Concepts of Virtual Water and Water Footprint in Relation to the Production\textendashConsumption Binomial and the Water\textendashEnergy Nexus},

author = {Esther Vel\'{a}zquez and Cristina Madrid and Mar\'{i}a J. Beltr\'{a}n},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11269-010-9724-7 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-010-9724-7},

doi = {10.1007/s11269-010-9724-7},

issn = {0920-4741},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-01-01},

journal = {Water Resources Management},

volume = {25},

number = {2},

pages = {743--761},

publisher = {Springer},

abstract = {In the field of Ecological Economics, the need of using physical indicators to analyse economic processes, at the same time they serve as tools in decision making, has been lately highlighted. Virtual Water (VW) and Water Footprint (WF) are two useful indicators in achieving this objective, the first one from the perspective of production, the second one from that of consumption. This difference between them is interesting inasmuch as it allows to identify the subjects who are responsible for water consumption, whether producers or consumers, and proves both indicators' potential when designing water management policies. In this work, we consider a hypothesis according to which there is a clear difference between the two concepts\textemdashVirtual Water and Water Footprint\textemdashand this difference, although evident in their respective conceptualizations, is not reflected in their estimations and applications. This is true to the point that the two concepts are often used as synonyms, thus wasting the enormous potential associated to their difference. Starting from this hypothesis, our objective is, first of all, to highlight this evident but ignored difference between VW and WF through a deep and thorough literature review of the conceptual definitions and contributions, the methodologies developed and the applications made regarding the two concepts. Second, we intend to make a conceptual and methodological proposition aimed at underlining the differences already mentioned and to identify responsibilities in water consumption. We do it by broadening the context of analysis and by integrating the production\textendashconsumption binomial and water\textendashenergy nexus.},

keywords = {Atmospheric Sciences, Civil Engineering, Environment, general, Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences, Hydrogeology, Hydrology/Water Resources},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}