Review

Sources, diffusion and prediction in COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned to face next health emergency

  • Received: 14 November 2022 Revised: 09 February 2023 Accepted: 19 February 2023 Published: 02 March 2023
  • Scholars and experts argue that future pandemics and/or epidemics are inevitable events, and the problem is not whether they will occur, but when a new health emergency will emerge. In this uncertain scenario, one of the most important questions is an accurate prevention, preparedness and prediction for the next pandemic. The main goal of this study is twofold: first, the clarification of sources and factors that may trigger pandemic threats; second, the examination of prediction models of on-going pandemics, showing pros and cons. Results, based on in-depth systematic review, show the vital role of environmental factors in the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and many limitations of the epidemiologic models of prediction because of the complex interactions between the new viral agent SARS-CoV-2, environment and society that have generated variants and sub-variants with rapid transmission. The insights here are, whenever possible, to clarify these aspects associated with public health in order to provide lessons learned of health policy that may reduce risks of emergence and diffusion of new pandemics having negative societal impact.

    Citation: Mario Coccia. Sources, diffusion and prediction in COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned to face next health emergency[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(1): 145-168. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023012

    Related Papers:

    [1] Monsuru Adekunle Salisu, Yusuf Opeyemi Oyebamiji, Omowunmi Kayode Ahmed, Noraziyah A Shamsudin, Yusoff Siti Fairuz, Oladosu Yusuff, Mohd Rafii Yusop, Zulkefly Sulaiman, Fatai Arolu . A systematic review of emerging trends in crop cultivation using soilless techniques for sustainable agriculture and food security in post-pandemic. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(2): 666-692. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024036
    [2] Marcello De Rosa, Annalisa Castelli, Luca Bartoli, Martina Francescone . Sustainable public procurement and constrained agricultural entrepreneurship. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 585-597. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023032
    [3] Maurizio Canavari, Federico Gori, Selene Righi, Elena Viganò . Factors fostering and hindering farmers' intention to adopt organic agriculture in the Pesaro-Urbino province (Italy). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(1): 108-129. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022008
    [4] Sarah Creemers, Steven Van Passel, Mauro Vigani, George Vlahos . Relationship between farmers’ perception of sustainability and future farming strategies: A commodity-level comparison. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 613-642. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.613
    [5] Nicholas Mawira Gitonga, Gilbert Koskey, Ezekiel Mugendi Njeru, John M. Maingi, Richard Cheruiyot . Dual inoculation of soybean with Rhizophagus irregularis and commercial Bradyrhizobium japonicum increases nitrogen fixation and growth in organic and conventional soils. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 478-495. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021028
    [6] Wei Yang, Bryan Anh, Phuc Le . Do consumers care about environmentally sustainable attributes along the food supply chain? —A systematic literature review. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 513-533. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023027
    [7] Edward Kick, Maria Balcazar Tellez, Gretchen Thompson, John Classen . World geography and power, national capitals, and inequality as cross-national causes of food security and environmental outcomes. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(4): 419-438. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.4.419
    [8] Edwin Collado, Anibal Fossatti, Yessica Saez . Smart farming: A potential solution towards a modern and sustainable agriculture in Panama. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 266-284. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.266
    [9] Boris Boincean, Amir Kassam, Gottlieb Basch, Don Reicosky, Emilio Gonzalez, Tony Reynolds, Marina Ilusca, Marin Cebotari, Grigore Rusnac, Vadim Cuzeac, Lidia Bulat, Dorian Pasat, Stanislav Stadnic, Sergiu Gavrilas, Ion Boaghii . Towards Conservation Agriculture systems in Moldova. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(4): 369-386. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.4.369
    [10] Ogunniyi Adebayo, Omonona Bolarin, Abioye Oyewale, Olagunju Kehinde . Impact of irrigation technology use on crop yield, crop income and household food security in Nigeria: A treatment effect approach. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(2): 154-171. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.2.154
  • Scholars and experts argue that future pandemics and/or epidemics are inevitable events, and the problem is not whether they will occur, but when a new health emergency will emerge. In this uncertain scenario, one of the most important questions is an accurate prevention, preparedness and prediction for the next pandemic. The main goal of this study is twofold: first, the clarification of sources and factors that may trigger pandemic threats; second, the examination of prediction models of on-going pandemics, showing pros and cons. Results, based on in-depth systematic review, show the vital role of environmental factors in the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and many limitations of the epidemiologic models of prediction because of the complex interactions between the new viral agent SARS-CoV-2, environment and society that have generated variants and sub-variants with rapid transmission. The insights here are, whenever possible, to clarify these aspects associated with public health in order to provide lessons learned of health policy that may reduce risks of emergence and diffusion of new pandemics having negative societal impact.



    Agriculture today is one of the major contributors of environmental dilapidation [1], but in respect of major increases in production, more than one billion people globally suffer inadequate food and remain malnourished [2,3,4,5]. Organic farming is often suggested as a way-out to this challenge of attaining viable food security. However, it merely constitutes −1% of universal pastoral land and only supplies −1 to 8% of overall food sales in the majority of European and North American nations [6]. Organic is a brand that is recognised and bought by several shoppers, is the fastest emerging food sector in North America and Europe [7]. Assumed that organic farming is a contemporary and preferably extensive farming method and is one of the few legitimately controlled labels in farming, it is imperative to evaluate its benefits and ascertain how it can be improved in terms of its sustainability.

    Conversely, the advantages of organic farming are universally contested, although certain scholars encourage it by way of reducing poverty among rural households and also as one of the solutions to our sustainable food security challenges [8,9,10], while others see it as a drawback of agriculture that would agammaavate food shortage and ecological destruction [11,12,13,14].

    For instance, evidence shows that the per capital food output in sub-Saharan Africa has declined by twenty percent due to a decline in soil fertility over the past 20 years [15,16,17]. Nevertheless, organic farming offers the chance to improve soil fertility, which in turn will increase food production [18,19]. A similar observation was noted by Schnug et al. [12] on what organic farming can offer; which includes improvement of soil fertility, low cost of production, environmental protection, improve farmers' income and higher prices which serve as a premium for organic products sold in the market.

    Organic farming has a distinctive part to play in helping meet an array of goals like; environmental policy goals, and social capability of the organic systems. The environmental policy goals include those associated to fighting desertification and conserving bio-diversity [20], and balancing the magnitudes of global warming through carbon sequestration [21], while the social capability aspect centres on knowledge intensive that can combine traditional and indigenous farming knowledge [18,22]. As a result, the demand for healthier food, free from synthetic pesticide contamination and genetically modified organisms, is increasing the demand for organically produced foods [23,24]. The increase in the demands is related to certain factors such as concern for health [25], safer food [26], and the environment [27]. Improving the environment with the use of renewable resources is thus imperative in the production of safer food that will in turn have a beneficial effect on an individual's well-being [28].

    Previous reviews [8,10,29,30,31,32,33] have concentrated on the advantages of organic handling practices. However, this review will discuss a more significant question across the following scopes: benefits of organic farming in the context of its sustainability, yield performance and stability, economic performance, food security and environmental benefits of organic farming. Nevertheless, assumed the yields vary, and that the primary aim of agriculture is production, it is imperative to further asses the achievement of farming methods per unit output [34]. Per unit output influences are mostly pertinent to the environmentally friendly scopes. Our assessment is restricted to cropping methods. Therefore, animal wellbeing in precise is not discussed.

    The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of literature based on the context reliant of organic farming as a sustainable farming system. To realize this, appropriate research papers were reviewed; after gathering, assessing, and integrating data from an outsized number of sources. The appraisal was actualized systematically using distinct peer-review and non-peer review papers, books, and authorized publications. The basic short phrases used to explore the information were organic farming and sustainability. The terminologies were joined with economic effects, food security and yields, and environmental effects. The aforementioned terms were used in order to find related researches in developing and developed nations. Publications that were not written in English and those that were not from reliable sources are excluded.

    The word sustainability which is increasingly being used by researchers that now centre on the usage of earth's natural resources within a sustainable systems context are either inaccurate or non-existent [35,36]. In the perspective of agricultural production, McNabb [37] describes a viable agriculture as economically sustainable, environmentally friendly, resource- conserving, able of sustaining its efficiency and functionality to society over the long run and socially supportive. Therefore, organic agriculture is said to be an appropriate and sustainable alternative for improving food security [28], increasing farmers' income [38,39] and decreasing input cost [40,41], producing healthy food for household consumption [28] and maintaining an eco-friendly environment [42,43,44].

    There are other facts that should be put into consideration when estimating the viability of the finishing crop produce, which may include the cost-effect performance and dietary aspect that makes organic production sustainable [44]. It is also important to note that organic farming offers some arrays of environmental benefits such as evaporation minimization and water saving, biodiversity conservation, and improved soil component, support adaptation approaches, and lessens greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy efficacy [10,45]. A combination of data from multiple studies by Rahmann [46] indicates that biological diversity in organic holdings is greater than in conventional holdings in that out of a total of 396 related studies, 327 instances revealed greater than in conventional holdings. Similarly, a study by Bengtson et al. [47] in a comprehensive meta-analysis of biodiversity in organic farms reveals that, on average, in organic holdings, animals of the same species multiply in richness by about thirty percent while, the fruitfulness of organisms was fifty percent higher in contrast with conventional methods. Faunas' abundance in birds, predacious insects, plants and soil micro-organisms augmented while non-predacious insects and pest did not increase. However, the soil conservation approaches in organic farms have the capability to rebuild degenerated lands and to stop further degeneration in resistless areas [48].

    The approaches employed to preserve the soil in organic methods include; planting cover crops, moderate or zero tilling of the soil, mulching and contour tilling, and soil coheres as well as terraces [49]. A study by Gattinger et al. [50] indicates that the proportion of organic soil material in organic schemes is remarkably more than in conventional methods. The findings of this research, however, shows that organic material augments water infiltration into the soil and therefore lessen soil disintegration by expanding soil food-webs that enhance the nitrogen (N) sequence within the soil [45], hence conserve water resources. Additionally, in line with the exclusion of manmade manures and pesticides in organic production, the menace of soil, air and water pollutions by synthetic materials is substantially lesser than in conventional methods [51,52]. The organic farming method has a significant benefit with respect to energy use [53,54,55] as compared to conventional methods. For instance, in organic maize production, fossil fuel materials were thirty-one percent lesser than conventional farms and seventeen percent lesser in soybean production [56]. Similarly, a study carried-out by Mader et al. [57] in Central Europe on organic farming revealed that the fertilizer inputs and energy use were lessened by thirty-four percent to fifty-three percent. Ultimately, without doubt, organic farming has proved to be more significant and appropriate for small-scale farmers because of its dual ability for mitigation and adaptation approaches, both of which improve the environs' resilience to climate variability [50].

    Given the rising interest for organically made foods, questions relating to the capability of organic techniques to succeed like the modern and imminent universal agricultural demand have been raised [43,44]. Fess and Benedito [44] argued that some authors often allude to low yield productivity as the main barrier impeding the reliance of agricultural collaborators in the capability of organic techniques to meet up with the necessities of the populace. However, yield is habitually the only facet of crop productivity that is mostly debated when relating entire scheme conventional and organic practices.

    Generally, crop yield is usually regarded by farmers as the ultimate essential achievement in crop production [44]. The variation in crop produces between organic and conventional techniques has long been viewed as the main problem constraining the acceptance of organic production management by either small or large farmers [44]. The extant literature shows that, studies that have pointed out yield gap between organic and conventional crops include; Pimentel et al. [52]; Badgley et al. [9]; De Ponti et al. [58]; Seufert et al. [45]; Lee et al. [59]; Kniss et al. [60]; and Suja et al. [61]. In their various findings, they observed that most of these studies comprise elements that may generate partiality when explaining the results. Pimentel et al. [52]; Badgley et al. [9]; De Ponti et al. [58]; Seufert et al. [45]; Lee et al. [59]; Kniss et al. [60]; and Suja et al. [61] further added that exploratory weaknesses that often affect the cogency of early studies differentiating scheme produces comprised of; the use of crop species established for conventional high-input schemes, which are likely not have the same high quality potential in a resource-restricted condition, as well as uneven utilizations of fertilizer between schemes. Although numerous exploratory partialities are present, the results of Lee et al. [59]; Kniss et al. [60]; and Suja et al. [61] state that crop yield under conventional management is higher when compared to organic systems, especially among grains and horticultural crops. On the other hand, an insignificant number of studies have investigated considerable produces from organic schemes mainly for forage (buckwheat, alfalfa, and rye) and hay (perennial and legumes) crops compared to conventional schemes [44].

    Yields of organic farms in most developing nations are often too low as compared to conventional farms, and this may be a drawback for some farmers in the production system [48,62,63]. Jouzi et al. [48] argued that organic agriculture is advantageous to resource-poor farmers in improving food security and increasing income. The prospective benefits of organic farming depend, conversely, upon a number of vast context specific factors like economic, environmental, social benefits, health and dietary benefits derived in organic foods [37,64,65]. The International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD], [66] noted in an assessment conducted in Latin America on small-scale organic farms that these factors require management of a collection of knowledge. However, knowledge should be centred upon farmers' organization, technical support and quality control on food production, which will further contribute to the development of small-scale farmers in ensuring food security, increased income and enhanced livelihoods. Notwithstanding, Table 1, shows a relative evaluation on yield differences between 'organic and conventional' methods as indicated by several scholars.

    Table 1.  Analysis on yield difference between organic and conventional methods.
    Citation Author's conclusions
    [58] Based on yield average, organic was "80%" higher from those of conventional methods.
    The comparative yield of pre-2004 statistics were statistically related to 2004-2010 figures, signifying that relative yield performance of organic system had not changed.
    [45] Across various produces, yields from organic methods were on average "25%" lower as compare to conventional ones.
    Vegetables and cereals from organic production are reported to have a lower yields than conventional crop, "26% and 33%", respectively.
    Organic fruits and oilseed crops show a slight reduction in yields as compared to conventional ones, "3% and 11%" respectively.
    An improved organic realization of "perennial over annual crops, and legumes over non-legumes" was demonstrated.
    The difference in yield between organic and conventional produces in developing nations is higher than in developed nations, "43% and 25%" respectively.
    [67] Yields from organic cotton systems was "42% lesser than conventional ones during the first rotational cycle, while yields were equal in cycle 2".
    Yields from soybean were "7% lesser" in organic systems than conventional systems.
    Yields from wheat in organic fields was "37% lesser" than conventional counterpart during the first rotational system, but equal afterwards.
    [59] Saleable yield was greater in "conventional than organic onion fields, 71.5 and 55.8 t ha", respectively.
    Freshly harvested conventional onion weight "220.2g/plant" was higher than organic onions "175.6g/plant".
    [68] Multiply scientific studies proved that organic yields were "19.2%" lesser than conventional yields ---signifying a lesser yield difference than formerly found.
    Multiple cropping and crop cycle used in organic approaches lessen the yield gap.
    [60] Hay from organic systems had equal yields or greater than conventional hay crops.
    Organic peach, squash, sweet maize, and snap bean yields were equal to conventional counterparts.
    [61] Equal yield attainment of taro in an organic and conventional management practices, "10.61 and 11.12 t ha", respectively.
    Equal yield traits between organic and conventional approaches under "cormel number, yield per plant, and weight and number of mother corms".
    Source: Adapted from Fess and Benidito (2018).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The meta-analysis on yield difference from various authors has shown different results on yield performance of organic against conventional farming. The differences in the average yield performance may be attributed to different management practices, region and different agro-ecological zones. The average yield performance of organic farming tends to be higher than conventional as reported by some authors in some regions while others reported a lower yield as compared to conventional ones. Though, in some studies, it was observed that organic yields were equal to conventional ones. In general, the findings of various authors show that organic yields are lower than yields in conventional systems.

    The meta-analysis study of the data presented above report yield over a period of time, showing dissimilarities between systems over time. However, the statistics propose that for the duration of the conversion period, the first three to four years of organic production, which is about the same time necessitated to conclude one full crop cycle, organic techniques are susceptible to lesser produces [44], thereafter by periodic rises as the soil attribute and microbe populations are rebuilt, after which the yield difference is notably lower or no longer prevalent (Table 1). The comparative meta-analysis piloted by Ponisio et al. [68] further showed that multiple cropping and extending rotation cycle can further decrease the yield difference between conventional and organic methods by four to nine percent. Furthermore, it should be noted that nitrogen that is available in organic systems is determined by the level of nitrogen minerals, which is greatly determined by soil temperature. Thus, it is probable that greater yield differences between systems occur for "early season crops" compared to "mid and late season crops" that are sown into warm soils with larger micro-organism activity.

    It is therefore important to note that on yield average, organic crops were eighty percent higher [58], signifying that there is a prospect for small-scale farmers when they convert to organic management. Additionally, yield differences tend to be higher in organic crops, especially in developing nations [45]. This signifies that farmers can produce surplus which in turn can be exported to developed nations resulting into financial gains for the farmers through the export of their produce.

    Yields are considered as a vital harvest to producers, and for that reason it is directly allied to the monetary performance and the utmost aim of the farming process, as well as the livelihood of families and communities involved [44]. It is thus feasible that if the cost-effect achievement of organic schemes is akin to those of conventional practices, then more farmers would think about shifting to organic management system. Fess and Benedito [44] noted that the economic performance of a crop can be evaluated by lessening the overall expense of agricultural inputs required for production from the current market price of the harvest. Fess and Benedito [44] further argue that regardless of the clearly unrelated input practices, a number of current studies specify that the overall expenses related with production were largely comparable. These variations were accredited primarily to the use of labour and synthetic inputs, specifically the control of pest using mechanical method. A number of studies that have compared comparative analysis of organic to conventional crops includes; Crowder and Reganold [69]; Sgori et al. [70]; Bett and Ayieko [71]; and Fess and Benedito [44]. Their studies focused on the financial competiveness of production techniques and found out that labour expenditures were seven percent higher in organic methods as compared to their conventional counterparts. However, the augmented labour expenditures were counterbalanced by the cost related with the use of fertilizers and pesticides in conventional systems. Similarly, Bennett and Franzel [72] noted that the augmented labour force needed for organic production has been recommended as a means to enhance rural firmness in Latin America, Mediterranean area, and Africa, through the reallocation of assets to the underemployed, possibly resulting to economic enhancements for the neighbouring communities. Therefore, the role of organic farming cannot be underestimated as it has been proved to have a positive impact on the economy of a nation, through the provision of increased manpower, leading to rural stability.

    Crowder and Reganold [69] while relating the global competitiveness of organic farming in an innovative meta-analysis, indicate that organic techniques were significantly more cost-effective in spite of lower crop harvests, obtaining twenty-two to thirty-five percent higher net present value (NPV) in contrast to conventional ones. Generally, the economic performance of organic schemes is said to rely on the "premium prices" attained at the market [44]. According to Bett and Ayieko [71], the price of organic produces is usually thirty percent higher than those of the non-organic produces. Nevertheless, the break-even premium entailed to counterpart the economic performance of conventional schemes, factoring in the roughly twenty percent lesser yields of organic fields, demands that premium prices need to be only five to seven percent greater than the price of the conventional ones [69]. Crowder and Reganold [69] also argue that the consistency and economic suitability of organic methods is greater than that of conventional processes. Thus, it is vital to retain ethics that ensue in excellence products to keep consumer trust. However, "premium prices" attached to organic products, coupled with the potential long-term profitability offered by organic produces should provide attractive motivations to organic producers to make the transition to organic production more lucrative. Table 2, shows a relative evaluation of economic performance between organic and conventional cropping methods.

    Table 2.  Economic performance between organic and conventional cropping techniques.
    Citation Author's conclusions
    1. [40] Total revenues for organic systems were higher than conventional ones, US "$286" and "$78" acre, respectively.
    In conventional systems cost-effect risk was higher than organic ones with similar rotation cycle of three years.
    2. [67] Higher gross margin (21%) was observed in conventional systems during the first length of the two years rotation but after the second phase organic gross margin were higher.
    Different variable cost in conventional production (cotton-38%, soybean-66%, and wheat-49%) respectively, was greater compared to organic systems.
    Costs of labour were the same in both production systems.
    3. [73] Overall life progression cost of conventional lemon was higher (€180,533) than organic production (€178,074 ha) respectively.
    Costs of producing conventional oranges were greater compared to organic ones, €154,110 ha, and 133,159 ha, respectively.
    4. [74] Initial and imminent expenses of conventional and organic olive productions were the same.
    Costs of soil management were greater in organic olives compared to conventional ones.
    Earnings were greater in the organic systems than conventional counterparts due to premium price and subsidies applied.
    Organic systems experienced greater internal rate of return [IRR] of 3.51% than conventional counterparts 3.37%.
    5. [69] Costs of labour in organic production were 7% higher than conventional ones.
    NPV of organic farming was lesser 27% than conventional ones 23% when price premiums are not attached.
    When premiums are attached, organic systems were 22-33%, more cost-effective than conventional ones.
    Overall costs, NPV, total revenues, and benefit/cost ratios for organic were higher compared to conventional ones over 40 years study period.
    6. [71] For low input organic agriculture, NPV was higher as compared to conventional ones in Kenya.
    7. [39] Soybeans from organic system were more profitable than conventional ones
    Organic system had a higher mean performance of profitability (11-15%) greater than conventional ones, but was allied with higher risk.
    Source: Adopted from Fess and Benedito (2018).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The findings of Crowder and Reganold in the data presented in Table 1, suggest that organic systems were significantly more profitable in spite of their lower yields, attaining twenty-two to thirty-five percent higher net present value (NPV) in contrast to conventional ones. Although, findings show that organic produces are more lucrative as a result of the premium price they attain when selling the products (Table 2). As a result of the premium price in organic production, there is a greater effective net cash flow that resulted to a reduced period of attaining an effective net cash flow. However, if premiums are not applied to these produces, the economic gains of organic production could be lessen below conventional ones. Quite a number of current studies contrasting profitability confirmed that organic systems receive more financial gain than conventional ones. Reliably, higher NPV and IRR have been reported across different crops like field crops and tree fruit grown within the organic system in contrast to conventional system (Table 2). The figures show that the financial gains earned differ based on crop and the country at which they are grown. Notwithstanding, the organic revenues were not consistently sizeable over conventional production, but it was noted that they may offer adequate incitement subject to the financial condition of the producer/farmer, especially for those in developing nations and evolving markets.

    Generally, the financial figures outlined from a number of studies show that the cost-effective achievement of organic systems is dependent on the premium prices attained at the market. At present, the price of organic produces is basically thirty percent higher than those of non-organic ones as highlighted in (Table 2). It is therefore imperative to note that premium prices are significantly higher than the break-even prices. The prospective longstanding profitability offered by organic produces should therefore offer attractive incitements to farmers to make the conversion to organic management.

    At the 1996 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) on World Food Summit, as cited in the work of Pérez-Escamilla [75] the term food security is described as the capability of all individual at all time to have access to adequate, non-toxic, and nourishing food to sustain a healthful and lively life. For all individuals to be food secure; the pillars of food security must be considered. These pillars are summarized into four dimensions as noted by FAO [76]; Aborisade and Bach [77]; and Pérez-Escamilla [75] as food availability, accessibility, utilization or affordability, and stability. Kanu [78] highlighted in a review on organic farming that food accessibility is attained when households and individuals have adequate sources to consume a suitable diet.

    Several studies have indicated that organic farming could add significantly to farmers' food security and enhance farmers' livelihoods [18,50,78,79]. However, if organic farming is to play a significant part in providing sustainable food security and viable incomes, it needs to be accessible to resource-poor farmers. Organic farming by its approach has realised three of the Sustainable Development Goals. These goals are summarized by Setboonsarng and Gregorio [28] in Table 3.

    This approach however, relies on five variables to realize its proposed purpose such as human, natural, physical, social, and financial development, hence supporting and forming these variables will help to mitigate many of the factors that inhibit food security in the world [80].

    Table 3.  Summary of the potential and realized benefits of organic farming in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals.
    Goal Potential contributions
    SDG 1: Eradication of extreme poverty Provide incomes to resource-poor and marginal farmers.
    Low cash costs suitable to resource-poor and marginal farmers.Sustainable production.
    Higher incomes from premiums of organic produce.
    Labour-intensive nature can help absorb excess rural labour and can lower rates of rural-urban migration for work.
    SDG 2: Zero hunger Diversified cropping system, mitigate risks of crop failure.
    More nutritious food.
    Enhance productivity and sustainability of productive bases.
    Helps protect genetic resources.
    SDG 3: Good health and well-being Non exposure to chemicals improves health and promotes healthy lifestyles.
    Source: Adopted from Setboonsarng and Gregorio (2017).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Agricultural land use is not only the prime driver of biodiversity loss [81], but methods of producing food that also rely on several guidelines and underpinning ecosystem services like soil nutrient cycling, pest regulation and crop pollination from biodiversity are also some of teeming causes of biodiversity loss [82]. Restoring biodiversity loss in agricultural methods of producing food requires practices such as organic farming handling methods of food production. The advantages of organic handling for biological diversity of flora and fauna on plantations are comprehensible, with a distinct rise in living organism richness of forty to fifty percent across various taxa [20,47]. The impact of organic farming on species richness is less clear, ranging from one to thirty-four percent as indicated by [62]. However, some scholars have asserted that the frequently perceived species abundance upshot [47,83] might be determined by an elementary control group outcome at higher organism compactness [20].

    In general, it appears that plants [83] and bees [84] are more advantageous from organic handling, although other arthropods and birds benefit to a lesser extent [83,85]. It was observed that higher advantages of organic handling are seen in basic landscapes with high agricultural land cover [83] and lesser habitat quality [84] and in regions with intensive agriculture [85]. There is evidence that clearly shows that organic farming has a resilient influence on biodiversity in arable methods (for instance, cereal) as compared to grassland methods [83,85] and a stronger influence based on individual fields than at the farm scale [85].

    Due to the significance of habitat transformation for biodiversity loss, an evaluation of the influence of farming methods on biodiversity has to control yields, which a small number of studies have carried out to date [86,87]. The studies of both Gabriel et al. [86] and Schneider et al. [85] proposed that there are trade-offs between the biodiversity advantages of organic handling yields. However, Gabriel et al. [86] further argued that although previous studies had revealed higher organic advantages for biodiversity per unit area in basic landscapes [50,88,89], in a diverse and low-productivity landscapes, biodiversity per unit efficiency might be of better advantage specially from organic handling practices. Reasons given by these scholars were due to lesser yield variance between organic and its conventional counter-part.

    Soil quality in relation to soil healthiness has frequently remained at the fundamental of organic beliefs [90]. Soil formation and soil mineral replenishment are vital supporting means for producing food [82]. On the other hand, soil dilapidation and soil attrition, which currently have a negative effect on outsized areas of land as a result of the continual use of croplands and rangelands, impend present and imminent ways of producing food and are a crucial sustainability challenge for agriculture [91].

    Various meta-analyses and quantitative studies have revealed that soils under organic management systems have higher organic carbon content [50,88,89,92]. Similarly, studies have also classically identified reduced soil erosion from organic farms due to enriched soil composition [93,94], but more studies are required to quantify these variables [62]. Primary studies for instance, Mäder et al., [57]; Stockdale et al., [95]; Watson et al., [96] have equally revealed enhancements in other soil health and richness specifications such as soil mineral condition and or soil physical properties under organic handling. In spite of these generally positive influences of organic handling on soil specifications, the soil fauna does not appear to be species rich in organic soils [47,83], but it is more rich in soils that are organically managed [47].

    Nevertheless, it is important to note that the amount of organic matter inputs, such as composts or animal manure, has a greater impact on soil organic carbon content [89,50,88]. However, there is poor understanding of other prospective significant drivers, like the presence of legumes in crop rotation [50], or of the influence of organic farming on soil quality per unit output [93,94].

    Agriculture, which is accountable for about 22% of universal anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including deforestation [97], is a major contributor to climate change. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from croplands and pasture (excluding livestock methods) are mostly in the form of N2O emissions from agricultural soils (from fertilizer and manure application and crop residue management), CH4 emissions from paddy cultivation, and CO2 emissions through energy use for instance, for fertilizer production and machinery use [97].

    Generally, both N2O and total GHG emissions per unit area appear to be lesser under organic handling for most crops [88,98,99]. Studies of organic achievement for CH4 emissions from rice paddy are limited [62]. The review by Skinner et al. [98] is centred on a single-field study. Conversely, the partial proof proposes higher CH4 emissions from organic paddy handling [100]. Overall, organic farming leads to reduced energy use due to avoidance of artificial fertilizers [32,88,99]. Typically, organic agriculture increases soil organic carbon content [50], which is frequently argued to contribute to carbon sequestration [21]. Due to uncertainties about the eventual fate of stored carbon; how long the sequestration will continue; whether it will be permanent and the counterfactual on how the carbon inputs would otherwise have been used, and its potential for climate change mitigation through carbon storage in agricultural soils remains heavily contested [101]. Thus, this study does not consider soil carbon storage as a climate change mitigation option here.

    Due to the importance of land conversion for CH4 emissions that is, deforestation for agriculture represents about 7% of global anthropogenic CH4 emissions [97], per unit output effects are mostly important for climate change mitigation. Emerging evidence on GHG emissions has clearly shown that GHG emissions per unit output mostly comes from modelling and life-cycle analysis studies and show high variability in outcomes [88,99]. On the other hand, N2O emissions per unit output appear to be higher under organic management because of lower yields [98], whereas CH4 emissions from paddy soils per unit output might be even higher than per unit area [100]. However, energy consumption per unit output tends to remain lower in organic management system, but with high variability [32,88,99].

    To date, quite a number of studies have identified background factors driving GHG emissions in organic against conventional systems. Lee et al. [102] revealed that the benefit of organic management in relation to energy consumption is lower for vegetables and fruits, whereas the benefit in terms of GHG emissions was higher in mono-cropping systems compared to multi-cropping and with outcome measures based on area rather than output [102].

    Agriculture centred on organic ethics is fast growing and becoming well known as a promising major contributor towards fighting poverty and hunger, attaining food and nutritional security as well as eco-friendly environment. This is despite the fact that some scholars have criticised it as a drawback to agriculture. Organic farming has some clear advantages and favourable features. For instance, its beneficial impact on local biodiversity, high performance in some conditions, or a livelihood for resource-poor farmers in some circumstances cannot be understated. However, many unresolved questions and concerns remain, like Nitrogen availability, accessibility, and impact on Nitrogen losses from the soil.

    It is also significant to mention that the comparative achievement of organic farming to conventional farming differs substantially. It is highly reliant on context and that estimates of the average performance of organic farming have limited practical use. This study shows superior differences in yield between the two systems, for biodiversity of "plants and pollinators in arable methods and simple landscapes". Conversely, the key factor facing the production of organic food system is the capability of the system to increase yields as compared to conventional schemes. Organic techniques indicate some advantageous system oriented skill, which is essential for enhancing prolonged sustainability and improving biological diversity and is beneficial for farmers who are resource poor.

    The stated goals of organic farming are achieving optimal agro-ecological systems which are socially, ecologically and economically sustainable. In addition, a global shift to organic farming may not only have the prospective to support food production levels but also conserve and improve agricultural soils fertility and health, which in turn increases fauna biodiversity in the soil. Thus, the sustainability and investments of organic farming should be supported by several stakeholders since it can mitigate some of the teeming challenges posed by climate change.

    The authors wish to express gratitude to the University of Fort Hare and also the Govan Mbeki Research and Development Centre of the University of Fort Hare for their support to develop this paper.

    There is no conflict of interest.



    Conflict of interests



    I declare that I am the sole author of this manuscript, and I have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could influence the work reported in this paper. This study has no funders.

    [1] Chowdhury T, Chowdhury H, Bontempi E, et al. (2022) Are mega-events super spreaders of infectious diseases similar to COVID-19? A look into Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics to improve preparedness of next international events. Environ Sci Pollut R 30: 10099-10109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22660-2
    [2] Coccia M (2020) Factors determining the diffusion of COVID-19 and suggested strategy to prevent future accelerated viral infectivity similar to COVID. Sci Total Environ 729: 138474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138474
    [3] Coccia M (2020) Two mechanisms for accelerated diffusion of COVID-19 outbreaks in regions with high intensity of population and polluting industrialization: the air pollution-to-human and human-to-human transmission dynamics. MedRxiv . https://medrxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2020.04.06.20055657v1
    [4] Coccia M (2020) Effects of Air Pollution on COVID-19 and Public Health, Research Article-Environmental Economics-Environmental Policy. ResearchSquare . https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-41354/v1
    [5] Coccia M (2021) Recurring waves of Covid-19 pandemic with different effects in public health. J Econ Bib 8: 28-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v8i1.2184
    [6] Coccia M (2021) High health expenditures and low exposure of population to air pollution as critical factors that can reduce fatality rate in COVID-19 pandemic crisis: a global analysis. Environ Res 199: 111339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111339
    [7] Coccia M (2021) Effects of the spread of COVID-19 on public health of polluted cities: results of the first wave for explaining the dejà vu in the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and epidemics of future vital agents. Environ Sci Pollut R 28: 19147-19154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11662-7
    [8] Coccia M (2022) COVID-19 pandemic over 2020 (with lockdowns) and 2021 (with vaccinations): similar effects for seasonality and environmental factors. Environ Res 208: 112711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112711
    [9] Bontempi E, Coccia M (2021) International trade as critical parameter of COVID-19 spread that outclasses demographic, economic, environmental, and pollution factors. Environ Res 201: 111514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111514
    [10] Bontempi E, Coccia M, Vergalli S, et al. (2021) Can commercial trade represent the main indicator of the COVID-19 diffusion due to human-to-human interactions? A comparative analysis between Italy, France, and Spain. Environ Res 201: 111529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111529
    [11] Akan AP, Coccia M (2022) Changes of Air Pollution between Countries Because of Lockdowns to Face COVID-19 Pandemic. Appl Sci 12: 12806. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412806
    [12] Coccia M (2022) Meta-analysis to explain unknown causes of the origins of SARS-COV-2. Environ Res 111: 113062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113062
    [13] Johns Hopkins Center for System Science and EngineeringCoronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases (2022).
    [14] Núñez-Delgado A, Bontempi E, Coccia M, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogenic microorganisms in the environment. Environ Res 201: 111606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111606
    [15] El-Sadr Wafaa M, Ashwin Vasan, Ayman El-Mohande (2023) Facing the New Covid-19 Reality. N Engl J Med 388: 385-387.
    [16] Coccia M (2023) Effects of strict containment policies on COVID-19 pandemic crisis: lessons to cope with next pandemic impacts. Environ Sci Pollut R 30: 2020-2028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22024-w
    [17] Coccia M (2021) The relation between length of lockdown, numbers of infected people and deaths of COVID-19, and economic growth of countries: Lessons learned to cope with future pandemics similar to COVID-19. Sci Total Environ 775: 145801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145801
    [18] Coccia M (2022) Improving preparedness for next pandemics: Max level of COVID-19 vaccinations without social impositions to design effective health policy and avoid flawed democracies. Environ Res 213: 113566. https://doi.rg/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113566
    [19] Coccia M (2022) COVID-19 Vaccination is not a Sufficient Public Policy to face Crisis Management of next Pandemic Threats. Publc Organ Rev . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00661-6
    [20] Farazmand A (2001) Handbook of crisis and emergency management. CRC Press.
    [21] Farazmand A Crisis and Emergency Management, Theory and Practice (2014).
    [22] Coccia M (2022) Preparedness of countries to face covid-19 pandemic crisis: Strategic positioning and underlying structural factors to support strategies of prevention of pandemic threats. Environ Res 203: 1678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111678
    [23] Dai H, Cao W, Tong X, et al. (2022) Global prediction model for COVID-19 pandemic with the characteristics of the multiple peaks and local fluctuations. BMC Med Res Methodol 22: 137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01604-x
    [24] Krechetov M, Esmaieeli Sikaroudi AM, Efrat A, et al. (2022) Prediction and prevention of pandemics via graphical model inference and convex programming. Sci Rep 12: 7599. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11705-8
    [25] Kuvvetli Y, Deveci M, Paksoy T, et al. (2021) A predictive analytics model for COVID-19 pandemic using artificial neural networks. Decis Anal J 1: 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2021.100007
    [26] Liu Z, Magal P, Webb G (2021) Predicting the number of reported and unreported cases for the COVID-19 epidemics in China, South Korea, Italy, France, Germany and United Kingdom. J Theor Biol 509: 110501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110501
    [27] Šušteršič T, Blagojević A, Cvetković D, et al. (2021) Epidemiological Predictive Modeling of COVID-19 Infection: Development, Testing, and Implementation on the Population of the Benelux Union. Front Public Health 9: 727274.
    [28] Coccia M (2021) Pandemic Prevention: Lessons from COVID-19. Encyclopedia 1: 433-444.
    [29] Khandia R, Singhal S, Alqahtani T, et al. (2022) Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, salient features, high global health concerns and strategies to counter it amid ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Environ Res 209: 112816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112816
    [30] Groh M (2014) Strategic Management in Times of Crisis. Am J Econ Sociol Bus Adm 6: 49-57. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajebasp.2014.49.57
    [31] Alsobh A (2022) Prediction of COVID-19 Disease by ARIMA Model and Tuning Hyperparameter Through GridSearchCV. Emerging Technologies in Data Mining and Information Security: Proceedings of IEMIS 2: 543-551.
    [32] Keshavamurthy R, Dixon S, Pazdernik KT, et al. (2022) Predicting infectious disease for biopreparedness and response: A systematic review of machine learning and deep learning approaches. One Health 15: 100439.
    [33] Magazzino C, Mele M, Coccia M (2022) A machine learning algorithm to analyze the effects of vaccination on COVID-19 mortality. Epidemiol Infect 150: e168. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822001418
    [34] Coccia M (2022) Optimal levels of vaccination to reduce COVID-19 infected individuals and deaths: A global analysis. Environ Res 204: 112314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112314
    [35] Rosenfeld R, Tibshirani RJ (2021) Epidemic tracking and forecasting: Lessons learned from a tumultuous year. PNAS 118: e2111456118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111456118
    [36] Collins GS, Ma J, Dhiman P (2021) There are no shortcuts in the development and validation of a COVID-19 prediction model. Transbound Emerg Dis 68: 210-211.
    [37] PubMedSearch (2023). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.
    [38] ScopusStrart exploring (2023). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic#basic.
    [39] Web of ScienceDocuments (2023). Available from: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search.
    [40] Herby J, Jonung L, Hanke SH (2022) A literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality. Stud Appl Econ .
    [41] Petticrew M, Roberts H (2005) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
    [42] Shakeel SM, Kumar NS, Madalli PP, et al. (2021) Covid-19 prediction models: A systematic literature review. Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives 12: 215-229.
    [43] Clarke J (2011) What is a systematic review?. Evid-Based Nu 14: 64.
    [44] Daszak P, Olival KJ, Li H (2020) A strategy to prevent future epidemics similar to the 2019-nCoV outbreak. Biosafety and Health 2: 6-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bsheal.2020.01.003
    [45] Anderson RM, May RM (1991) Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. Oxford Univisity Press.
    [46] Dobson AP, Carper ER (1996) Infectious diseases and human population history. Bioscience 46: 115-126.
    [47] Wolfe N, Dunavan C, Diamond J (2007) Origins of major human infectious diseases. Nature 447: 279-283. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05775
    [48] Ménard AD, Trant JF (2020) A review and critique of academic lab safety research. Nat Chem 12: 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-019-0375-x
    [49] Hellman MA, Savage EP, Keefe TJ (1986) Epidemiology of accidents in academic chemistry laboratories. J Chem Educ 63: A267.
    [50] Van Noorden R (2013) Safety survey reveals lab risks. Nature 493: 9-10.
    [51] Ayi HR, Hon CY (2018) Safety culture and safety compliance in academic laboratories: A Canadian perspective. J Chem. Health Saf 25: 6-12.
    [52] Simmons HE, Matos B, Simpson SA (2017) Analysis of injury data to improve safety and training. J Chem Health Saf 24: 21-28.
    [53] Kou Y, Peng X, Dingwell CE, et al. (2021) Learning experience reports improve. Acad Res Saf J Che Educ 98: 150-157.
    [54] Li Na, Hu LF, Jin AJ, et al. (2019) Biosafety laboratory risk assessment. J Bios Biosecur 1: 90-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobb.2019.01.011
    [55] Jia P, Yang SJ (2020) China needs a national intelligent syndromic surveillance system. Nature Med 26: 990. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0921-5
    [56] Yuan D, Gao W, Liang S, et al. (2020) Biosafety threats of the rapidly established labs for SARS-CoV-2 tests in China. Environ Int 143: 105964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105964
    [57] Coccia M (2020) An index to quantify environmental risk of exposure to future epidemics of the COVID-19 and similar viral agents: Theory and Practice. Environ Res 191: 110155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110155
    [58] Coccia M (2020) How (Un)sustainable Environments are Related to the Diffusion of COVID-19: The Relation between Coronavirus Disease 2019, Air Pollution, Wind Resource and Energy. Sustainability 12: 9709.
    [59] Coccia M (2021) How do low wind speeds and high levels of air pollution support the spread of COVID-19?. Atmos Pollut Res 12: 437-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2020.10.002
    [60] Coccia M (2021) The effects of atmospheric stability with low wind speed and of air pollution on the accelerated transmission dynamics of COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Studies 78: 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2020.1802937
    [61] Coccia M, Bellitto M (2018) A critique of human progress: a new definition and inconsistencies in society. Quaderni IRCrES-CNR 4: 51-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.23760/2499-6661.2018.017
    [62] Jones AM, Harrison RM (2004) The effects of meteorological factors on atmospheric bio aerosol concentrations-a review. Sci Total Environ 326: 151e180.
    [63] Wei M, Liu H, Chen J, et al. (2020) Effects of aerosol pollution on PM2.5-associated bacteria in typical inland and coastal cities of northern China during the winter heating season. Environ pollut 262: 114188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114188
    [64] Zhong J, Zhang X, Dong Y, et al. (2018) Feedback effects of boundary-layer meteorological factors on explosive growth of PM2.5 during winter heavy pollution episodes in Beijing from 2013 to 2016. Atmos Chem Phys 18: 247-258.
    [65] Rosario DKA, Mutz YS, Bernardes PC, et al. (2020) Relationship between COVID-19 and weather: Case study in a tropical country. Int J Hyg Envir Heal 229: 113587.
    [66] Benati I, Coccia M (2022) Effective Contact Tracing System Minimizes COVID-19 Related Infections and Deaths: Policy Lessons to Reduce the Impact of Future Pandemic Diseases. J Public Admin Gov 12: 19-33. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v12i3.19834
    [67] Bradshaw WJ, Alley EC, Huggins JH, et al. (2021) Bidirectional contact tracing could dramatically improve COVID-19 control. Nat Commun 12: 232.
    [68] Yalaman A, Basbug G, Elgin C, et al. (2021) Cross-country evidence on the association between contact tracing and COVID-19 case fatality rates. Sci Rep-UK 11: 2145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78760-x
    [69] Coccia M, Benati I (2018) Rewards in public administration: A proposed classification. J Soc Adm Sci 5: 68-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jsas.v5i2.1648
    [70] Zhan C, Chen J (2021) An investigation of testing capacity for evaluating and modeling the spread of coronavirus disease. Inform Sciences 561: 211-229.
    [71] Coccia M (2012) Political economy of R&D to support the modern competitiveness of nations and determinants of economic optimization and inertia. Technovation 3: 370-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.03.005
    [72] Coccia M (2014) Driving forces of technological change: The relation between population growth and technological innovation-Analysis of the optimal interaction across countries. Technol Forecast Soc 8: 52-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.06.001
    [73] Coccia M (2018) Classification of innovation considering technological interaction. J Econ Bib 5: 76-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v5i2.1650
    [74] Coccia M (2018) General properties of the evolution of research fields: a scientometric study of human microbiome, evolutionary robotics and astrobiology. Scientometrics 117: 1265-1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2902-8
    [75] Coccia M (2018) Types of government and innovative performance of countries. J Soc Adm Sci 5: 15-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jsas.v5i1.1573
    [76] Coccia M (2019) Comparative Institutional Changes. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1277-1
    [77] Coccia M (2019) Intrinsic and extrinsic incentives to support motivation and performance of public organizations. J Econ Biblio 6: 20-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v6i1.1795.
    [78] Coccia M (2019) Metabolism of Public Organizations. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3711-1
    [79] Coccia M (2020) Fishbone diagram for technological analysis and foresight. Int J Foresight and Innovation Policy 14: 225-247.
    [80] Coccia M (2020) The evolution of scientific disciplines in applied sciences: dynamics and empirical properties of experimental physics. Scientometrics 124: 451-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03464-y
    [81] Coccia M (2021) Comparative Critical Decisions in Management. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3969-1
    [82] Coccia M (2022) Critical innovation strategies for achieving competitive strategic entrepreneurship in ever-increasing turbulent markets. Strategic Entrepreneurship-Perspectives on Dynamics, Theories, and Practices . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86032-5_12
    [83] Coccia M (2022) Technological trajectories in quantum computing to design a quantum ecosystem for industrial change. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management . https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2110056
    [84] Coccia M, Benati I (2017) What is the relation between public manager compensation and government effectiveness? An explorative analysis with public management implications. Quaderni Ircres-CNR 2: 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.23760/2499-6661.2017.001
    [85] Coccia M, Mosleh M, Roshani S (2022) Evolution of quantum computing: Theoretical and innovation management implications for emerging quantum industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management . https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3175633
    [86] Coccia M, Roshani S, Mosleh M (2021) Scientific Developments and New Technological Trajectories in Sensor Research. Sensors 21: 7803. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21237803
    [87] Coccia M (2019) Revolutions and Evolutions. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springe. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3708-1
    [88] Coccia M, Roshani S, Mosleh M (2022) Evolution of Sensor Research for Clarifying the Dynamics and Properties of Future Directions. Sensors 22: 9419. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22239419
    [89] Mosleh M, Roshani S, Coccia M (2022) Scientific laws of research funding to support citations and diffusion of knowledge in life science. Scientometrics 127: 1931-1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04300-1
    [90] Núñez-Delgado Avelino, Zhien Zhang, Elza Bontempi, et al. (2023) Editorial on the Topic “New Research on Detection and Removal of Emerging Pollutants”. Materials 16: 725. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020725
    [91] Pagliaro M, Coccia M (2021) How self-determination of scholars outclasses shrinking public research lab budgets, supporting scientific production: a case study and R&D management implications. Heliyon 7: e05998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e05998
    [92] Pronti A, Coccia M (2021) Agroecological and conventional agricultural systems: comparative analysis of coffee farms in Brazil for sustainable development. Int J Sustainable Development 2: 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2020.115223
    [93] Roshani S, Bagheri R, Mosleh M, et al. (2021) What is the relationship between research funding and citation-based performance? A comparative analysis between critical disciplines. Scientometrics 126: 7859-7874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04077-9
    [94] Roshani S, Coccia M, Mosleh M (2022) Sensor Technology for Opening New Pathways in Diagnosis and Therapeutics of Breast, Lung, Colorectal and Prostate Cancer. HighTech Innov 3: 356-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/HIJ-2022-03-03-010
    [95] Sagan A, Thomas S, McKee M, et al. (2020) COVID-19 and health systems resilience: lessons going forwards. Eurohealth 26.
    [96] Benati I, Coccia M (2022) Global analysis of timely COVID-19 vaccinations: Improving governance to reinforce response policies for pandemic crises. Int J Health Gov . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHG-07-2021-0072
    [97] Ajelli M (2018) The RAPIDD Ebola forecasting challenge: Model description and synthetic data generation. Epidemics 22: 3-12.
    [98] Johansson MA, Apfeldorf KM, Dobson S, et al. (2019) An open challenge to advance probabilistic forecasting for dengue epidemics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116: 24268-24274.
    [99] Reinhart A, Brooks L, Jahja M, et al. (2021) An open repository of real-time COVID-19 indicators. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118: e2111452118.
    [100] McDonald DJ (2021) Can auxiliary indicators improve COVID-19 forecasting and hotspot prediction?. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118: e2111453118.
    [101] KhudaBukhsh WR, Bastian CD, Wascher M, et al. (2023) Projecting COVID-19 cases and hospital burden in Ohio. J Theor Biol 561: 111404.
    [102] Hurford A, Martignoni MM, Loredo-Osti JC, et al. (2023) Pandemic modelling for regions implementing an elimination strategy. J Theor Biol 561: 111378.
    [103] Khairulbahri M (2023) The SEIR model incorporating asymptomatic cases, behavioral measures, and lockdowns: Lesson learned from the COVID-19 flow in Sweden. Biomed Signal Proces 81: 104416.
    [104] Sasanami M, Fujimoto M, Kayano T, et al. (2023) Projecting the COVID-19 immune landscape in Japan in the presence of waning immunity and booster vaccination. J Theor Biol 559: 111384.
    [105] Li Z, Zhao J, Zhou Y, et al. (2023) Adaptive behaviors and vaccination on curbing COVID-19 transmission: Modeling simulations in eight countries. J Theor Biol 559: 111379.
    [106] Vasconcelos GL, Pessoa NL, Silva NB, et al. (2022) Multiple waves of COVID-19: a pathway model approach. Nonlinear Dyn . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-022-08179-8
    [107] Cherednik I (2022) Modeling the Waves of Covid-19. Acta Biotheor 70: 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-021-09428-w
    [108] Leonov A, Nagornov O, Tyuflin S (2023) Modeling of Mechanisms of Wave Formation for COVID-19. Epidemic Math 11: 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11010167
    [109] Cao Z, Qiu Z, Tang F, et al. (2022) Drivers and forecasts of multiple waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A systematic analysis based on an interpretable machine learning framework. Transbound Emerg Dis 69: e1584-e1594. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14492
    [110] Namiki M, Yano R (2022) A numerical method to calculate multiple epidemic waves in COVID-19 with a realistic total number of people involved. J Stat Mech 2022: 033403.
    [111] Safaie Nasser, Kaveie Maryam, Mardanian Siroos, et al. (2022) Investigation of Factors Affecting COVID-19 and Sixth Wave Management Using a System Dynamics Approach. J Healthc Eng . https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4079685
    [112] Wieland T (2020) A phenomenological approach to assessing the effectiveness of COVID-19 related nonpharmaceutical interventions in Germany. Safety Sci 131: 104924.
    [113] Douglas WA (2022) Covid-19 Lockdown Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature. Int J Econ Bus 29: 1-32.
    [114] Biggs AT, Littlejohn LF (2021) Revisiting the initial COVID-19 pandemic projections. The Lancet Microbe 2: E91-E92.
    [115] Korolev I (2021) Identification and estimation of the SEIRD epidemic model for COVID-19. J Econometrics 220: 63-85.
    [116] Chen C, So M, Liu FC (2022) Assessing government policies' impact on the COVID-19 pandemic and elderly deaths in East Asia. Epidemiol Infect 150: e161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822001388
    [117] Mohammadi Z, Cojocaru MG, Thommes EW (2022) Human behaviour, NPI and mobility reduction effects on COVID-19 transmission in different countries of the world. BMC Public Health 22: 1594.
    [118] Stangier U, Kananian S, Schüller J (2022) Perceived vulnerability to disease, knowledge about COVID-19, and changes in preventive behavior during lockdown in a German convenience sample. Curr Psychol 41: 7362-7370.
    [119] Goolsbee A, Syverson C (2021) Fear, lockdown, and diversion: Comparing drivers of pandemic economic decline 2020. J Public Econ 193: 104311.
    [120] Amaro JE (2023) Systematic description of COVID-19 pandemic using exact SIR solutions and Gumbel distributions. Nonlinear Dyn 111: 1947-1969. https://doi.org/10.1007
    [121] Noteboom CB, Zeng D, Godasu R, et al. Applications of deep learning augmented systems for Covid-19 predictions- A literature review (2021).
    [122] Jordan E, Shin DE, Leekha S, et al. (2021) Optimization in the Context of COVID-19 Prediction and Control: A Literature Review. IEEE Access 9: 130072-130093. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3113812
    [123] Hudda MT, Archer L, van Smeden M, et al. (2023) Minimal reporting improvement after peer review in reports of COVID-19 prediction models: systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 154: 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.12.005
    [124] Zhang W, Liu S, Osgood N, et al. (2023) Using simulation modelling and systems science to help contain COVID-19: A systematic review. Syst Res Behav Sci 40: 207-234. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2897
    [125] Bhatia D, Allin S, Di Ruggiero E (2023) Mobilization of science advice by the Canadian federal government to support the COVID-19 pandemic response. Hum Soc Sci Commun 10: 19. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01501-8
    [126] Bundy J, Pfarrer MD, Short CE, et al. (2017) Crises and Crisis Management: Integration, Interpretation, and Research Development. J Manage 43: 1661-1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316680030
    [127] Seeger MW, Sellno TL, Ulmer RR (1998) Communication, organization and crisis. Communication Yearbook 21: 231-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1998.11678952
    [128] Mahmoudi J, Xiong C (2022) How social distancing, mobility, and preventive policies affect COVID-19 outcomes: Big data-driven evidence from the District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia (DMV) megaregion. PloS One 17: e0263820. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263820
    [129] Cao S, Gan Y, Wang C, et al. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat Commun 11: 5917. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19802-w
    [130] Tsiotas D, Magafas L (2020) The Effect of Anti-COVID-19 Policies on the Evolution of the Disease: A Complex Network Analysis of the Successful Case of Greece. Physics 2: 325-339. https://doi.org/10.3390/physics2020017
    [131] Warren GW, Lofstedt R, Wardman JK (2021) COVID-19: the winter lockdown strategy in five European nations. J Risk Res 24: 267-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2021.1891802
    [132] Crow DA, Albright EA, Ely T, et al. (2018) Do disasters lead to learning? Financial policy change in local government. Rev Policy Res 35: 564-589. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12297
    [133] Kapitsinis N (2020) The underlying factors of the COVID-19 spatially uneven spread. Initial evidence from regions in nine EU countries. Reg Sci Policy Pract 12: 1027-1045. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12340
    [134] Williams GA, Ulla Díez SM, Figueras J, et al. (2020) Translating evidence into policy during the covid-19 pandemic: bridging science and policy (and politics). Eurohealth 26: 29-33.
    [135] Newby JM, O'Moore K, Tang S, et al. (2020) Acute mental health responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. PloS One 15: e0236562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236562
    [136] Sirois FM, Owens J (2021) Factors Associated With Psychological Distress in Health-Care Workers During an Infectious Disease Outbreak: A Rapid Systematic Review of the Evidence. Front Psychiatry 11: 589545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.589545
    [137] Whittaker C, Kamaura LT, Takecian PL, et al. (2021) Three-quarters attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the Brazilian Amazon during a largely unmitigated epidemic. Science 371: 288-292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe9728
    [138] Christie A, Brooks JT, Hicks LA, et al. (2021) Guidance for implementing COVID-19 prevention strategies in the context of varying community transmission levels and vaccination coverage. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 70: 1044-1047.
    [139] Bleser WK, Shen H, Crook HL, et al. Health policy brief: pandemic-driven health policies to address social needs and health equity (2022). Available from: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20220210.360906/. opens in new tab.
    [140] Overton D, Ramkeesoon SA, Kirkpatrick K, et al. (2021) Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis on executing communications and engagement at the community level during a health crisis. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
    [141] Ackoff RL, Rovin S (2003) Redesigning Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [142] Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (1999) Ecological rationality: the normative study of heuristics, Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World. New York: Oxford University Press 487-497.
    [143] Janssen M, van der Voort H (2020) Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Inform Manage 55: 102180.
    [144] Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
    [145] Weible CM, Nohrstedt D, Cairney P, et al. (2020) COVID-19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sci 53: 225-241.
    [146] Liu XX, Fong SJ, Dey N, et al. (2021) A new SEAIRD pandemic prediction model with clinical and epidemiological data analysis on COVID-19 outbreak. Appl Intell 51: 4162-4198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01938-3
    [147] Chen B, Zhao Y, Jin Z, et al. (2023) Twice evasions of Omicron variants explain the temporal patterns in six Asian and Oceanic countries. Bmc Infect Dis 23: 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-07984-9
    [148] Milanesi S, Rosset F, Colaneri M, et al. (2023) Early detection of variants of concern via funnel plots of regional reproduction numbers. Scientific reports 13: 1052. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27116-8
    [149] Cameron EE, Nuzz JR, Bell JA (2019) GHS Index Building. Global Health Security Index. Collective Action and Accountability . Washington, USA: Johns' Hopkins University.
    [150] Stribling J, Clifton A, McGill G, et al. (2020) Examining the UK Covid-19 mortality paradox: pandemic preparedness, healthcare expenditure, and the nursing workforce. J Adv Nurs 76: 3218-3227. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14562
    [151] Coccia M (2019) Comparative World-Systems Theories. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3705-1
    [152] Coccia M (2018) World-System Theory: A sociopolitical approach to explain World economic development in a capitalistic economy. J Econ Pol Econ 5: 459-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jepe.v5i4.1787
    [153] Coccia M (2017) The source and nature of general purpose technologies for supporting next K-waves: Global leadership and the case study of the U.S. Navy's Mobile User Objective System. Technol Forecast Soc 11: 331-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.019
    [154] Coccia M (2015) General sources of general purpose technologies in complex societies: Theory of global leadership-driven innovation, warfare and human development. Technol Soc 42: 199-226. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.05.008
    [155] Coccia M (2019) The Role of Superpowers in Conflict Development and Resolutions. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3709-1
    [156] Coccia M (2020) Destructive Technologies for Industrial and Corporate Change. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3972-1
    [157] Coccia M (2019) Theories of Development. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_939-1
    [158] Coccia M (2014) Converging scientific fields and new technological paradigms as main drivers of the division of scientific labour in drug discovery process: the effects on strategic management of the R&D corporate change. Technol Anal Strateg 26: 733-749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.882501
    [159] Coccia M (2016) Radical innovations as drivers of breakthroughs: characteristics and properties of the management of technology leading to superior organizational performance in the discovery process of R&D labs. Technol Anal Strateg 28: 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1095287
    [160] Coccia M (2020) Asymmetry of the technological cycle of disruptive innovations. Technol Anal Strateg 32: 1462-1477. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1785415
    [161] Coccia M (2021) Evolution and structure of research fields driven by crises and environmental threats: the COVID-19 research. Scientometrics 12: 9405-9429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04172-x
    [162] Coccia M (2019) Metabolism of public research organizations: how do laboratories consume state subsidies?. Publc Organ Rev 19: 473-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-018-0421-y
    [163] Coccia M (2021) Effects of human progress driven by technological change on physical and mental health. Studi Di Sociologia 2: 113-132. https://doi.org/10.26350/000309_000116
    [164] Coccia M (2018) Motivation and theory of self-determination: Some management implications in organizations. J Econ Bib 5: 223-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v5i4.1792
    [165] Coccia M (2017) New directions in measurement of economic growth, development and under development. J Econ Pol Econ 4: 382-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jepe.v4i4.1533
    [166] Coccia M (2010) Foresight of technological determinants and primary energy resources of future economic long waves. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 6: 225-232. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2010.037468
    [167] Coccia M (2009) A new approach for measuring and analyzing patterns of regional economic growth: empirical analysis in Italy. A New Approach for Measuring and Analysing Patterns of Regional Economic Growth . https://doi.org/10.3280/SCRE2009-002004
    [168] Coccia M, Benati I (2018) Comparative Evaluation Systems. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1210-1
    [169] Coccia M (2021) How a Good Governance of Institutions Can Reduce Poverty and Inequality in Society?. Legal-Economic Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and Management: Perspectives on the Dynamics of Institutional Change from Emerging Markets . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60978-8_4
    [170] Coccia M (2018) Competition between basic and applied research in the organizational behaviour of public research labs. J Econ Lib 5: 118-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jel.v5i2.1652
    [171] Coccia M (2018) Economic inequality can generate unhappiness that leads to violent crime in society. Int J Happiness and Development 4: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHD.2018.090488
    [172] Coccia M (2022) Probability of discoveries between research fields to explain scientific and technological change. Technol Soc 68: 101874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101874
    [173] Coccia M (2021) Technological Innovation. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology . John Wiley & Son. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeost011.pub2
    [174] Coccia M, Benati I (2018) Comparative Studies. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governanc . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1197-1
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Denis Lairon, Benjamin Allès, Louise Seconda, Pauline Rebouillat, Joséphine Brunin, Rodolphe Vidal, Bruno Taupier-Letage, Pilar Galan, Marie-Josèphe Amiot, Sandrine Péneau, Mathilde Touvier, Christine Boizot-Santai, Véronique Ducros, Louis-Georges Soler, Jean-Pierre Cravedi, Laurent Debrauwer, Serge Hercberg, Brigitte Langevin, Philippe Pointereau, Julia Baudry, Key Findings of the French BioNutriNet Project on Organic Food–Based Diets: Description, Determinants, and Relationships to Health and the Environment, 2022, 13, 21618313, 208, 10.1093/advances/nmab105
    2. Josef Navrátil, Stanislav Martinát, Richard J. Hewitt, Ryan J. Frazier, Petr Klusáček, Jaroslav Škrabal, Tomáš Krejčí, Robert Osman, Kamil Pícha, Community Landscape Preferences for Reuse of Soviet‐Era Post‐Agricultural Brownfields—What's the Difference?*, 2023, 0036-0112, 10.1111/ruso.12479
    3. Siphelele Vincent Wekeza, Melusi Sibanda, Kenneth Nhundu, Prospects for Organic Farming in Coping with Climate Change and Enhancing Food Security in Southern Africa: A Systematic Literature Review, 2022, 14, 2071-1050, 13489, 10.3390/su142013489
    4. Maurizio Canavari, Federico Gori, Selene Righi, Elena Viganò, Factors fostering and hindering farmers' intention to adopt organic agriculture in the Pesaro-Urbino province (Italy), 2022, 7, 2471-2086, 108, 10.3934/agrfood.2022008
    5. Damilola T Aladesuru, Lukas Cechura, Sebastian Neuenfeldt, Till Kuhn, Zuzana Smeets Kristkova, Zdeňka Žáková Kroupová, Tomas Ratinger, Alexander Gocht, Marc Müller, Hugo Storm, Impacts of agricultural production decisions on the safe and just operating space: A systematic literature review, 2024, 2633-9048, 10.1093/qopen/qoae027
    6. Shivani Garg, Nelson Pynadathu Rumjit, Pooja Arora, Addressing climate change impacts through sustainable agricultural solutions: a review, 2024, 1573-2975, 10.1007/s10668-024-05728-6
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(4767) PDF downloads(205) Cited by(77)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(4)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog