EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 25 / No 5 (Septembre-Octobre 2016) Cah. Agric., 25 5 (2016) 55002 References
Open Access
Issue
Cah. Agric.
Volume 25, Number 5, Septembre-Octobre 2016
Article Number 55002
Number of page(s) 9
Section Études originales / Original Studies
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2016034
Published online 11 November 2016
  • Agro-PME, GRET. 2011. Rapport d’étude cartographique des acteurs de la filière poivre de Penja au Cameroun. [Google Scholar]
  • Arfini F, Albisu LM, Giacomini C. 2011. Current situation and potential development of geographical indications in Europe. In: Barham E, Sylvander B, eds. Labels of origin for food: local development, global recognition. Wallingford: CABI. [Google Scholar]
  • Barjolle D, Jeanneaux P. 2012. Raising rivals costs strategy and localised agro-food systems in Europe. Int J Food Syst Dyn 3 (1): 11–21. doi: 10.18461/ijfsd.v3i1.312. [Google Scholar]
  • Barjolle D, Sylvander B. 2002. Some factors of success for origin labelled products in agri-food supply chains in Europe: market, internal resources and institutions. Econ Soc 25 (9–10): 45–71. [Google Scholar]
  • Belletti G, Brazzini A, Marescotti A. 2014. Collective rules and the use of protected geographical indications by firms. Int Agric Policy 1: 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  • Belletti G, Marescotti A, Touzard JM. 2015. Geographical indications, public goods and sustainable development: the roles of actors’ strategies and public policies. World Dev. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.004. [Google Scholar]
  • Bérard L, Marchenay P. 1995. Lieux, temps et preuves : la construction sociale des produits de terroir. Terrain Carnets Patrim Ethnol 24: 153–164. doi: 10.4000/terrain.3128. [Google Scholar]
  • Bérard L, Marchenay P. 2004. Les produits de terroir. Entre cultures et règlements. Paris: CNRS Editions. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Biénabe E, Marie-Vivien D. 2015. Institutionalizing geographical indications in southern countries: lessons learned from Basmati and Rooibos, World Dev. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.004. [Google Scholar]
  • Bowen S, Zapata AV. 2008. Les appellations d’origine et les durabilités socio-économique et écologique : le cas de la tequila au Mexique. Cah Agric 17 (6): 552–560. doi: 10.1684/agr.2008.0241. [Google Scholar]
  • Bramley C. 2011. A review of the socio-economic impact of geographical indications: considerations for the developing world. In: WIPO Worldwide Symposium on Geographical Indications, Vol. 22. [Google Scholar]
  • Bramley C, Bienabe E. 2012. Developments and considerations around geographical indications in the developing world. Queen Mary J Intellect Prop 1: 14–37. doi: 10.4337/qmjip.2012.01.02. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bridier B, Chabrol D. 2010. Indications géographiques en Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre : raisonner la diversité. In: Seiny Boukar L, Boumard P, eds. Savanes africaines en développement : innover pour durer. Actes du colloque, Garoua, Cameroun, 20–23 avril 2009. N’Djamena : PRASAC, 17 p. Disponible sur http://hal.cirad.fr/docs/00/47/43/25/PDF/020_bridier.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Cañada JS, Vázquez AM. 2005. Quality certification, institutions and innovation in local agro-food systems: protected designations of origin of olive oil in Spain. J Rural Stud 21 (4): 475–486. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.10.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Casabianca F, Sylvander B, Noël Y, Beranger C, Coulon JB, Roncin F, et al. 2011. Terroir et typicité. Un enjeu de terminologie pour les indications géographiques. In: Delfosse C, ed. La mode du terroir et les produits alimentaires. Paris: Les Indes Savantes. [Google Scholar]
  • Chabrol D, Mariani M, Sautier D. 2015. Establishing geographical indications without state involvement? Learning from case studies in Central and West Africa. World Dev. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.023. [Google Scholar]
  • Dentoni D, Menozzi D, Capelli MG. 2012. Group heterogeneity and cooperation on the geographical indication regulation: the case of the “Prosciutto di Parma” Consortium. Food Policy 37 (3): 207–216. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Filippi M, Triboulet P. 2006. Coordination des acteurs et valorisation de produits liés à l’origine. Les signes d’identification comme signes d’exclusion ? Rev Econ Reg Urbaine 1/2006: 103–129. doi: 10.3917/reru.061.0103. [Google Scholar]
  • Fournier S. 2008. Les indications géographiques : une voie de pérennisation des processus d’action collective au sein des systèmes agroalimentaires localisés ? Cah Agric 17 (6): 547–551. doi: 10.1684/agr.2008.0250. [Google Scholar]
  • Galtier F, Belletti G, Marescotti A. 2013. Factors constraining building effective and fair geographical indications for coffee: insights from a Dominican case study. Dev Policy Rev 31 (5): 597–615. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12027. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Golafshani N. 2003. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep 8 (4): 597–606. [Google Scholar]
  • Longhurst R. 2003. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In: Clifford N, French S, Valentine G, eds. Key methods in geography. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  • Mancini MC. 2013. Geographical indications in Latin America value chains: a “branding from below” strategy or a mechanism excluding the poorest? J Rural Stud 32: 295–306. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.07.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ménard C. 2003. L’approche néo-institutionnelle : des concepts, une méthode, des résultats. Cah Econ Polit 44: 103–118. doi: 10.3917/cep.044.0103. [Google Scholar]
  • Muchnik J, Sanz Cañada J, Torres Salcido G. 2008. Systèmes agroalimentaires localisés : état des recherches et perspectives. Cah Agric 17 (6): 513–519. doi: 10.1684/agr.2008.0251. [Google Scholar]
  • Prévost P, Capitaine M, Gautier-Pelissier F, Michelin Y, Jeanneaux P, Fort F, et al. ( 2014). Le terroir, un concept pour l’action dans le développement des territoires. VertigO – Rev Electron Sci Environ 14 (1). [Google Scholar]
  • Quiñones-Ruiz XF, Penker M, Vogl CR, Samper-Gartner LF. 2015. Can origin labels re-shape relationships along international supply chains? The case of Café de Colombia. Int J Commons 9 (1): 416–439. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Quiñones-Ruiz XF, Penker M, Belletti G, Marescotti A, Scaramuzzi S, Barzini E, et al. 2016. Insights into the black box of collective efforts for the registration of geographical indications. Land Use Policy 57: 103–116. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Raynaud E, Sauvee L, Valceschini E. 2005. Alignment between quality enforcement devices and governance structures in the agro-food vertical chains. J Manag Gov 9 (1): 47–77. doi: 10.1007/s10997-005-1571-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Raynolds LT. 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organic and fair trade movements. Agric Hum Values 17 (3): 297–309. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Suh J, MacPherson A. 2007. The impact of geographical indication on the revitalisation of a regional economy: a case study of ‘Boseong’ green tea. Area 39 (4): 518–527. doi: 10.1111/j. 1475-4762. 2007.00765.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Thévenod-Mottet E, Marie-Vivien D. 2011. Legal debates surrounding geographical indications. In: Barham E, Sylvander F B, eds. Labels of origin for food: local development, global recognition. Wallingford: CABI. [Google Scholar]
  • Tregear A, Arfini F, Belletti G, Marescotti A. 2007. Regional foods and rural development: the role of product qualification. J Rural Stud 23 (1): 12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.09.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • van de Kop P, Sautier D, Gerz A, eds. 2006. Origin-labeled products: lessons for pro-poor market development. Amsterdam: KIT and CIRAD. [Google Scholar]
  • Vandecandelaere E, Arfini F, Belletti G, Marescotti A. 2009. Linking people, places and products. Rome: FAO/SINERGI. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.