1

# Unpacking farmers' multiple values in grapevine variety choice

2

Antoine Doncieux¹, Marilou Demongeot¹, Ken MacDonald¹,², Delphine Renard ¹*, Sophie Caillon¹*

3

¹ CEFE, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, EPHE, IRD, 1919, Montpellier, France

4

² Department of Geography and Planning, and School of the Environment, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

5

6

Corresponding author: antoine.doncieux@cefe.cnrs.fr and doncieux.antoine@gmail.com

7

*authors share last authorship

8

9

## Abstract

10

Understanding farmers' values that underpin crop choices is pivotal for designing effective and adequate sustainable agricultural policies. While significant attention has been given to the agronomic, economic and socio-cultural values of smallholder farmers in the Global South, the plural values held by commercial farmers in the Global North—specifically ascribed to perennial crops—remain underexplored. Here, we adopt an emic perspective to investigate farmers' values involved in past and anticipated choices of grapevine varieties in the Gaillac region (southwestern France). We conducted 35 interviews with farmers, and recorded 962 expressions of values for 50 cultivated grapevine varieties. Using a mixed deductive-inductive approach, we classified these values, and identified groups of farmers and varieties based on shared values using a network analysis. Farmers' expressions of values were grouped into five domains: wine-growing (21.9%, e.g., yield), wine-making (21.8%, e.g., organoleptic properties), economics (20.7%, e.g., specific market), sense-based (23.7%, e.g., attachment to place), and external factors (11.9%, e.g., varietal regulations). Results suggest that the diversity and variation of values held by different groups of farmers and groups of varieties are key to supporting the high level of crop diversity observed at both farm and vineyard scales. Specifically, the feelings of attachment and sense of belonging to the Gaillac region are effective triggers in the maintenance of local grapevine varieties. Our research emphasizes the diverse place-based values attributed to crops, and highlights the importance of integrating sense-based values in developing biodiversity-based policies.

29

30

**Keywords:** plural values, agrobiodiversity, climate change, decision-making, Gaillac, vineyard

31

32

33

34

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
35

36

37

38

39

40

## 41 Introduction

42

43 Agricultural work requires daily decisions on a wide range of agronomic (e.g., which crop to grow, when to harvest), technical (e.g., which molecule to use for crop protection), and/or financial aspects.

44 The process of decision-making is context-specific. Farmer's knowledge, values and assets (e.g., labor force, farmer income-level) interact with the wider economic, climate and sociopolitical environments

47 (Agrawal et al. 2021; Zimmerer 2014). The urgent need to produce food sustainably imposes additional constraints on farmers' decisions, requiring them to maintain, or increase, output while reducing their environmental footprint and facing climate change (Finger et al. 2024; Labeyrie et al. 2021a; Wezel et al. 2014). Understanding the management of crop species and varieties (i.e., agrobiodiversity) by farmers is vital to addressing sustainability challenges (Jarvis et al. 2008; Zimmerer and de Haan 2017).

52 Ultimately, crop choice has cascading effects on other agricultural decisions that can either enhance or impede sustainability efforts (e.g., watering and spraying pesticides) and impact farmer's well-being, livelihoods and nutrition (Labeyrie et al. 2021a; Porcuna-Ferrer et al. 2024; Zimmerer et al. 2022). In the case of perennial plant production, such as fruit trees, grapevine and coffee, their lifespan of up to 100 years, forces farmers to balance short-term outcomes with long-term economic and environmental sustainability in their cropping decisions.

58

59 The reason for choosing one crop over another are strongly linked to farmers' values (Barton et al. 2022). Recently, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) provided evidence that tailoring effective and sustainable agriculture policies require values-centered and place-based approaches (Anderson. et al. 2022; Pascual et al. 2023). The IPBES approach framed values ascribed to nature in general along multiples dimensions, covering material and immaterial contributions, different scales of values (i.e., individual and collective), as well as their positive and negative impacts on people's quality of life (Díaz et al. 2018; Lliso et al. 2022). Specifically, the IPBES approach intends to better reflect the nature's contributions to people in specific contexts as a means to an end for humans (i.e., instrumental values), as non-substitutable and meaningful relationships (i.e., relational values), and as living beings with a right to exist (i.e., intrinsic values) (Pascual et al. 2017). Previous studies have shown that these specific values often overlap, and within a single narrative

60 61

63 values ascribed to nature in general along multiple dimensions, covering material and immaterial contributions, different scales of values (i.e., individual and collective), as well as their positive and negative impacts on people's quality of life (Díaz et al. 2018; Lliso et al. 2022). Specifically, the IPBES approach intends to better reflect the nature's contributions to people in specific contexts as a means to an end for humans (i.e., instrumental values), as non-substitutable and meaningful relationships (i.e.,

64 65 66

66 67 68

68 69 Previous studies have shown that these specific values often overlap, and within a single narrative

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
regarding farmers' motivations, there might be an instrumental, relational, and intrinsic thread (Brück et al. 2024; Jones and Tobin 2018; Kreitzman et al. 2022; Tobin 2023).

A recent literature review published within the last IPBES assessment showed that farmer's values involved in crop choices are plural and include interconnected socio-cultural (e.g., spiritual meaning), ecological (e.g., fit the environmental conditions), economic (e.g., market prices), and agronomic (e.g., productivity) values (Demongeot et al. 2022). Academic research on farmer's values towards crops and their diversity have been mostly undertaken in the Global South, for instance in Ethiopia (Amare et al. 2018), Ghana (Hashmiu et al. 2022) or India (Birthal and Hazrana 2019). The focus of research on the Global South can be explained by the high level of crop diversity cultivated in smallholder farming systems, a diversity which underpins the production of over 50% of the world's food calories (Ricciardi et al. 2018). Comparatively, there is generally less research that pays attention to the diversity of values held by farmers in agricultural systems of the Northern Hemisphere (Fujisawa and Kobayashi 2013; Carof et al. 2015). This gap might be explained by the effect of industrial agriculture policies and agriculture commodification, simplifying and homogenizing farmer's values and orienting them towards marketability and productivism (Helfenstein et al. 2024). However, plural values in decision-making are found in numerous postindustrial farming societies, such as wine makers in France (Alarcon et al. 2020) and Australia (Bardsley et al. 2019), livestock farmers in Switzerland (Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp 2022), barley cultivators in Scotland (Mahon et al. 2016), and horticultural farmers in Norway (Byfuglien et al. 2024). Shedding lights on how farmers' values influence crop choices is particularly pertinent to Northern agricultural systems, where biodiversity loss, soil degradation, water pollution, diet-related problems and climate change issues are highly pronounced (Willett et al. 2019).

Viticulture poses serious challenges for sustainable agriculture. Indeed, grapevines (Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera) rank among the most pesticide-intensive crops in the world (Pertot et al. 2017), and climate change is affecting grape yield and composition, with implications for wine quality (Santos et al. 2020). Grapevine varietal diversity, either ancestral, imported or research-improved, appears as the most promising lever for promoting sustainable viticulture, including reduction in pesticide use (Guimier et al. 2019; Zachmann et al. 2024) and the mitigation of climate change impacts (Morales-Castilla et al. 2020; Van Leeuwen et al. 2024). This paper presents the results of research that explored the diversity of values involved in the selection of grapevine varieties for commercial wine production. Despite the economic benefits that farmers derive from cultivating grapevines, we expect that a wide range of values embedded within the French concept of *terroir* are shaping cropping decisions. The concept of *terroir* is a critical aspect of determining wine characteristics and marketability, and, while originally French,

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
104

has recently been adopted by producers around the world (Parker 2015; Trubek 2008). This concept
includes not only the environmental conditions in which grapes are grown, but also all the human,
105
historical, cultural and political factors which influence farmer's practices (Morgan 2001; Morlat 1989;
106
Van Leeuwen and Seguin 2006). According to the terroir logic, strict rules concerning grape varieties
107
(i.e., varietal regulations) along with other viticultural and oenological practices govern most wine-
108
growing regions of European countries (Meloni et al. 2019). Currently, varietal regulations and market
109
forces favor internationally-recognized varieties (e.g., Syrah, Merlot) and limit the flexibility of farmers
110
to choose which varietals to grow (Wolkovich et al. 2018).
111

112

113

We conducted our work in the Gaillac wine-growing region, which is one of the most varietally diverse wine regions in France. Previous work in this region showed that varietal regulations implemented to address changes in wine consumption during the 1970s, along with environmental and sociocultural factors, were the major drivers of varietal changes at the scale of the wine-growing region over the 1960-2020 period (Doncieux et al. 2022). However, how these intersecting and sometimes contradictory drivers translate into individual farmer's decisions remains poorly understood. Using semi-structured interviews, we unpack the diverse values expressed by farmers towards varietal choices.

In this paper, we understand values simply as what is important for people and why (Kenter et al., 2019).

We used an emic perspective to determine the values ascribed to varietal choices from the local farmer's point of view. This approach roots into previous studies carried out on well-being indicators and advocating for a holistic understanding of local phenomena (Caillon et al. 2017; Isaac et al. 2024; Sterling et al. 2017). Specifically, we answer the three following questions: What farmers' values are ascribed to grapevine varietal choice? Are values ascribed to grape choices uniform across varieties and farmers? What are the most significant values influencing farmers' selection of grapevine varieties as they plan for the near future?

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

## 2. Material and methods

131

### 2.1 Study site

132

We conducted research in Gaillac, a wine producing region (43.7°N and 44.1°N) located in the Tarn department of Southwestern France (Fig. 1). Archaeological excavations indicate that wine producing activity in Gaillac dates back to the first quarter of the 1st century AD (Balmelle et al. 2001). Wine growing occurs from 110 m to 320 m above sea level, on limestone plateaus, clay-limestone, silty-sandy and gravelly soils (Delaunois et al. 1996; Delaunois and Revel 2016). The climate is mainly dominated by oceanic influence but is subject to Mediterranean and continental ascendancies. Total yearly rainfall

133

134

135

136

137

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
138

is 734 mm ± 125, and the mean annual temperature is 13.4 °C ± 0.59 (Meteo France weather station of Albi, average 1990–2020). There is a strong zonal temperature gradient between the plain and hillsides that leads to ± 10-day difference in annual harvest dates (Delaunois et al. 1996). Interactions between the environmental heterogeneity (climate, topography, pedology) and human factors, including cultural dimensions of wine-growing and wine-making practices (van Leeuwen and Seguin 2006) result in four main terroirs across the area (“rive gauche”, “la plaine”, “rive droite”, and “plateau cordais »; Riol 1913).

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

According to Doncieux et al. (2022), a large diversity of wines (i.e., sparkling, dry, sweet, orange, reds and rosés) is produced from 62 grapevine varieties (cépage in French) and through geographical indications (GIs). Grapevine diversity is characterized by the coexistence of popular varieties on the global wine market (e.g., Syrah, Merlot) introduced in the 1970s with historical and local varieties (e.g., Duras, Prunelard, Len de l'El) only grown in the Gaillac region. GIs include Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGI), as well as their French equivalents from which these labels are derived (Meloni and Swinnen 2013): Appellation d'Origine Protégée (AOP) and Indications Géographiques Protégées (IGPs); other wines are labeled “VSIG” for Vins sans Indication Géographique, meaning wines such as Vin de France that lack specific regional geographical indications. In this article, we chose to use the French naming system. AOP and IGP designations entail significant technological regulations for farmers, with AOP being the more restrictive. For instance, these labels include restrictions on the varieties that may be grown (i.e., varietal regulations), maximum yields per hectare and other rules regarding grape-production and wine-making practices. In the Gaillac region, varietal regulations within the AOP and IGP rules include both popular and local varieties and allow for 14 and 38 different grape varieties, respectively. Wine production in Gaillac is estimated at 400,000 hl per year with ~ 35 % of volumes produced in AOP, 45 % in IGP and 20 % in VSIG (average 1996–2016; IVSO 2017). In comparison, national wine production in France over the 2005-2023 period averaged 44.8 million hl annually, with ~ 63% in AOP, 28% in IGP, and 9% in VSIG (FranceAgrimer 2024).

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

In the Gaillac area, wine-growing occupies 6,540 ha of land in which agricultural practices (e.g., harvest, soil management) are mainly mechanized (Doncieux et al. 2022). The number of farms has been estimated to be 352 (Doncieux et al. 2022), and half of wine production by volume is produced by cooperatives rather than independent wine makers (vignerons indépendants) (IVSO 2017). In 2020, most of the vines in Gaillac were under conventional production (i.e., involving the use of synthetic chemicals; Chambre d'Agriculture 2020). However, organic farming is booming in the region. Indeed,

167

168

169

170

171

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180

many farms are converting to it and the area certified for organic farming is increasing, expanding from 30 hectares in 1995 to 1,404 hectares in 2019 (Chambre d'Agriculture 2020; Pouzenc and Vincq 2013). At the same time, there are also ten biodynamic producers, a type of agricultural production that prohibits the use of chemical inputs and which considers, in particular, the influence of different cosmic cycles (lunar, solar and planetary) in wine-growing practices (Foyer 2018). In addition, since the 1990s, the Gaillac vineyard has been home to about 20 'neo-farmers'; producers who have taken over a wine-growing estate without having inherited it from their parents (Dolci and Perrin 2018; Alarcon et al. 2020).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189

<caption>**Fig. 1** The location of the Gaillac wine-growing region (in green) among the other European wine PDO areas (in grey). Data from Candiago et al. (2022)</caption>

## 2.2 Data collection

We used an ethnographic approach to document values related to farmers’ choice of grape varieties over time. Fieldwork was carried out over nine months across 2020-2022 (COVID-19 led to this period being fragmented into shorter visits spread out over three years) and included participant observation and interviews with farmers and related professionals across the region. We used participant observation

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
based on relations of trust to improve our understanding of wine growing in the area. In addition to
interviews, we also benefitted from less formal interactions in the social settings of day-to-day life. In
this approach we not only observed people's practices and actions, but also got actively involved by,
for example, helping farmers during harvest and pruning seasons. Spending time with farmers (outdoors
and carpooling) was particularly valuable when discussing topics like sense of place, as it allowed us
to gain insights into farmers' feelings and emotions (Drew et al. 2022; Sebastien 2020).

We used convenience sampling to capture a diversity of values for grape choices from a range of farmers
who varied in their management methods (conventional, organic and biodynamic), geographical
location across the four regional *terroirs*, seniority (numbers of years on the farm) and social
background (coming from a wine-growing family or not). First, we collected these information and the
list of cultivated varieties from the professional websites of 103 farmers. Then, we identified 96 farmers,
30 of whom were available at the time to participate to semi-structured interviews. We conducted five
additional interviews using snowball sampling because of the uniqueness of the varieties cultivated by
these farmers (i.e., they cultivated very rare varieties). Our final sample included 30 wine makers (i.e.,
producers of both grapes and wines) and five grape farmers (i.e., producers only of grapes sold to the
cooperative); 17 conventional and 18 organic (either certified with the European label or committed to
the 'Nature et Progrès' private label meeting the European organic requirements; Niederle et al. 2020);
17 farmers from the *rive droite* and *plaine terroirs*, eight from the *rive gauche*, and ten from the *plateau
cordais*. On average, farmers had been in charge of their farms for 23.5 ± 14 y/o. Lastly, 23 farmers
acquired their farms by inheritance and 12 are first generation farmers.

The interviews ran from one to four hours and were audio recorded with the approval of respondents
for transcription purposes. The interview guide had three sections. In the first section, we collected
sociodemographic data (e.g., age, professional background, years growing grapes) and documented
farm history. In the second section, we asked farmers to list the grape varieties they were growing in
the year 2021. For each variety listed, we then asked farmers "*why do you cultivate this grapevine
variety?*". In the discussion leading up to these questions, we were careful to not influence interviewees
responses by offering potential values (e.g., phenology, varietal regulations). During a prospective
exercise, in the third section, we aimed to list and rank the three main values influencing grapevine
choices in the future. We restricted the number of values to three, prompting farmers to focus on their
top priorities and avoid being distracted by secondary values. To this end, the informant was asked the
following question: "*If you were to select a new variety [without specifying a particular variety]*, *could*

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
223

you list the three main values on which you would base your choice and rank them in order of
importance".

224

225

226

Interviews were typically conducted on the domains of farmers. The location of the interviews varied. Depending on the season, they were conducted during ébourgeonnage (disbudding) as we walked the vineyard. At other times we were in the wine shed during vinification, or in the sales room. On occasion farmers invited us into their kitchen and interviews were conducted around the kitchen table.

227

228

229

230

231

**2.4. Data analysis**

232

Statistics were computed with the R™ software version 3.6.2 (R Core Team 2021).

233

234

2.4.1 Correspondence between variety folk and official names

235

When asked to list the varieties they cultivate, farmers in the Gaillac region referred to a folk
classification, providing different names for the same varieties. For example, the Fer variety is also
known as Braucol in Gaillac, and some farmers distinguish intra-varietal variations of Mauzac blanc
based on phenotypic differences, such as berry color and bunch compactness. We standardized the
names of each variety using the *Vitis International Variety Catalogue* (VIVC; Röckel et al. 2024). In
cases where the varieties listed by farmers were not registered in the VIVC database, such as Mauzac
dur, we consulted a local expert ampelographer to establish synonymy among the grapevine varieties
reported by farmers. Overall, we converted the names of nine varieties listed by farmers into three
official names: Fer, Syrah, and Mauzac blanc.

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

2.4.2 Representativeness of farmers and varieties in our sample

246

To evaluate whether our sample of farmers and varieties were representative of the whole Gaillac
region, we compared the list of grape varieties recorded throughout interviews with the *Casier Viticole
Informatisé* (CVI, DGDDI 2020), a national dataset that contains the area (in ha) devoted to each
recorded grape variety grown in each French wine-growing region at the farm scale. This dataset
provides the most complete picture of the cropping system at the wine-growing regional scale. For
Gaillac, in 2020, the CVI provides information on 352 farmers and 62 grape varieties. We calculated
the total area occupied by each variety (listed in the CVI and by respondents) at the scale of Gaillac by
summing farm acreage from the CVI database. Then, we calculated the proportion of farmers holdings
for each one of these varieties.

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
256 2.4.3 Classifying values

257 We used a mixed deductive-inductive approach to construct a general classification tree encompassing
258 all the values listed for all the varieties grown by the 35 farmers interviewed. To build this tree, we
259 aggregated the values expressed by farmers for all of their varieties into broad domains, encapsulating
260 more detailed sub-domains. Domains and sub-domains were derived followed an iterative process of
261 codes that emerged from or were inspired by respondents' own words (e.g., respect of the elders,
262 specific market) and theoretically-derived codes (e.g., attachment to place) based on research literature
263 on agrobiodiversity values and agrarian values. During the iterative process, the domains, sub-domains,
264 and the pattern of branching of the tree were discussed with professionals in the wine-growing sector,
265 including two farmers, two oenologists and one amphelographer.

266

267 To quantify the relative importance of each branch of the tree (by percentage), we calculated the
268 proportion of expressions of values at all levels. To do this, we summed the number of values belonging
269 to each domain and sub-domain, respectively, and divided by the total number of expressions cited in
270 the corresponding superior domains. We also identified the most cited sub-domains across domains by
271 dividing the number of expressions in each sub-domain by the total number of expressions.

272

273 2.4.4 Clustering varieties and farmers based on values

274 Tools derived from network sciences have been widely used in numerous research areas to describe
275 relationships within and between people and nature in socio-ecological systems (Bodin et al. 2020;
276 Felipe-Lucia et al. 2022; Labeyrie et al. 2021b; Rocha et al. 2015). We investigated the bipartite network
277 (Fig. 2a) describing “who grows what and why?”. This network represents farmers and varieties as
278 nodes linked by edges representing values. From this bipartite network, we built a tripartite network
279 illustrated as a matrix in which the values are also nodes (Fig. 2b) to simultaneously analyze the co-
280 occurrence of values across varieties and farmers.

281

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Schematics representing the principle of the network analysis linking farmers, grape varieties and values. a) Bipartite socio-ecological network between farmers (nodes on the left) and the grape varieties they grow (nodes on the right). The arrows or edges link a farmer with a particular variety through an associated value (symbolized by a pictogram). b) Tripartite network is represented by two tables (farmers and varieties) sharing the same rows, i.e. values. The white cells represent the absence of a link, while the other cells show the number of interactions between varieties, farmers, and values. For example, the value of attachment to place holds two interactions with variety C, as farmers 2 and 3 both expressed it.</figcaption></figure>

We then identified groups of farmers and varieties sharing the same set of values by applying a latent block model (LBM) to the tripartite network, weighted by the number of interactions (Barbillon et al. 2017; See Fig. S1 for a graphical display). LBM is a non-supervised, probabilistic clustering approach suited for network analysis (Bar-Hen et al. 2020). The number of blocks is chosen following the principle of parsimony with the Integrated Completed Likelihood criterion (ICL). The ICL selects the model that best fits the data but penalizes for overfitting and fuzzy clustering. Analyses were conducted using the R package *sbm* (Chiquet et al. 2022). For each block of varieties and farmers, we analyzed the diversity of the set of values listed at the domain level using the Simpson concentration index $D = 1/(\sum_{i=1}^{s} p_i^2)$ from the R package *vegan* (Oksanen et al. 2019), where $p_i$ is the proportional abundance of the domain i. The higher the value of D the greater the diversity. Lastly, we used farmers’

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
characteristics gathered through our interviews (e.g., age, farm size, varietal richness) to interpret blocks generated by the LBMs.

304

2.4.5 Farmer's values for grape choices in the near future

306

To rank the three values that farmers currently pay attention to for choosing any grape variety in the future, we first coded the values expressed by farmers according to the coding method outlined in Section 2.4.3. We created new categories when values for future selection had not been expressed in previous exchanges. Then, we computed a salience index (S) adapted from Robbins et al. (2017) cognitive salience index using FLARES software, which is a RStudio's shiny extension (Wencelius et al. 2017). This index combines the position and the frequency of values as listed by each farmer. Value with low salience indicates that it was little cited and not a priority for the choice of grape varieties, and vice versa. The index is calculated as follows:

315

316

$$S_a = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{Z} S_{ai} + F_a - 1}{2Z - 1}$$

317

where $S_a$ is the salience of items a (here values), Z the number of respondents, $F_a$ is the number of times each value is cited, and $S_{ai}$ is proportion of items preceding item a in list i given by the following formula: $S_{ai} = \frac{k_i - r_{ai}}{k_i - 1}$, where $k_i$ is the length of list i and $r_{ai}$ is the rank of item a in list i.

321

We used a non-parametric Multivariate Analysis of Variance (perMANOVA) to test whether groups of farmers identified by the LBMs also share the same three top decision criteria for future selection. The perMANOVA was implemented under the FLARES software using the adonis function in the R package vegan (Oksanen et al. 2019).

326

### 3. Results

In the first section, we present a descriptive analysis of the data collected during our interviews regarding varietal diversity and farmers' characteristics. Then, we examine the current values of farmers for growing the varieties they chose. In the third section, we use the data from the two previous sections to identify groups of varieties and farmers based on their associated values. We used both qualitative and quantitative information to describe each group. Lastly, we investigate the prevalent values likely to influence future grape selection.

333

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
334

335

3.1 A diverse “landscape” of grape varieties and farmers

336

Our inventory effort allowed us to capture the diversity of cultivated varieties in our study region (Fig.

337

3). From the interviews, we recorded a total of 50 grape varieties, among which 100% were permitted by the AOP and 78.9% by the IGP regulations. Our list of varieties and the CVIs' shared 37 varieties that account for 99.6% of the total wine-growing surface in Gaillac. The 25 varieties listed in the CVI but not inventoried through our interviews were cultivated by 11.1% (n = 39) of the total number of farmers and accounted for only 0.4% of the wine-growing area (23 ha) throughout Gaillac.

338

339

340

341

342

343

Our analysis of the CVI database showed that by 2020, the most dominant grape varieties were Fer (975.4 ha, i.e., 14.9% of the total surface area) and Duras (11.5% of the total area under vine) which were both grown by 81% of farmers, followed by Syrah (11.4% of the total area under vine) and Len de l'El (9.4% of the total area under vine) varieties which were cultivated by 73.3% and 71.6% of farmers in Gaillac, respectively (Fig. 3). We captured all of these dominant varieties in our interviews as well as rare varieties registered in the CVI, such as Oundenc (0.3% of the total area under vine, 6.8% of farmers) or Semillon (0.1% of the total area under vines, 2% of farmers). We also found that 13 varieties reported in interviews (e.g., Picquepoul gris, Roussanne) were not registered in the CVI database. As reported by respondents, these varieties are extremely rare, cultivated by only a few individuals (from one to four farmers) in small plots or only in a couple of rows.

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 3** Barplot showing the percentage of farmers (n=352) holding each of the 62 grape varieties listed in the CVI database. The superimposed lollipop bars represent the overall planted area (in ha) of each variety. Green lollipops highlight the grape varieties listed in both the CVI and the interviews, and orange lollipops represent varieties only listed in the CVI. Data: DGDDI (2020).

Of the 35 interviewed farmers, 88.6% were men (11.4% were women), 85.7% were wine makers (14.3% were grape growers), 51.4% follow organic practices (48.6% were under conventional production) and 34.3% were neo-farmers (65.7% inherited the farm from their parents). On average, farmers were 50.3 ± 12.3 [SD] years old, and spent 23.5 ± 14.1 years as head of their farm. Lastly, the mean number of cultivated grape varieties across farmers was 10.4 ± 4.1 and the median farm area was 21 ha (25th percentile: 8.4 ha, 75th percentile: 37.7 ha). At the Gaillac scale, our analysis of the CVI revealed that farmers cultivate on average 7.9 ± 4.1 varieties (ranging from one to 21 varieties) on a median farm area of 12.9 ha (ranging from 0.02 to 215.8 ha). In the region, small-scale farms coexist with large estate owners: 24.4% of farmers cultivate 5 ha or less and 6.2% of farmers hold more than 50 ha. We also found that 17.9% of farmers cultivated three or fewer varieties and only 2.8% of farmers grew more than 15 varieties.

## 3.2 Current values for cultivated grape varieties

From all farmers interviewed (n=35) and cultivated varieties (n=50) reported by interviewees, we recorded a total of 962 expressions of values for the choice of currently cultivated grape varieties. We

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence
classified all these values into a tree-structured into five domains with even frequencies of citation (Fig. 4): (1) The wine-growing domain includes various aspects of the wine-growing activities, such as field location, agronomic characteristics of the variety, and experimentation with grape varieties (21.9%). (2) The wine-making domain includes values related to the organoleptic properties of grape varieties (e.g., potential alcohol and aromas) and wine-making processes (e.g., the variety is well-suited for ageing in barrels) (21.8%). (3) The economic domain, related to the wine-selling constraints, includes direct and indirect cash incomes and on-farm production costs (20.7%). (4) The sense-based (i.e., affective) domain includes the meaning a given grape variety has for a farmer and the attachment of a farmer to that variety (23.7%). This meaning can be individual or collective and can be related to interactions between people, places, nature, grapevine and wine. (5) The domain of external factors, the least cited among farmers (11.9%), expresses the influence of a wide range of actors who implement and enforce rules or provide professional advice. Values in this domain are mostly related to varietal label regulations. The five domains were divided into one to three sub-domains resulting in a total of 78 sub-domains. We provide verbatims that are illustrative examples of values as expressed by farmers in Table 1.

<table><caption>**Table 1** Example of values as expressed by farmer for the wine-growing domain. The table reads from left to right, from the most general domain to the particular sub-domain (the more precise domains of value). For each terminal sub-domain, one example of verbatim is provided. The full table is available on Supplementary material Table S1.</caption><thead><tr><th>Domain</th><th>Sub-domains 1</th><th>Sub-domains 2</th><th>Sub-domains 3</th><th>Examples of verbatim</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Wine-growing</td><td rowspan="3">Field location</td><td>Climate</td><td></td><td>"We have a bit of the same climate as its birthplace" - Farmer 8</td></tr><tr><td>Soil types</td><td></td><td>"This variety is well-adapted to limestone soil" - Farmer 9</td></tr><tr><td>Topography</td><td></td><td>"I was looking for a variety that goes well on northern exposures" - Farmer 15</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Grape characteristics</td><td>Berry colors</td><td></td><td>"Because is a white variety" - Farmer 16</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution | 4.0 International licence
<table><tr><td rowspan="2">Yield</td><td>Productivity</td><td>"It's a high-yielding variety" - Farmer 12</td></tr><tr><td>Year-to-year stability</td><td>"The yield is regular from one year to the next" - Farmer 30</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Phenology</td><td>Ripening period</td><td>"Because it's a late-season variety" - Farmer 32</td></tr><tr><td>Budbreak period</td><td>"Because it is a late budding variety that can escape late-spring frosts." - Farmer 15</td></tr><tr><td>Staggered harvest</td><td>"To spread out the harvest from September to October. I needed a variety that would not ripen at the same time as the ones I already have" - Farmer 32</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Easy to grow</td><td>Grape variety architecture</td><td>"The bearing of the variety is straight" - Farmer 27</td></tr><tr><td>Resistance to pets and diseases</td><td>"It is rustique, meaning it is not very sensitive to downy and powdery mildews" - Farmer 1</td></tr><tr><td>Tolerant to drought</td><td></td><td>"For his drought-resistance" - Farmer 2</td></tr><tr><td>Experimentation</td><td></td><td>"It is a variety of discovery, curiosity. I will see how it behaves in the future" - Farmer 8</td></tr></table>

Each sub-domain was in general represented by a dominant value. For instance, the sub-domain referring to marketing strategies (75.9%) was the dominant value cited by farmers within the economics domain. Out of the 962 expressions of value, the most cited were belonging to Gaillac region (9.8%), specific market (7.7%), blending (6.2%), mandatory grape varieties (6%) and experimentation (5%). Blending refers to the process of combining different wines from various grape varieties, terroirs, or even vintages to create a wine.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution | 4.0 International licence
408 Nine grape varieties cultivated by a single farmer were associated with a single value while we recorded
409 94 and 95 expressions of value for Fer (n=33 farmers) and Mauzac (n=29) varieties, respectively. The
410 average number of expressions of value per variety was 19.2 ± 27, all farmers considered. Farmers
411 listed between 4 and 59 values (mean ± SD: 27.5 ± 12.1), with an average of 2.6 ± 1.6 values per farmer
412 and variety. Values from multiple domains interact in decision-making as a variety may be grown and
413 maintained for a variety of reasons. For example, a farmer could choose to grow one variety because of
414 its adaptation to local pedoclimatic conditions, its link to intergenerational transmission and for
415 commercial purposes:

416 Bottles of Mauzac walk out of the stores and it has a particular affinity with limestone soils
417 which rarely exceeds 12.5°, which suits us at the moment. But beyond that, it is a grape variety
418 steeped in history for me because we grafted it together with my grandfather. Every time I go
419 to this plot, I think of him. (Farmer 9).

420

421 Farmers were also continually facing trade-offs when choosing which variety to plant:

422 There is not one variety that can satisfy all [the following] criteria: selling well, tasting good
423 and is easy to produce. All grape varieties have advantages and disadvantages, it's a matter of
424 trade-offs depending on the context [...] You see, Syrah has a lot of virtues, it makes good wine
425 [wine-making domain], it sells well [economic domain] but it is the most awful grape variety
426 for palissage [canopy management practice; wine-growing domain]. [...] The Len de l'El is
427 easy to grow [wine-growing domain], it is a local variety [sense-based domain], but it makes
428 quite neutral wines [wine-making domain] that could be difficult to sell [economic domain].
429 (Farmer 19).

430

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>
**Fig. 4** Tree of values. The branching pattern encompasses the 962 values expressed by the 35 farmers and relates to 50 grapevine varieties grown by farmers. Each domain and sub-domain were weighted according to the superior domain and expressed in percentages. The sum of the sub-domains may not be equal to 100 % depending on the level of precision reported by farmers, some farmers mentioned sub-domains without further details. Branch widths are proportional to the weight of each sub-domain.

The most cited values expressed by farmers are in bold.

### 3.3 Groups of grape varieties and farmers based on values

The LBM partitioned grape varieties and farmers into four and three blocks, respectively (Fig. 5). The Simpson concentration index ($D$) of values expressed by farmers within each block, calculated at the domain level, ranged from 3.84 to 4.55 for the grape varieties and from 3.73 to 4.57 for farmers, respectively. This result indicated that each block included values from the five domains but that each of them was expressed in a different frequency.

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 5** Results of the LBMs clustering on a) grape varieties and b) farmers at the sub-domain level 1 (e.g., field location, attachment to place). Variety block A: Popular and patrimonial varieties, variety block B: commercial varieties, variety block C: Non-commercial and unregulated varieties, and variety block D: multi-purpose varieties, farmer block 1: the marketers, farmer block 2: the “terroirists”, farmer

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>
452

block 3: the neo-farmers. Colors represent the five domains. In the small graphs, the full lines represent the within-block variations and the dashed lines represent the within-group variations. For example, the production load sub-domain in block 3 accounts for 7 % of the values expressed across farmers of block 3 (n=17), while it represents on average 33 % ± 11 % of the total values expressed by farmers whom mentioned it (n=9). In the polar diagrams below the figure, the length of each petal is proportional to the relative abundances of the values at the domain level. Numbers are referring to the Simpson concentration index (D).

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

### 3.3.1 Groups of grape varieties

461

#### Variety Block A - popular and patrimonial and varieties

462

Block A (n=6) comprised Fer, Duras, Syrah, Mauzac blanc, Prunelard and Len de l'El varieties which were the most cultivated varieties by the persons we interviewed (mean: 82.5% ± 16.1%). At the vineyard scale, these varieties were grown on average by 65.5% ± 22% of farmers and represented 57.5% of the total wine-growing area in 2020. Farmers expressed the most diversified set of values for varieties in variety block A (D = 4.55), values that were evenly distributed across domains. The sense-based domain was the dominant domain of value expressed (31.3%), followed by wine-making (21.1%), wine-growing (18.6%), external factors (15.7%) and economic (13.1%) ones. Values related to varieties in block A were mainly related to patrimonial values such as place-attachment (18.4%) and to varietal regulation sub-domains (12.7%, mostly for Fer and Duras). Values falling into the marketing strategies sub-domain were the least quoted (9.9%).

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

#### Variety Block B - Commercial varieties

474

Block B (n=5) clustered the Gamay, Merlot, Cabernet-Sauvignon, Sauvignon and Muscadelle varieties. These varieties were grown on average by 54.8% ± 9.1% of all respondents. At the vineyard scale, varieties from block B represented 34.2% of the total area and were cultivated on average by 51.2 ± 10.3% of all farmers. Varieties in this block were related to the lowest diversity of values from farmers (D=3.84), with a high percentage of values related to the economic domain (38.4%), followed by wine-making (25.1%) and wine-growing (18.2%) ones. During interviews, farmers shared that the Muscadelle variety was mainly grown to supply the sweet wine market and the Gamay variety for the *Primeur* wine market (i.e., wine marketed from the 3rd Thursday of November the same year as the harvest). In contrast to variety block A, the sense-based domain was seldom cited for these varieties (8.4%) along as the external domain (9.8%).

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

#### Variety Block C - Non-commercial and unregulated varieties

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>
Block C (n=7) spans the Colombard, Egiodola, Oundenc, Verdanel, Mauzac rose, Jurancon noir and Noah varieties. They were cultivated on average by 18.8% ± 9.7% of the respondents and by 12.2% ± 10% of all farmers, representing only 4.1% of the total wine-growing area in 2020 (calculation not accounting for the Noah and Verdanel varieties which are not listed in the CVI). The diversity index was intermediate (D=4.18) and values for these varieties fell equally into the wine-growing (29.2%), sense-based (26.5%) and wine-making (23.8%) domains. The economic and external domains were the least mentioned for this block, respectively representing 15% and 5.4% of all values. Varieties in block C were not associated with the varietal regulations sub-domain and only slightly with the marketing strategies sub-domain (8.1%), characteristics that differentiated this group from the others. However, we noted within-group variation (dashed line in Fig. 5a). For instance, the place-attachment sub-domain was important for the Verdanel, Oundenc and Mauzac varieties although it was never associated with the Colombard and Egiodola.

### Variety Block D - Multi-purpose varieties

The remaining varieties (n=32) were grouped in block D. A majority (75%) of these varieties were cultivated by only one of the farmers we interviewed. The 21 varieties registered in the CVI represented only 3.7% of the total wine-growing area and were grown by only 3% ± 3% of all farmers at the vineyard scale. Only the Cabernet-Sauvignon and the Alicante-Henri varieties were grown by more than 10% of farmers. The diversity index was intermediate (D=4.02) albeit the wine makers (33%) and economics (29.7%) domains were dominant. However, a general tendency is hard to draw considering the high within-block variation (see dashed lines in Fig. 5b and Supplementary Table S2). This variation illustrates that each variety in block D was associated with different sets of values from the five domains. They can be cultivated for experimentation (e.g., Morrastel and Neheslescol varieties), reduction of pesticides (e.g., Floréal, Clinton), marketing strategies (e.g., Cot, Cabernet-Franc) or oenological purposes (e.g., Chenin), for instance.

### 3.3.2 Groups of farmers

**Table 2** Demographic characteristics of farmers for each block. Farmer block 1: the marketers, farmer block 2: the “terroirists”, farmer block 3: the neo-farmers. Variety block A: Popular and patrimonial varieties, variety block B: commercial varieties, variety block C: Non-commercial and unregulated varieties, and variety block D: multi-purpose varieties.

Farmer block 1 (n=13)

Farmer block 2 (n=5)

Farmer block 3 (n=17)

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution | 4.0 International licence
<table><tr><td>Avg. age</td><td>56.1 ± 10.4</td><td>53.4 ± 10.8</td><td>44.9 ± 12.3</td></tr><tr><td>Avg. number of years as head</td><td>30.6 ± 10.3</td><td>26.2 ± 12.5</td><td>17.3 ± 14.9</td></tr><tr><td>Neo-farmers (%)</td><td>15.4%</td><td>20%</td><td>52.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Farm size (ha)</td><td>45.4 ± 36.1</td><td>19.8 ± 9.8</td><td>16.8 ± 18.9</td></tr><tr><td>Organic farmers (%)</td><td>7.7%</td><td>100%</td><td>70.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Avg. number of varieties</td><td>13.1 ± 2.1</td><td>14.4 ± 3.5</td><td>7.2 ± 2.9</td></tr><tr><td>From variety block A<br>(n=6)</td><td>5.4 ± 0.9</td><td>6 ± 0</td><td>4.4 ± 1.3</td></tr><tr><td>From variety block B<br>(n=5)</td><td>4.5 ± 0.8</td><td>1.8 ± 0.8</td><td>1.9 ± 1.2</td></tr><tr><td>From variety block C<br>(n=7)</td><td>1.4 ± 0.7</td><td>3 ± 1.4</td><td>1.6 ± 0.8</td></tr><tr><td>From variety block D<br>(n=32)</td><td>2.2 ± 1.9</td><td>4.5 ± 1.9</td><td>1.2 ± 0.5</td></tr></table>

## Farmer Block 1 – The marketers

Farmers in block 1 (n=13, 45.4 ± 36.1 ha, 56.1 ± 10.4 years old) expressed the highest diversity of values (D=4.57), frequently quoting economic values (30.2%) and growing mainly commercial varieties (from block B). Compared to the other blocks, the external domain (17.5%) had a higher frequency of citation while the wine-growing (15.1%) and sense-based (13.7%) domains were less frequently expressed by farmers. Farmers in this block were mostly conventional farmers (92.7%) with an average farm size twice as large as the other groups (Table 2). The ethnographic approach suggested that the economic-based vision of these farmers resulted from their past experiences with wine mis-selling in the 1980s. As Farmer 31 conceded, “*the cash flow constraint, everyone has it in mind*”. What he means is that wine makers are constantly concerned with input costs related to managing large farms (i.e., payment of labor, repayment of loans, gasoline or phytosanitary products), without knowing in advance whether or how much of their production will be sold.

## Farmer Block 2 - The “terroirists”

Farmers from block 2 (n=5, 19.8 ± 9.8 ha, 53.4 ± 10.8 years old) were characterized by the lowest diversity value (D=3.73). The listed values related to the wine-growing (33.8%) and sense-based (32%) domains were dominant while economic-related values (7.8%) and external factors (6.1%) were seldom mentioned. All the farmers used organic practices and had, on average, small landholdings compared to the marketer's farmers (block 1) (Table 2). In addition, they cultivated rare (variety block D) and less commercial varieties (variety block C) than farmer block 1 to support the conservation of genetic diversity. Variety choice was mainly determined by the fit between varieties and pedo-climatic conditions and the varieties' agronomic features. Farmers were also attached to growing historical varieties reflecting cultural identity. For them, the historical presence and durability of a variety in the

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution | 4.0 International licence
543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

locality suggested a strong suitability to the terroir. Farmers in block 2 gave a lot of importance to the experimentation of grape varieties to meet future needs in contrast to the two other groups of farmers. Our ethnographic approach found that the care of the plant was central to the “terroirists” farmers. For instance, they rejected mechanical harvesting in favor of manual harvest and adopted agroecological practices such as spontaneous and permanent grass in the inter-rows and in the rows through experiential knowledge acquired by attentiveness and intuition. Such agro-ecological practices have been implemented in their vineyards for more than 20 years, beginning as early as 1983.

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

## Farmer Block 3 - The neo-farmers

Farmers in block 3 (n=17, 16.8 ± 18.9 ha, 44.9 ± 12.3 years old) were characterized by intermediate diversity value (D=4.40). Like the “terroirists” (farmers block 2), they frequently referred to the sense-based domain (31.2%) and like the marketers (farmer block 1), farmers placed relatively emphasis on economic-related values (17.2%). We also noted that within the economic domain, production load sub-domain (i.e., mainly the cost of uprooting the vines) was an important value for the nine farmers who mentioned it. This suggests that varieties grown by half of the farmers in this block resulted from past choices that were not necessarily theirs and because they did not have the economic resources to uproot the plot. Similarly to the “terroirists” (farmer block 2), they had, on average, small landholdings under grapes (Table 2). Slightly more than half of farmers in block 3 were neo-farmers, younger than others, did not inherit their farms and cultivated lower than average grape diversity (Table 2). Our ethnographic fieldwork has shown that these farmers were less concerned about their financial situation compared to farmers in block 1 because they had less difficulty selling all of their production as they had smaller surfaces of land and produced less wine per hectare. Sometimes their households had an additional source of income, such as a spouse working off-farm. One example is provided by farmer 22: “There is no notion of a market with 5 ha, we only sell 20,000 to 30,000 bottles per year. If tomorrow the trend is to make Chenin based wine and all the restaurants in Toulouse ask for it, it doesn't concern us. [...] If we have a problem, it will be a small problem because we are small. [...] If we fail one year, we will recover because we do not rely only on wine-growing activities.” In their narratives, most farmers in block 3 were concerned about ecological issues and were certified organic. For instance, some neo-farmers had a renewed interest in horse-drawn implements to decrease the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs as well as to improve the health of the soil.

574

575

576

## 3.4 Values for selecting future grapevine variety

Regarding future grapevine variety selections, we recorded 78 expressions of value related to the five domains and 12 sub-domains (Table 3). Farmers (n=6) expressed values related to "Climate change

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>
suitability”, which had not been mentioned for the varieties planted in the past and currently cultivated (Fig. 4). Overall, the most important values cited by farmers were related to trends in the wine market (S=0.42), attachment to place (S=0.37), organoleptic properties (S=0.31) and field location (S=0.25). In comparison, resistance to pests and diseases (S=0.14) and climate change suitability (S=0.08) were much less cited by farmers. The non-parametric perMANOVA showed that the set of values cited for future grape selections differed significantly between the three blocks of farmers identified by the LBMs (Pseudo-F = 3.84, p=0.001, R²= 0.22). The values listed by farmers for future grapevine variety selection were in line with past values for the varieties already cultivated (Fig. 5b, Table 3).

<table><caption>**Table 3** Relative frequency of citation (FC), mean rank (MR) and salience (S) of the 12 sub-domains expressed by farmers for choosing any grape varieties in the future. Indexes were calculated using aggregated data for each of the three blocks inventoried through the LBMs. Farmer block 1: the marketers, farmer block 2: the “terroirists”, farmer block 3: the neo-farmers. Sub-domains were ordered following S values, n= 30 farmers.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Domains</th><th rowspan="2">Sub-domains</th><th colspan="3">Aggregated (n=30)</th><th>Farmer Block 1 (n=11)</th><th>Farmer Block 2 (n=5)</th><th>Farmer Block 3 (n=14)</th></tr><tr><th>FC</th><th>MR</th><th>S</th><th>S</th><th>S</th><th>S</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="11">Economic Sense-based Wine-making Wine-growing Wine-growing Sense-based - Wine-growing Wine-growing</td><td>Trends in the wine market</td><td>0,53</td><td>1,63</td><td>0,42</td><td>0,81</td><td>0,06</td><td>0,20</td></tr><tr><td>Attachment to place</td><td>0,43</td><td>1,54</td><td>0,37</td><td>0,21</td><td>0,50</td><td>0,40</td></tr><tr><td>Organoleptic properties</td><td>0,37</td><td>1,36</td><td>0,31</td><td>-</td><td>0,28</td><td>0,54</td></tr><tr><td>Field location Resistant to pests and diseases</td><td>0,33</td><td>1,60</td><td>0,25</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,11</td><td>0,24</td></tr><tr><td>Wine makers personal pleasure Climate change suitability</td><td>0,27</td><td>2,75</td><td>0,14</td><td>-</td><td>0,28</td><td>0,17</td></tr><tr><td>Productivity</td><td>0,17</td><td>2,40</td><td>0,08</td><td>0,07</td><td>-</td><td>0,09</td></tr><tr><td>Grape variety architecture</td><td>0,03</td><td>2,00</td><td>0,01</td><td>0,02</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Varietal regulations</td><td>0,03</td><td>2,00</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Aesthetic value</td><td>0,03</td><td>3,00</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Phenology</td><td>0,03</td><td>3,00</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution | 4.0 International licence
592

593

We noted a first consensus on market-related values (S=0.81) for market-oriented farmers (block 1).

594

The adaptability of varieties to the terroir (S=0.24), the cultivation of local varieties (S=0.21) and farmer's personal enjoyment (S=0.10) were subordinate to concerns related to market conditions. As Farmer 34 explained:

595

596

597

The first criterion is the market and my first question is: what does the market expect tomorrow regarding wine types and which grape variety should we grow to respond to this situation? We need a strategy and we have to project ourselves because the vine takes four years to produce. For example, we realize that there is a market for Chardonnay-based wine, even if it is not from Gaillac, I will plant it because you have to adapt to what will best fill the fridge.

598

599

600

601

602

603

Farmers were striving for a better quality of life and economic opportunities frequently take precedence over cultural attachment to local varieties. For instance, several farmers stated that they would have already uprooted vines of the Fer or Duras varieties (Popular and patrimonial varieties, block A) if they did not need to grow these varieties to qualify for AOC certification.

604

605

606

607

608

By contrast, the “terroirists” farmers (block 2) prioritized growing patrimonial and popular varieties (S=0.50) while paying less attention to the organoleptic properties (S=0.28) and disease sensitivity of the varieties (S=0.28) in planning for the future. They are willing to choose the variety according to their own taste (S=0.28) rather than looking at the market and consumer preferences (S=0.06). Lastly, the neo-farmers (farmer block 3) emphasized organoleptic properties (S=0.54) and attachment to place (S=0.40) as the main values while field location (S=0.24), trends in the wine market (S=0.20) and resistance to pests and diseases (S=0.17) were considered to a lesser extent.

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

We found that climate change was more important for the “terroirists” farmers (S=0.22, farmer block 2) compared to the other blocks (Table 3), but still was not a major value in decision-making. Farmers' 29 response captures this:

617

618

619

Introducing non-local grape varieties is a loss of identity. Cultivating patrimonial grape varieties is the pride of every farmer. It is more or less strong in people's minds, but a farmer must defend his terroir and his history. For me to plant at the expense of local grape varieties, it should be linked either to a strong shift in climate or to a change in practice, for example the reduction of pesticides. The sale must guide decisions, of course, but not only, because the commercial trend may quickly change direction [...] and when it is planted, it is planted for a long time. [...] I don't deny climate change but I don't see much evidence of climate change in

620

621

622

623

624

625

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>
my place. We don't care about what doesn't affect us, do we? For the moment it worries me a little, because years like 2021 cast doubt. We'll see when we have big damages, like in Banyuls or Bézier [other wine-growing regions in the south of France].

# 4. Discussion

Our research shows the diversity of values that farmers use in the selection of grapevine varieties. We found that the frequency of citations was almost even across the domains: wine-growing (21.9%), wine-making (21.8%), economics (20.7%), sense-based (23.7%), and externals factors (11.9%). Plural and interconnected values among farming societies are common and independent of the type of crop (annual or perennial) and the farming system (smallholding or commercial) (Demongeot et al. 2022).

Our emic approach based on ethnographic interviews allowed us to illuminate the spectrum of values ascribed to grape choices, including diverse instrumental (e.g., trends in the wine market), relational (e.g., attachment to place) and intrinsic values (e.g., respect of the elders). Capturing the diversity of values related to nature is challenging (Jacobs et al. 2018) but ignoring place-based worldviews, values and practices may lead to implement unsustainable policies (Caillon et al. 2017; Pascual et al. 2017). Biocultural approaches, long used by anthropologists and ethnobiologists, create space for the emergence of people-based subjective values as they are expressed in specific places (Caillon et al. 2017). Especially, biocultural approaches seek to remedy the artificial human-nature dichotomy and emphasize the interconnectedness of biological and cultural systems (Caillon et al. 2017; Maffi 2005). However, such approaches are still not well represented in academic and political discussions about sustainability (Arrivabene et al. 2024; Hanspach et al. 2020). Our study supports the use of biocultural approaches in Europe, in which the values, practices and worldviews of European farmers have attracted less attention from researchers (Molnár et al. 2023). Such approaches are particularly crucial for challenging the assumption that farmers prioritize only market and productivity optimization and recognize that farmers in the Global North use a complex, interactional set of values to choose their crops (Alarcon et al. 2020; Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp 2022; Mahon et al. 2016; Pascual et al. 2023).

Study findings suggest that the plural values held by diverse groups of farmers and for different varieties support crop diversity at both the farm and vineyard levels. Our results challenge the assumption that market integration invariably leads to the erosion of crop diversity, as documented in previous studies (Goldberg et al. 2021; Vadez et al. 2004), especially in highly commercialized agricultural sectors like wine-growing (Wolkovich et al. 2018). More research is required to thoroughly explore the

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693

relationships between plural values and crop diversity, as plural values might apply to a single species
and variety (e.g., Mahon et al. 2016).

We found that the sense-based domain was the most diverse domain (22 sub-domains), including dimensions of individual and collective identity (e.g., attachment to place), social cohesion (e.g., team work with other farmers), intergenerational linkages (e.g., family identity), nature preservation (e.g., care for wildlife), and agrobiodiversity conservation (e.g., variety scarcity). Many of these values can be understood through the lens of relational values (Chan et al. 2016), that were shown to be key to plural valuation by people (Himes and Muraca 2018; Tobin 2023), human well-being (Jax et al. 2018), environmental stewardship (Chapin and Knapp 2015), and the adoption of sustainable practices (Alonso González and Parga Dans 2018; Dolci and Perrin 2018; Kreitzman et al. 2022; Vizuete et al. 2024). The link to sustainability was reflected in our network analysis. We showed that the significant frequency of citations of the sense-based values by the “terroirists” (block 2, 32%) and neo-farmers (block 3, 31.2%) was associated with pro-environmental behavior such as organic farming practices. Many scholars have pointed out that “terroirists” farmers and neo-farmers are engaged in agroecological practices (Alonso González and Parga Dans 2018; Dolci and Perrin 2018; Vizuete et al. 2024).

We found that attachment to place (50.9%) was the most frequently cited sense-based sub-domain, covering the feelings that farmers associate with a specific place (Sebastien 2020). In our study, this concept was linked to farmers’ commitment to growing local varieties (clustered in the varietal blocks A and C), that account for ~ 50% of the total wine-growing area in 2020 (Doncieux et al. 2022). As other studies found, local grapevine varieties emerged as a marker of geographical identity (Poulsen and Mønsted 2020), cultural heritage, and a sense of belonging (Jung 2014; Skinner 2020). This result suggests that the feelings of attachment to place are effective triggers in the maintenance of local varieties, as reported by others (Monroy-Sais et al. 2024; Nazarea 2006). This feeling was also identified by most of the neo-farmers in the sample (block 3), and suggests that attachment to place does not solely emerge from long-term relationships with the land, as found by previous studies (Benessaiah and Chan 2023; Ono et al. 2023; Quinn and Halfacre 2014). Our case study also suggests that farmers expressed contrasting attitudes toward local grape varieties. The “terroirists” (block 2) perceived the local varieties as a non-substitutable element that could not be replaced by other varieties without degrading farmers’ well-being. By contrast, the marketers farmers (block 1) view local varieties as interchangeable commodities with commercial and internationally-recognized varieties (block B, e.g., Syrah, Chardonnay) to ensure the economic viability of the farm. Previous studies found that the economic dimension may take precedence over cultural values in farmer’s cropping decisions (Feintrenie et al. 2010; Porcuna-Ferrer et al. 2024).

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>
694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

Our study also revealed that farmers' grape selection is influenced by external factors, including mistakes by vine nurseries where farmers source their vinestock, advice from a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., other farmers, research institutes and oenologists) and varietal regulations. Surprisingly, we found that varietal regulations accounted for only 7.6% of values expressed by farmers, despite the fact that these regulations applied to a large majority (79%) of the 50 varieties cultivated. Our ethnographic observations suggest that farmers expressed concerns about varietal regulations specifically when they perceived certain varieties as constraints in meeting AOP requirements. For example, the mandatory Fer variety for AOP certification is known for its inconsistent yield and high levels of Isobutyl Methoxypyrazine (IBMP), a compound associated with green pepper aromas in wines (Davaux 2006). Managing IBMP, which is generally deemed detrimental to the quality of red wines, requires considerable effort and time both in the field and in the cellar (Van Leeuwen et al. 2020). Conversely, when the varieties meet farmers' expectations in the economic, agronomic or sense-based dimensions, farmers were less likely to report values related to the regulatory framework. This result suggests that grape choices within the AOP framework of Gaillac align with the farmers' values of our sample. In the GIs scheme, rules are written by a set of farmers, as representative members of appellation syndicates, who work under the oversight of public authorities, and thus, regulations emerge from both top-down and bottom-up processes (Ruggieri et al. 2023). However, GIs represent a rigid framework that may lead farmers to exit the appellation and turn to VSIG wine production if they disagree with the grape varieties mandated by GI regulations (Alonso González and Parga Dans 2018; Prudham et al. 2024). Further research in contrasting contexts (e.g., more or less constrained by regulations, more or less diversified in terms of varieties) will help assess the significance of varietal regulations in grapevine selection by farmers.

We found that the main anticipated values guiding future grape choices showed limited emphasis on pesticide reduction and climate change. We advance four possible explanations. First, market globalization and the overall decline in wine consumption force farmers to focus on economic values to secure their livelihoods (OIV 2024; Wolkovich et al. 2018). This driver is significant in the Gaillac region, where the AOP is not highly regarded in comparison to other French AOPs (Doncieux et al. 2022). Farmers may therefore be hesitant to adopt foreign or improved grapevine varieties that are better suited to warmer conditions or require less pesticide if these varieties have not yet gained substantial market acceptance (Fuentes Espinoza et al. 2018; Van Leeuwen et al. 2024; Wolkovich et al. 2018). Second, climate change does not only have negative effects. In fact, the increase in temperature has been associated with better red wine quality (e.g., deeper color, more tannic grapes) (Adelsheim et al.

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence
2016; Gambetta and Kurtural 2021; Wood et al. 2023). However, the increase in wine quality is nearing a tipping point (Gambetta and Kurtural 2021), as excessively high temperatures lead to wines with high alcohol content, low acidity, and cooked fruit aromas rather than fresh fruit aromas (Pons et al. 2017). Third, farmers have many options to adapt. Instead of shifting their varieties (Santos et al. 2020), they can opt for short-term (e.g., harvest earlier, leaf removal) and long-term measures (e.g., irrigation, change in training systems and rootstocks, vineyard relocation), and subscribing to multi-hazard crop insurances (Koenig et al. 2022). Lastly and as suggested in previous studies (Agrawal et al. 2021; Nordhagen et al. 2017; Roesch-McNally et al. 2018), we hypothesize that climate resilience may be an emergent property of crop diversity (i.e., crop diversity-stability hypothesis Renard and Tilman 2019), rather than an explicit part of the decision-making process of favoring a diversity of varieties.

Lastly, we acknowledge that the results presented in our study may be subject to bias. Due to non-probability sampling, the frequency of citations for the different values should be carefully considered. Indeed, our sample is unbalanced as wine makers (85.7% interviewed vs ~ 45% in Gaillac), organic farmers (51.4% vs ~15%) and neo-farmers (34.3% vs ~5%) are overrepresented. We do not claim that our results are representative of farmer's decision-making in Gaillac and elsewhere. We do argue, however, that our case study is one of a very few that provide insight into the diversity of the sense-based values that shape grapevine selection.

## Conclusions

Using an emic approach, our case study revealed that a diverse community of farmers attributed a diversity of values to grapevine varieties that went beyond the economic dimensions. Rather, we highlighted the importance for commercial farmers of sense-based values, and especially attachment to place, in the conservation of agrobiodiversity. This study has implications in designing policies that account for plural values in a given place, especially those aiming at promoting agrobiodiversity as an important source of environmental and socio-economic resilience within agroecosystems. Indeed, higher crop diversity can stabilize food production and income, making farmers less vulnerable to environmental and market fluctuations, and limiting pests and disease outbreaks (Kremen et al. 2012; Renard and Tilman 2019).

Our approach – unpacking values from the farmer's point of view – could apply to many other perennial cash crops grown in Europe like almonds, cherries or citrus fruits. It would be valuable to document the process of valuation across different cropping contexts, for instance, landraces vs research-bred

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence
762 varieties and traditional vs emerging farming systems. In particular, documenting how a factor
763 influencing varietal selection becomes important and how long it takes for it to gain importance are
764 crucial for understanding farmers' decision-making in a changing world. There is no doubt that such
765 insights will open rooms for unidentified and overlooked values.

766

767 References

768

769 Adelsheim, D., C. Busch, L. Catena, B. Champy, J. Coetzee, L. Coia, B. Croser, P. Draper, D.
770 Durbourdieu, F. Frank, H. Frischengruber, R. Horvath, A. Lageder, E. Loosen, T. Roberts, M.
771 Strugnell, M. A. Torres, and M. Torres. 2016. "Climate Change: Field Reports from Leading
772 Winemakers." *J. Wine Econ.*, 11 (1): 5-47. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2016.4.

773 Agrawal, T., M. Hirons, and A. Gathorne-Hardy. 2021. "Understanding farmers' cropping decisions and implications for crop diversity conservation: Insights from Central India." *Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain.*, 3: 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100068.

776 Alarcon, M., P. Marty, and A.-C. Prévot. 2020. "Caring for vineyards: Transforming farmer-vine relations and practices in viticulture French farms." *J. Rural Stud.*, 80: 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.029.

779 Alonso González, P., and E. Parga Dans. 2018. "The 'terroirist' social movement: The reawakening of wine culture in Spain." *J. Rural Stud.*, 61: 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.04.014.

782 Amare, Z. Y., J. O. Ayoade, I. O. Adelekan, and M. T. Zeleke. 2018. "Barriers to and determinants of the choice of crop management strategies to combat climate change in Dejen District, Nile Basin of Ethiopia." *Agric. Food Secur.*, 7 (1): 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0188-y.

785 Anderson, Christopher B., Athayde, Simone, Raymond, Christopher M., Vatn, Arild, Arias-Arévalo, Paola, Gould, Rachelle K., Kenter, Jasper, Muraca, Barbara, Sachdeva, Sonya, Samakov, Aibek, Zent, Eglee, Lenzi, Dominic, Murali, Ranjini, Amin, Ariane, and Cantú-Fernández, Mariana. 2022. *Chapter 2. Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people*. Zenodo.

790 Arrivabene, A., L. Lasic, J. Blanco, S. M. Carrière, A. Ladio, S. Caillon, V. Porcher, and I. Teixidor-Toneu. 2024. "Ethnobiology's Contributions to Sustainability Science." *J. Ethnobiol.*, 44 (3): 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771241261221.

793 Balmelle, C., D. Barraud, J.-P. Brun, B. Duprat, H. Gaillard, P. Jacques, L. Maurin, C. Petit-Aupert, D. Rigal, K. Robin, P. Roudié, P. Sillières, and C. Vernou. 2001. "La viticulture antique en Aquitaine: La viticulture en Gaule." *Gallia*, 58 (1): 129-164. https://doi.org/10.3406/galia.2001.3177.

797 Barbillon, P., S. Donnet, E. Lazega, and A. Bar-Hen. 2017. "Stochastic block models for multiplex networks: an application to a multilevel network of researchers." *J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc.*, 180 (1): 295-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12193.

800 Bardsley, D. K., E. Palazzo, and R. Stringer. 2019. "What should we conserve? Farmer narratives on biodiversity values in the McLaren Vale, South Australia." *Land Use Policy*, 83: 594-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.036.

803 Bar-Hen, A., P. Barbillon, and S. Donnet. 2020. "Block models for multipartite networks. Applications in ecology and ethnobiology." *arXiv*. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1807.10138.

805 Barton, D. N., S. Engel, A. Girvan, T. Hahn, B. Leimona, S. Lele, R. Muradian, A. Niamir, B. Özkaynak, A. Pawlowska-Mainville, P. Ungar, S. Nelson, L. Bravo-Monroy, and D. A. Andradi-Brown. 2022. "Chapter 4. Value expression in decision-making." 140.

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>
808 Benessaiah, K., and K. M. Chan. 2023. "Why reconnect to nature in times of crisis? Ecosystem
809 contributions to the resilience and well-being of people going back to the land in Greece."  
*People Nat.*, 5 (6): 2026–2047. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10546.

811 Birthal, P. S., and J. Hazrana. 2019. “Crop diversification and resilience of agriculture to climatic
812 shocks: Evidence from India.” *Agric. Syst.*, 173: 345–354.
813 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.005.

814 Bodin, Ö., M. Mancilla García, and G. Robins. 2020. “Reconciling Conflict and Cooperation in
815 Environmental Governance: A Social Network Perspective.” *Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.*, 45
816 (1): 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352.

817 Brück, M., J. Schultner, B. B. Negash, D. F. Damu, and D. J. Abson. 2024. “Plural valuation in
818 southwestern Ethiopia: Disaggregating values associated with ecosystems in a smallholder
819 landscape.” *People Nat.*, 6 (1): 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10555.

820 Byfuglien, A., M. Hirons, and A. B. Milford. 2024. “From values to actions in agriculture: A web of
821 actors shape Norwegian farmers’ enactment of relational values.” *People Nat.*, 6 (3): 1320–
822 1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10640.

823 Caillon, S., G. Cullman, B. Verschuuren, and E. J. Sterling. 2017. “Moving beyond the human-nature
dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience
825 indicators.” *Ecol. Soc.*, 22 (4): art27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09746-220427.

826 Candiago, S., S. Tscholl, L. Bassani, H. Fraga, and L. Egarter Vigl. 2022. “A geospatial inventory of
827 regulatory information for wine protected designations of origin in Europe.” *Sci. Data*, 9 (1):
828 394. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01513-0.

829 Carof, M., J. Raimbault, A. Merrien, and P. Leterme. 2015. “Survey of 47 oilseed flax (Linum
830 usitatissimum L.) growers to identify ways to expand its cultivation in France.” *OCL*, 22 (6):
831 D604. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2015043.

832 Chambre d'Agriculture. 2020. "L'agriculture tarnaise en bref. Tableau de bord de l'agriculture."

833 Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould,
834 N. Hannahs, K. Jax, S. Klain, G. W. Luck, B. Martín-López, B. Muraca, B. Norton, K. Ott, U.
835 Pascual, T. Satterfield, M. Tadaki, J. Taggart, and N. Turner. 2016. "Why protect nature?
836 Rethinking values and the environment." *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.*, 113 (6): 1462–1465.
837 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113.

838 Chapin, F. S., and C. N. Knapp. 2015. “Sense of place: A process for identifying and negotiating potentially contested visions of sustainability.” *Environ. Sci. Policy*, 53: 38–46.
840 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.012.

841 Chapman, M., and A. Deplazes-Zemp. 2022. “‘I owe it to the animals’: The bidirectionality of Swiss alpine farmers’ relational values.” *People Nat.*, pan3.10415.
842 https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10415.

843 Chiquet, J., S. Donnet, and P. Barbillon. 2022. *sbm: Stochastic Blockmodels*.

845 Davaux, F. 2006. "Etat des connaissances sur le potentiel aromatique des raisins et des vins de Fer-Servadou - Bilan de 5 ans d'étude sur l'IBMP." 11.

847 Delaunois, A., J.-N. Jarno, and O. Yobregat. 1996. *Description des differents terroirs du Gaillacois*.
848 Chambre d'agriculture du Tarn.

849 Delaunois, A., and J. C. Revel. 2016. “Carte des sols du Tarn de 2016. Carte pédopaysagère des Unités Cartographiques de Sols (UCS). Programme IGCS (Inventaire Gestion et Cartographie des Sols). Chambre d'Agriculture du Tarn, MIDIVAL, une carte au 1/250 000 ème ('étude IGCS 25081), une carte au 1/100 000 ème ('étude IGCS 10081), une base de données sémantiques sous DoneSol.”

854 Demongeot, M., B. Chaplin-Krammer, and U. Pascual. 2022. “IPBES VA Chapter 4 - Literature review on values articulated in agrobiodiversity management.” Zenodo.
855 https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4394547.

857 DGDDI. 2020. “Casier Viticole Informatisé [Vineyard Register Database]. Direction Générale des Douanes et des Droits Indirects (in French).”

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>
859 Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K. M. A. Chan,
860 I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P. W.
861 Leadley, A. P. E. van Oudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter, S. Lavorel, Y.
862 Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul, P. Failler, C. A.
863 Guerra, C. L. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. 2018. "Assessing nature's
864 contributions to people." *Science*, 359 (6373): 270–272.
865 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.
866 Dolci, P., and C. Perrin. 2018. "Neo-farmers: drivers of farming systems innovation and of the
867 transition to agro-ecology? The case of Alentejo (Portugal)." 17.
868 Doncieux, A., O. Yobrégat, S. Prudham, S. Caillon, and D. Renard. 2022. "Agrobiodiversity
869 dynamics in a French wine-growing region." *OENO One*, 56 (4): 183–199.
870 https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.4.5557.
871 Drew, G., W. Skinner, and D. K. Bardsley. 2022. "The 'drive and talk' as ethnographic method."
872 *Anthropol. Today*, 38 (3): 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12725.
873 Feintrenie, L., S. Schwarze, and P. Levang. 2010. "Are Local People Conservationists? Analysis of
874 Transition Dynamics from Agroforests to Monoculture Plantations in Indonesia." *Ecol. Soc.*,
875 15 (4): art37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03870-150437.
876 Felipe-Lucia, M. R., A. M. Guerrero, S. M. Alexander, J. Ashander, J. A. Baggio, M. L. Barnes, Ö.
877 Bodin, A. Bonn, M.-J. Fortin, R. S. Friedman, J. A. Gephart, K. J. Helmstedt, A. A. Keyes, K.
878 Kroetz, F. Massol, M. J. O. Pocock, J. Sayles, R. M. Thompson, S. A. Wood, and L. E. Dee.
879 2022. "Conceptualizing ecosystem services using social-ecological networks." *Trends Ecol.
880 Evol.*, 37 (3): 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.11.012.
881 Finger, R., J. Sok, E. Ahovi, S. Akter, J. Bremmer, S. Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, C. De Lauwere, C. Kreft,
882 P. Kudsk, F. Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, C. McCallum, A. O. Lansink, E. Wauters, and N.
883 Möhring. 2024. "Towards sustainable crop protection in agriculture: A framework for
884 research and policy." *Agric. Syst.*, 219: 104037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104037.
885 Foyer, J. 2018. "Syncrétisme des savoirs dans la viticulture biodynamique: Incorporation dans
886 l'expérience et le sensible et trajectoire initiatique." *Rev. Anthropol. Connaiss.*, 12,2 (2): 289.
887 https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.039.0289.
888 FranceAgrimer. 2024. "Observatoire de la viticulture française - Production de vins
889 commercialisables."
890 Fuentes Espinoza, A., A. Hubert, Y. Raineau, C. Franc, and É. Giraud-Héraud. 2018. "Resistant grape
891 varieties and market acceptance: an evaluation based on experimental economics." *OENO
892 One*, 52 (3). https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2018.52.3.2316.
893 Fujisawa, M., and K. Kobayashi. 2013. "Shifting from apple to peach farming in Kazuno, northern
894 Japan: perceptions of and responses to climatic and non-climatic impacts." *Reg. Environ.
895 Change*, 13 (6): 1211–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0434-6.
896 Gambetta, G. A., and S. K. Kurtural. 2021. "Global warming and wine quality: are we close to the
897 tipping point?" *OENO One*, 55 (3): 353–361. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-
898 one.2021.55.3.4774.
899 Goldberg, Z. A., B. Powell, and A. Ouarghidi. 2021. "Determinants of Smallholder Maintenance of
900 Crop Diversity in Morocco's High Atlas Mountains." *Hum. Ecol.*, 49 (4): 453–465.
901 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00248-7.
902 Guimier, S., F. Delmotte, A. S. Miclot, F. Fabre, I. Mazet, C. Couture, C. Schneider, and L. Delière.
903 2019. "OSCAR, a national observatory to support the durable deployment of disease-resistant
904 grapevine cultivars." *Acta Hortic.*, (1248): 21–34.
905 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2019.1248.4.
906 Hanspach, J., L. Jamila Haider, E. Oteros-Rozas, A. Stahl Olafsson, N. M. Gulsrud, C. M. Raymond,
907 M. Torralba, B. Martín-López, C. Bieling, M. García-Martín, C. Albert, T. H. Beery, N.
908 Fagerholm, I. Díaz-Reviriego, A. Drews-Shambroom, and T. Plieninger. 2020. "Biocultural

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>
909 approaches to sustainability: A systematic review of the scientific literature.” *People Nat.*, (R.

910 Rozzi, ed.), 2 (3): 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10120.

911 Hashmiu, I., O. Agbenyega, and E. Dawoe. 2022. “Determinants of crop choice decisions under risk:

912 A case study on the revival of cocoa farming in the Forest-Savannah transition zone of

913 Ghana.” *Land Use Policy*, 114: 105958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105958.

914 Helfenstein, J., S. Hepner, A. Kreuzer, G. Achermann, T. Williams, M. Bürgi, N. Debonne, T.

915 Dimopoulos, V. Diogo, W. Fjellstad, M. Garcia-Martin, J. Hernik, T. Kizos, A. Lausch, C.

916 Levers, J. Liira, F. Mohr, G. Moreno, R. Pazur, T. Salata, B. Schüpbach, R. Swart, P. H.

917 Verburg, A. Zarina, and F. Herzog. 2024. “Divergent agricultural development pathways

918 across farm and landscape scales in Europe: Implications for sustainability and farmer

919 satisfaction.” *Glob. Environ. Change*, 86: 102855.

920 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102855.

921 Himes, A., and B. Muraca. 2018. “Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem

922 services.” *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.*, 35: 1–7.

923 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005.

924 Isaac, M. E., T. Lin, S. Caillon, L. Sebastien, K. MacDonald, S. Prudham, A. Doncieux, D. Renard,

925 Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, L. Vincent, O. Cobelli, J. Locqueville, and E. Sterling. 2024.

926 “Multidimensional measures of farmer well-being: A scoping review.” *Agron. Sustain. Dev.*,

927 44 (4): 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7.

928 IVSO. 2017. *Evolution du vignoble Tarnais*. Castanet Tolosan: Interprofession des Vins du Sud

929 Ouest.

930 Jacobs, S., B. Martín-López, D. N. Barton, R. Dunford, P. A. Harrison, E. Kelemen, H. Saarikoski, M.

931 Termansen, M. García-Llorente, E. Gómez-Baggethun, L. Kopperoinen, S. Luque, I. Palomo,

932 J. A. Priess, G. M. Rusch, P. Tenerelli, F. Turkelboom, R. Demeyer, J. Hauck, H. Keune, and

933 R. Smith. 2018. “The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice.”

934 *Ecosyst. Serv.*, 29: 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011.

935 Jarvis, D. I., A. H. D. Brown, P. H. Cuong, L. Collado-Panduro, L. Latournerie-Moreno, S. Gyawali,

936 T. Tanto, M. Sawadogo, I. Mar, M. Sadiki, N. T.-N. Hue, L. Arias-Reyes, D. Balma, J.

937 Bajracharya, F. Castillo, D. Rijal, L. Belqadi, R. Rana, S. Saidi, J. Ouedraogo, R. Zangre, K.

938 Rhrib, J. L. Chavez, D. Schoen, B. Sthapit, P. De Santis, C. Fadda, and T. Hodgkin. 2008. “A

939 global perspective of the richness and evenness of traditional crop-variety diversity

940 maintained by farming communities.” *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.*, 105 (14): 5326–5331.

941 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800607105.

942 Jax, K., M. Calestani, K. M. Chan, U. Eser, H. Keune, B. Muraca, L. O’Brien, T. Potthast, L. Voget-

943 Kleschin, and H. Wittmer. 2018. “Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for

944 understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being.” *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.*,

945 35: 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009.

946 Jones, K., and D. Tobin. 2018. “Reciprocity, redistribution and relational values: organizing and

947 motivating sustainable agriculture.” *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.*, 35: 69–74.

948 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.001.

949 Jung, Y. 2014. “Tasting and Judging the Unknown *Terroir* of the Bulgarian Wine: The Political

950 Economy of Sensory Experience.” *Food Foodways*, 22 (1–2): 24–47.

951 https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2014.892733.

952 Koenig, R., M. Brunette, P. Delacote, and C. Tevenart. 2022. “Assurance récolte en France :

953 spécificité du régime et déterminants potentiels.” *Économie Rurale*, (380): 7–25.

954 https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.9875.

955 Kreitzman, M., M. Chapman, K. O. Keeley, and K. M. A. Chan. 2022. “Local knowledge and

956 relational values of Midwestern woody perennial polyculture farmers can inform tree-crop

957 policies.” *People Nat.*, 4 (1): 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10275.

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>
958 Kremen, C., A. Iles, and C. Bacon. 2012. "Diversified Farming Systems: An Agroecological, Systems-based Alternative to Modern Industrial Agriculture." *Ecol. Soc.*, 17 (4): art44.
959 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05103-170444.
960

961 Labeyrie, V., D. Renard, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Benyei, S. Caillon, L. Calvet-Mir, S. M. Carrière, M. Demongeot, E. Descamps, A. Braga Junqueira, X. Li, J. Locqueville, G. Mattalia, S. Miñarro, A. Morel, A. Porcuna-Ferrer, A. Schlingmann, J. Vieira da Cunha Avila, and V. Reyes-García. 2021a. "The role of crop diversity in climate change adaptation: insights from local observations to inform decision making in agriculture." *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.*, 51: 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.01.006.

967 Labeyrie, V., M. Antona, J. Baudry, D. Bazile, Ö. Bodin, S. Caillon, C. Leclerc, C. Le Page, S. Louafi, J. Mariel, F. Massol, and M. Thomas. 2021b. "Networking agrobiodiversity management to foster biodiversity-based agriculture. A review." *Agron. Sustain. Dev.*, 41 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00662-z.

971 Lliso, B., D. Lenzi, B. Muraca, K. M. Chan, and U. Pascual. 2022. "Nature's disvalues: what are they and why do they matter?" *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.*, 56: 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101173.

974 Maffi, L. 2005. "Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity." *Annu. Rev. Anthropol.*, 34 (1): 599-617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437.

976 Mahon, N., S. McGuire, and Md. M. Islam. 2016. "Why bother with Bere? An investigation into the drivers behind the cultivation of a landrace barley." *J. Rural Stud.*, 45: 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.017.

979 Meloni, G., K. Anderson, K. Deconinck, and J. Swinnen. 2019. "Wine Regulations." *Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy*, 41 (4): 620-649. https://doi.org/10.1093/aeppp/ppz025.

981 Meloni, G., and J. Swinnen. 2013. "The Political Economy of European Wine Regulations." *J. Wine Econ.*, 8 (3): 244-284. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2013.33.

983 Molnár, Z., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, C. Schunko, I. Teixidor-Toneu, I. Jarić, I. Díaz-Reviriego, C. Ivascu, D. Babai, L. Sáfián, P. Karlsen, H. Dai, and R. Hill. 2023. "Social justice for traditional knowledge holders will help conserve Europe's nature." *Biol. Conserv.*, 285: 110190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110190.

987 Monroy-Sais, A. S., D. Tobin, M. R. Bellon, M. Astier, A. Cibrián-Jaramillo, N. Gálvez-Reyes, A. Mastretta-Yanes, J. Ruiz-Arocho, A. Wegier, and Y. H. Chen. 2024. "Smallholder farmers' diverse values in maize landrace conservation: A case study from Chiapas, Mexico." *J. Rural Stud.*, 110: 103347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103347.

991 Morales-Castilla, I., I. García de Cortázar-Atauri, B. I. Cook, T. Lacombe, A. Parker, C. van Leeuwen, K. A. Nicholas, and E. M. Wolkovich. 2020. "Diversity buffers winegrowing regions from climate change losses." *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.*, 201906731. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906731117.

995 Morgan, W. 2001. "Terroir – the human factor." *Aust. N. Z. Wine Ind. J.*, 2001.

996 Morlat, R. 1989. "Le terroir viticole : contribution à l'étude de sa caractérisation et de son influence sur les vins : application aux vignobles rouges de moyenne vallée de la Loire." These de doctorat. Bordeaux 2.

999 Nazarea, V. D. 2006. "Local Knowledge and Memory in Biodiversity Conservation." *Annu. Rev. Anthropol.*, 35 (1): 317-335. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123252.

1001 Niederle, P., A. Loconto, S. Lemeilleur, and C. Dorville. 2020. "Social movements and institutional change in organic food markets: Evidence from participatory guarantee systems in Brazil and France." *J. Rural Stud.*, 78: 282-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.011.

1004 Nordhagen, S., U. Pascual, and A. G. Drucker. 2017. "Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers' Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea." *Ecol. Econ.*, 137: 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.025.

1007 OIV. 2024. *State of the world vine and wine sector in 2023*.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>
1008 Oksanen, J., F. G. Blanchet, M. Friendly, R. Kindt, P. Legendre, D. McGlinn, P. R. Minchin, R. B.

1009 O'Hara, G. L. Simpson, P. Solymos, M. H. H. Stevens, E. Szoecs, and H. Wagner. 2019.

1010 *vegan: Community Ecology Package*.

1011 Ono, A. J., D. R. Boyd, and K. M. A. Chan. 2023. "Acculturation as an ecosystem service? Urban

1012 natural space supports evolving relational values and identity in new female migrants."

1013 *People Nat.*, (R. Hitchings, ed.), 5 (2): 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10188.

1014 Parker, T. 2015. *Tasting French terroir: the history of an idea*. California studies in food and culture.

1015 Oakland, California: University of California Press.

1016 Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C. B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A.

1017 Martin, C. M. Raymond, M. Termansen, A. Vatn, S. Athayde, B. Baptiste, D. N. Barton, S.

1018 Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O'Farrell, S.

1019 M. Subramanian, M. Van Noordwijk, S. Ahn, S. Amaruzaman, A. M. Amin, P. Arias-

1020 Arévalo, G. Arroyo-Robles, M. Cantú-Fernández, A. J. Castro, V. Contreras, A. De Vos, N.

1021 Dendoncker, S. Engel, U. Eser, D. P. Faith, A. Filyushkina, H. Ghazi, E. Gómez-Baggethun,

1022 R. K. Gould, L. Guibrunet, H. Gundimeda, T. Hahn, Z. V. Harmáčková, M. Hernández-

1023 Blanco, A.-I. Horcea-Milcu, M. Huambachano, N. L. H. Wicher, C. İ. Aydın, M. Islar, A.-K.

1024 Koessler, J. O. Kenter, M. Kosmus, H. Lee, B. Leimona, S. Lele, D. Lenzi, B. Lliso, L. M.

1025 Mannetti, J. Merçon, A. S. Monroy-Sais, N. Mukherjee, B. Muraca, R. Muradian, R. Murali,

1026 S. H. Nelson, G. R. Nemogá-Soto, J. Ngouhouo-Poufoun, A. Niamir, E. Nuesiri, T. O.

1027 Nyumba, B. Özkaynak, I. Palomo, R. Pandit, A. Pawłowska-Mainville, L. Porter-Bolland, M.

1028 Quaas, J. Rode, R. Rozzi, S. Sachdeva, A. Samakov, M. Schaafsma, N. Sitas, P. Ungar, E.

1029 Yiu, Y. Yoshida, and E. Zent. 2023. "Diverse values of nature for sustainability." *Nature*, 620

1030 (7975): 813–823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9.

1031 Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, S. Díaz, G. Pataki, E. Roth, M. Stenseke, R. T. Watson, E. Başak Dessane,

1032 M. Islar, E. Kelemen, V. Maris, M. Quaas, S. M. Subramanian, H. Wittmer, A. Adlan, S.

1033 Ahn, Y. S. Al-Hafedh, E. Amankwah, S. T. Asah, P. Berry, A. Bilgin, S. J. Breslow, C.

1034 Bullock, D. Cáceres, H. Daly-Hassen, E. Figueroa, C. D. Golden, E. Gómez-Baggethun, D.

1035 González-Jiménez, J. Houdet, H. Keune, R. Kumar, K. Ma, P. H. May, A. Mead, P. O'Farrell,

1036 R. Pandit, W. Pengue, R. Pichis-Madruga, F. Popa, S. Preston, D. Pacheco-Balanza, H.

1037 Saarikoski, B. B. Strassburg, M. van den Belt, M. Verma, F. Wickson, and N. Yagi. 2017.

1038 "Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach." *Curr. Opin. Environ.

1039 *Sustain.*, 26–27: 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.

1040 Pertot, I., T. Caffi, V. Rossi, L. Mugnai, C. Hoffmann, M. S. Grando, C. Gary, D. Lafond, C. Duso,

1041 D. Thiery, V. Mazzoni, and G. Anfora. 2017. "A critical review of plant protection tools for

1042 reducing pesticide use on grapevine and new perspectives for the implementation of IPM in

1043 viticulture." *Crop Prot.*, 97: 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.11.025.

1044 Pons, A., L. Allamy, A. Schüttler, D. Rauhut, C. Thibon, and P. Darriet. 2017. "What is the expected

1045 impact of climate change on wine aroma compounds and their precursors in grape?" *OENO*

1046 *One*, 51 (2): 141–146. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.2.1868.

1047 Porcuna-Ferrer, A., L. Calvet-Mir, N. F. Faye, B. Klappoth, V. Reyes-García, and V. Labeyrie. 2024.

1048 "Drought-tolerant indigenous crops decline in the face of climate change: A political

1049 agroecology account from south-eastern Senegal." *J. Rural Stud.*, 105: 103163.

1050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103163.

1051 Poulsen, C., and M. Mønsted. 2020. "Identity markers for wine producers: terroir and beyond." *J.*

1052 *Wine Res.*, 31 (3): 194–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2020.1816533.

1053 Pouzenc, M., and J.-L. Vincq. 2013. "Faire du bio ! Faire du terroir ? Le terroir viticole de Gaillac au

1054 risque de l'agriculture biologique." *Sud-Ouest Eur. Rev. Géographique Pyrén. Sud-Ouest*,

1055 (36): 149–160. https://doi.org/10.4000/soe.519.

1056 Prudham, S., K. I. MacDonald, and S. Caillon. 2024. "Shifting to quality wine production in France's

1057 Midi: Ethnographic notes from the Department of the Hérault." *J. Rural Stud.*, 109: 103327.

1058 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103327.

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>
1059 Quinn, C. E., and A. C. Halfacre. 2014. "Place Matters: An Investigation of Farmers' Attachment to Their Land." *Hum. Ecol. Rev.*, 20 (02). https://doi.org/10.22459/HER.20.02.2014.06.

1061 R Core Team. 2021. "R: A language and environment for statistical computing." Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

1063 Renard, D., and D. Tilman. 2019. "National food production stabilized by crop diversity." *Nature*, 571 (7764): 257-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1316-y.

1065 Ricciardi, V., N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, L. Jarvis, and B. Chookolingo. 2018. "How much of the world's food do smallholders produce?" *Glob. Food Secur.*, 17: 64-72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002.

1068 Riol, J.-L. 1913. *Le vignoble de Gaillac depuis ses origines jusqu'à nos jours et l'emploi des vins de Bordeaux*. Paris, France.

1070 Robbins, M. C., J. M. Nolan, and D. Chen. 2017. "An Improved Measure of Cognitive Salience in Free Listing Tasks: A Marshallese Example." *Field Methods*, 29 (4): 395-403.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X17726726.

1073 Rocha, J., J. Yletyinen, R. Biggs, T. Blenckner, and G. Peterson. 2015. "Marine regime shifts: drivers and impacts on ecosystems services." *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.*, 370 (1659): 20130273. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0273.

1076 Röckel et al. 2024. "Vitis International Variety Catalogue – www.vivc.de – (accessed october 2024)."

1077 Roesch-McNally, G. E., J. G. Arbuckle, and J. C. Tyndall. 2018. "Barriers to implementing climate resilient agricultural strategies: The case of crop diversification in the U.S. Corn Belt." *Glob. Environ. Change*, 48: 206-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.002.

1080 Ruggieri, F., C. Coulon-Leroy, and A. Mazé. 2023. "How Can Collective Action Support the Agroecological Transition in Geographical Indication Vineyards? Insights from the Loire Valley Wine Area." *Sustainability*, 15 (12): 9371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129371.

1083 Santos, J. A., H. Fraga, A. C. Malheiro, J. Moutinho-Pereira, L.-T. Dinis, C. Correia, M. Moriondo, L. Leolini, C. Dibari, S. Costafreda-Aumedes, T. Kartschall, C. Menz, D. Molitor, J. Junk, M. Beyer, and H. R. Schultz. 2020. "A Review of the Potential Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Options for European Viticulture." *Appl. Sci.*, 10 (9): 3092. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093092.

1088 Sebastien, L. 2020. "The power of place in understanding place attachments and meanings." *Geoforum*, 108: 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.11.001.

1090 Skinner, W. 2020. "Wine, geology mapping and the value of place in McLaren Vale." *Aust. J. Anthropol.*, 31 (1): 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/taja.12346.

1092 Sterling, E. J., C. Filardi, A. Toomey, A. Sigouin, E. Betley, N. Gazit, J. Newell, S. Albert, D. Alvira, N. Bergamini, M. Blair, D. Boseto, K. Burrows, N. Bynum, S. Caillon, J. E. Caselle, J. Claudet, G. Cullman, R. Dacks, P. B. Eyzaguirre, S. Gray, J. Herrera, P. Kenilorea, K. Kinney, N. Kurashima, S. Macey, C. Malone, S. Mauli, J. McCarter, H. McMillen, P. Pascua, P. Pikacha, A. L. Porzecanski, P. de Robert, M. Salpeteur, M. Sirikolo, M. H. Stege, K. Stege, T. Ticktin, R. Vave, A. Wali, P. West, K. B. Winter, and S. D. Jupiter. 2017. "Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales." *Nat. Ecol. Evol.*, 1 (12): 1798-1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6.

1100 Tobin, D. 2023. "Towards quantifying relational values: crop diversity and the relational and instrumental values of seed growers in Vermont." *Agric. Hum. Values*, 40 (3): 1137-1152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10410-6.

1103 Trubek, A. B. 2008. *The taste of place: a cultural journey into terroir*. California studies in food and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1105 Vadez, V., V. Reyes-García, R. A. Godoy, V. L. Apaza, E. Byron, T. Huanca, W. R. Leonard, E. Pérez, and D. Wilkie. 2004. "Brief Communication: Does Integration to the Market Threaten Agricultural Diversity? Panel and Cross-Sectional Data From a Horticultural-Foraging Society in the Bolivian Amazon." *Hum. Ecol.*, 32 (5): 635-646.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-004-6100-3.

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>
1110 Van Leeuwen, C., J.-C. Barbe, P. Darriet, O. Geffroy, E. Gomès, S. Guillaumie, P. Helwi, J.
1111 Laboyrie, G. Lytra, N. Le Menn, S. Marchand, M. Picard, A. Pons, A. Schüttler, and C.
1112 Thibon. 2020. "Recent advancements in understanding the terroir effect on aromas in grapes
1113 and wines: This article is published in cooperation with the XIIIth International Terroir
1114 Congress November 17-18 2020, Adelaide, Australia. Guests editors: Cassandra Collins and
1115 Roberta De Bei." *OENO One*, 54 (4). https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2020.54.4.3983.
1116 Van Leeuwen, C., and G. Seguin. 2006. "The concept of terroir in viticulture." *J. Wine Res.*, 17 (1):
1117 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571260600633135.
1118 Van Leeuwen, C., G. Sgubin, B. Bois, N. Ollat, D. Swingedouw, S. Zito, and G. A. Gambetta. 2024.
1119 "Climate change impacts and adaptations of wine production." *Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.*
1120 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00521-5.
1121 Vizuete, B., E. Oteros-Rozas, and M. García-Llorente. 2024. "Role of the neo-rural phenomenon and
1122 the new peasantry in agroecological transitions: a literature review." *Agric. Hum. Values.*
1123 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10537-0.
1124 Wencelius, J., E. Garine, and C. Raimond. 2017. "FLARES - Free List Analysis under R Environment
1125 using Shiny."
1126 Wezel, A., M. Casagrande, F. Celette, J.-F. Vian, A. Ferrer, and J. Peigné. 2014. "Agroecological
1127 practices for sustainable agriculture. A review." *Agron. Sustain. Dev.*, 34 (1): 1-20.
1128 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7.
1129 Willett, W., J. Rockström, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S. Vermeulen, T. Garnett, D. Tilman,
1130 F. DeClerck, A. Wood, M. Jonell, M. Clark, L. J. Gordon, J. Fanzo, C. Hawkes, R. Zurayk, J.
1131 A. Rivera, W. De Vries, L. Majele Sibanda, A. Afshin, A. Chaudhary, M. Herrero, R.
1132 Agustina, F. Branca, A. Lartey, S. Fan, B. Crona, E. Fox, V. Bignet, M. Troell, T. Lindahl, S.
1133 Singh, S. E. Cornell, K. Srinath Reddy, S. Narain, S. Nishtar, and C. J. L. Murray. 2019.
1134 "Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable
1135 food systems." *The Lancet*, 393 (10170): 447-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.
1136
1137 Wolkovich, E. M., I. García de Cortázar-Atauri, I. Morales-Castilla, K. A. Nicholas, and T. Lacombe.
1138 2018. "From Pinot to Xinomavro in the world's future wine-growing regions." *Nat. Clim. Change*, 8 (1): 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0016-6.
1139
1140 Wood, A., S. J. L. Gascoigne, G. A. Gambetta, E. S. Jeffers, and T. Coulson. 2023. "Seasonal weather
1141 impacts wine quality in Bordeaux." *iScience*, 26 (10): 107954.
1142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.107954.
1143 Zachmann, L., C. McCallum, and R. Finger. 2024. "Determinants of the adoption of fungus-resistant
1144 grapevines: Evidence from Switzerland." *J. Wine Econ.*, 1-33.
1145 https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2023.36.
1146 Zimmerer, K. S. 2014. "Conserving Agrobiodiversity amid Global Change, Migration, and
1147 Nontraditional Livelihood Networks: the Dynamic Uses of Cultural Landscape Knowledge."
1148 *Ecol. Soc.*, 19 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06316-190201.
1149 Zimmerer, K. S., and S. de Haan. 2017. "Agrobiodiversity and a sustainable food future." *Nat. Plants*,
1150 3 (4). https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.47.
1151 Zimmerer, K. S., H. L. Rojas Vaca, and M. T. Hosse Sahonero. 2022. "Entanglements of
1152 agrobiodiversity-food amid cascading migration, coca conflicts, and water development
1153 (Bolivia, 1990-2013)." *Geoforum*, 128: 223-235.
1154 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.01.028.
1155

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>