Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:27:03.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Essential multiple functions of farms in rural communities and landscapes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2010

Rebecka Milestad ,
Johan Ahnström  and
Johanna Björklund
Rebecka Milestad*
Affiliation:
Department of Urban and Rural Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7012, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Johan Ahnström
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Lund University, Ecology Building, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden.
Johanna Björklund
Affiliation:
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As farms are consolidated into larger operations and small farms close down for economic reasons, rural areas lose ecological, social and economic functions related to farming. Biodiversity and scenic, open-vista landscapes are lost as fields are left unmanaged. Social and economic benefits such as local job opportunities and meeting places disappear. Four Swedish rural communities were examined to increase our understanding of the functions that a diverse agriculture provides and which of these are lost as farms cease operation and overall rural social capital is depleted. Workshops and interviews with village action groups and with farmers were carried out. Both groups identified key functions from farming that are important to the rural community, such as production of food and fiber, businesses and jobs, human services, local security, ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling and biodiversity, and functions pertaining to quality of life. Several ways in which village action groups can support agriculture were identified that current industrial agriculture and even agri-environmental schemes fail to achieve. These include organizing local meeting places, encouraging local processing and consumption and supporting farmers in their work. We conclude that agriculture and village action groups match well in community development and that policies supporting this match would be useful.

Keywords

multifunctional agricultureecosystem servicesvillage action groupsrural developmentSweden
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 137 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

1Björklund, J., Limburg, K., and Rydberg, T. 1999. Impact of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example from Sweden. Ecological Economics 29:269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Flora, C.B. 2001. Interactions Between Agroecosystems and Rural Human Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Lobao, L. and Stofferahn, C.W. 2008. The community effects of industrialized farming: social science research and challenges to corporate farming laws. Agriculture and Human Values 25:219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Kumm, K.-I. 2003. Sustainable management of Swedish seminatural pastures with high species diversity. Journal of Nature Conservation 11:117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Statistical Sweden. 2008. The Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics. Statistical Sweden, Örebro, Sweden.Google Scholar
7Swedish Dairy Association. 2009. Available at Website http://www.svenskmjolk.se/Default____9.aspx [online] (accessed February 11, 2009).Google Scholar
8Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A., and Wilson, J.D. 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9OECD. 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
10van der Ploeg, J.D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, T., de Roest, K., Sevilla-Guzmán, E., and Ventura, F. 2000. Rural development: from practices and policies towards theory. Sociologia Ruralis 40:391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Stenseke, M. 2006. Biodiversity and the local context: linking seminatural grasslands and their future use to social aspects. Environmental Science and Policy 9:350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Rundlöf, M., Nilsson, H., and Smith, H.G. 2008. Interacting effects of farming practice and landscape context on bumble bees. Biological Conservation 141:417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Brodt, S., Feenstra, G., Kozloff, R., Klonsky, K., and Tourte, L. 2006. Farmer-community connections and the future of ecological agriculture in California. Agriculture and Human Values 23:75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Halhead, V. 2006. Rural movements in Europe: Scandinavia and the accession states. Social Policy and Administration 40:596–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Archer, D.W., Dawson, J., Kreuter, U.P., Hendrickson, M., and Halloran, J.M. 2008. Social and political influences on agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4):272–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Vos, W. and Meekes, H. 1999. Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landscape and Urban Planning 46:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Slee, R.W. 2005. From countrysides of production to countrysides of consumption? Journal of Agricultural Science 143:255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Dobbs, T.L. and Pretty, J.N. 2004. Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and ‘multifunctionality’. Review of Agricultural Economics 26:220–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Knickel, K.H. and Renting, H. 2000. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40:512–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Marsden, T. and Sonnino, R. 2008. Rural development and the regional state: denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 24:422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Marsden, T., Banks, J. and Bristow, G. 2002. The social management of rural nature: understanding agrarian-based rural development. Environment and Planning A 34:809–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Noe, E., Fjelsted Alroe, H., and Langvad, A.M.S. 2008. A polyocular framework for research on multifunctional farming and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 48:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature's Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
24ESA. 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Ecological Society of America, Issues in Ecology, No. 2, Spring, 1997. Available at Web site http://www.esa.org/sbi/issue2.htm. (accessed February 27, 2010).Google Scholar
25Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
26Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., and Bennett, E.M. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. Published online before print March 1, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907284107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Brown, L.W. 2001. Eco-economy: Building an Economy for the Earth. Earth Policy Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
28Wilson, G.A. 2008. From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. Journal of Rural Studies 24:367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Wolf, S.A. 2008. Professionalisation of agriculture and distributed innovation for multifunctional landscapes and territorial development. Agriculture and Human Values 25:203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Dufour, A., Mauz, I., Rémy, J., Bernard, C., Dobremez, L., Havet, A., Pauthenet, Y., Pluvinage, J., and Tchakérian, E. 2007. Multifunctionality in agriculture and its agents: regional comparisons. Sociologia Ruralis 47:316–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Gorman, M., Mannion, J., Kinsella, J., and Bogue, P. 2001. Connecting environmental management and farm household livelihoods: the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland. Journal of Environment Policy and Planning 3:137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Potter, C. and Burney, J. 2002. Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO—legitimate non-trade concern of disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies 18:35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Holmes, J. 2006. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: gaps in the research agendas. Journal of Rural Studies 22:142–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Halhead, V. 2004. The rural movements of Europe. Paper presented at the X World Congress of the International Rural Sociology Association in Trondheim, Norway, July 25–30 2004. Available at Web site http://www.irsa-world.org/prior/XI/papers/1-7.pdf (accessed October 3, 2008).Google Scholar
35McAreavey, R. 2006. Getting close to the action: the micro-politics of rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 46:85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Hela Sverige ska leva. 2010. Homepage. http://www.helasverige.se (accessed February 16, 2010).Google Scholar
37Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J., and Scoones, I. 1995. Participatory Learning and Action—A Trainer's Guide. IIED Participatory Methodology Series, London, UK.Google Scholar
38Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications, London, UK.Google Scholar
39Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, London, UK.Google Scholar
40Jackson, W. 1994. Becoming Native to this Place. Counterpoint Publications LLC, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
41Nordström Källström, H. and Ljung, M. 2005. Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio 34:376–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74:19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Wicker, A.W. 1969. Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues 25:41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Tolbert, C.M., Lyson, T.A., and Irwin, M.D. 1998. Social capitalism, civic engagement, and socioeconomic well-being. Social Forces 77:401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Östman, Ö., Ekbom, B.J., and Weibull, A.-C. 2001. Landscape complexity and farming practices influence the condition of polyphagous carabid bees. Ecological Applications 11:480–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Belfrage, K., Björklund, J., and Salomonsson, L. 2005. The effects of farm size and organic farming on diversity of birds, pollinators and plants in a Swedish landscape. Ambio 34:582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Björklund, J., Westberg, L., Geber, U., Milestad, R., and Ahnström, J. 2009. Local selling as a driving force for increase on-farm biodiversity. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33:885–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., and Snyder, P.K. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed