Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:17:42.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Globalisation and the local agricultural landscape: current change patterns and public policy interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Jørgen Primdahl
Edited by
Jørgen Primdahl  and
Simon Swaffield
Jørgen Primdahl
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Simon Swaffield
Affiliation:
Lincoln University, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The way in which a place is shaped depends partly on autonomous decisions and actions taken by local people, partly on local adaptations and responses to decisions and events from outside, and partly on outside decisions. The specific balance or constellation of such events, decisions and actions is a key to understanding the differences between places, and likewise a key to understanding differences and similarities in the way local agricultural landscapes are changing (Jones, 1988). Unfortunately this key is not a simple one, for a number of highly interrelated reasons. First of all because external driving forces are complex and increasingly affecting the local landscape. These changes in external influence happen either through overall shifts in the dynamics of globalisation (as outlined in Chapter 1), or through some of the consequences of these changes, including changes in production, increased migratory movements and urbanisation (Harvey, 1996, 2000), all of which have significant impacts on most agricultural landscapes in the developed world. These changes take place within networks organised at different scales in what Castells has termed the ‘space of flows’, which links changes in the local landscape with decisions and actions taken outside, often at great distances from the landscape in question (Castells, 2000).

A second reason for the complexity of landscape change has to do with the changing social composition of agricultural landscapes and the changing roles and importance of agriculture.

Type
Chapter
Information
Globalisation and Agricultural Landscapes
Change Patterns and Policy trends in Developed Countries
 , pp. 149 - 168
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Caldas, J. C. (1998). Portugal. In CAP and the Rural Environment in Transition. A Panorama of National Perspectives (ed.) Brouwer, F. and Lowe, P.. Wageningen: Wageningen Pers, pp. 285–302.Google Scholar
Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd edition. London: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Dunford, M. (1990). Theories of regulation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 8, 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, P. and Vieira, M. (2000). Portugal: agri-environmental policy and the maintenance of biodiversity-rich extensive farming systems. In Agri-environmental Policy in the European Union (ed.) Buller, H., Wilson, G. A. and Höll, A.. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 203–217.Google Scholar
Evans, N., Morris, C. and Winter, M. (2002). Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 3, 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land Mosaics. The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M., Cloke, P. and Milbourne, P. (1995). Regulation theory and rural research: theorising contemporary rural change. Environment and Planning A, 27, 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groeneveld, R., Bouwman, L., Kruitwagen, S. and Jerland, E. V. (2001). Land cover changes as a result of environmental restrictions on nitrate leaching in dairy farming. Environmental Modelling and Assessment, 6, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Healy, P. (1993). Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. In The Augmentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (ed.) Fisher, F. and Forester, J.. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning, Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformation. Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Howard, E. (1898/1965) Garden Cities of To-morrow. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, K. M. and Reenberg, A. (1986). Landbrugsatlas Danmark. København: C. A. Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Jones, M. (1988). Land-tenure and landscape change in fishing communities on the outer coast of Central Norway, c. 1800 to the present. Methodological approaches and modes of explanations. Geografiska Annaler, B1, 197–204.Google Scholar
Jones, M. (2005). Law and landscape – some historical-geographical studies from northern Europe. In Landscape, Law and Justice (ed.) Peil, T. and Jones, M.. Oslo: Novus Forlag, pp. 95–109.Google Scholar
Just, F. (1994). Agriculture and corporatism in Scandinavia. In Regulating Agriculture (ed.) Lowe, P., Marsden, T. and Whatmore, S.. London: David Fulton Publishers, pp. 31–52.Google Scholar
Knickel, K., Renting, H. and Ploeg, J. D. (2004). Multifunctionality in European agriculture. In Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment. Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality (ed.) Brouwer, F.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 81–103.Google Scholar
Kristensen, L. (2001). Agricultural change in Denmark between 1982 and 1989: the appearance of post-productivism in farming?Danish Journal of Geography, 101, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, L. and Primdahl, J. (2000). Planlægning, landbrug og landskab – en analyseramme. Kart og Plan, 3, 183–194.Google Scholar
Kristensen, L. S., Thenali, C. and Kristensen, S. P. (2004). Landscape changes in agrarian landscapes in the 1990s: the interaction between farmers and the farmed landscape. A case study from Jutland, Denmark. Journal of Environmental Management, 71, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heron, R., Johnston, T., Johnson, R.et al. (1992). Farms and forests. In Changing Places in New Zealand. A Geography of Restructuring (ed.) Britton, S., Heron, R. and Pawson, E.. Christchurch: New Zealand Geographical Society, pp. 91–115.Google Scholar
Meeus, J. H., Wijermans, M. P. and Vroom, M. J. (1990). Agricultural landscapes in Europe and their transformation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 18, 289–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Memon, A. P. and Perkins, H. C. (ed.) (2000). Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand. Auckland: Paul Longman.
Meurk, C. and Swaffield, S. R. (2000). A landscape ecological framework for indigenous regeneration in New Zealand Aotearoa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olwig, K. R. (1996). Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86, 4, 630–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olwig, K. (2002). Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1997). Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2003). Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries. Monitoring and Evaluation. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pinto-Correia, T. (1993). Threatened landscape in Alentejo, Portugal: the Montado and other agro-silvo pastoral systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto-Correia, T. and Mascarenhas, J. (1999). Contribution to the extensification/intensification debate: new trends in the Portuguese montado. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46, 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primdahl, J. (1999). Agricultural landscapes as places for production and for living in owner's versus producer's decision making and the implications for planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primdahl, J. and Swaffield, S. (2003). Segregation and multifunctionality in New Zealand landscapes. In Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment. Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality (ed.) Brouwer, F.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 266–285.Google Scholar
Primdahl, J., Busck, A. and Kristensen, L. (2004). Landscape management decisions and public policy interventions. In The New Dimensions of the European Landscape (ed.) Jongman, R. H. G.. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanners, D. and Bourdeau, P. (1995). Europe's Environment. The Dobris Assessment. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
Vos, W. and Klijn, J. A. (2000). Trends in European landscape development: prospects for a sustainable future. In From Landscape Ecology to Landscape Science (ed.) Klijn, J. A. and Vos, W.. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
Wascher, D. (ed.) (2000). The Face of Europe – Policy Perspectives for European Landscapes. Tilburg: European Centre for Nature Conservation.
White, J. G. H. (1999). The farmlands of New Zealand. In New Zealand Pasture and Crop Science (ed.) White, J. W. and Hodgson, J.. Victoria: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. A. (2001). From productivism to post-productivism and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26, 1, 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. A. (2007). Multifunctional Agriculture. A Transition Theory Perspective. Wallingford: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonneveld, I. S. (1995). Land Ecology. Amsterdam: SPD Publishing.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×