Intersecting Dynamics of Agricultural Structural Change and Urbanisation within European Rural Landscapes: Change Patterns and Policy Implications

Download Intersecting Dynamics of Agricultural Structural Change and Urbanisation within European Rural Landscapes: Change Patterns and Policy Implications

Post on 03-Feb-2017




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [University of Winnipeg]On: 11 September 2014, At: 15:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Landscape ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:</p><p>Intersecting Dynamics of AgriculturalStructural Change and Urbanisationwithin European Rural Landscapes:Change Patterns and Policy ImplicationsJrgen Primdahla, Erling Andersena, Simon Swaffieldb &amp; LoneKristensenaa Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management,University of Copenhagen, Denmark.b School of Landscape Architecture, Lincoln University, NewZealand.Published online: 09 May 2013.</p><p>To cite this article: Jrgen Primdahl, Erling Andersen, Simon Swaffield &amp; Lone Kristensen (2013)Intersecting Dynamics of Agricultural Structural Change and Urbanisation within European RuralLandscapes: Change Patterns and Policy Implications, Landscape Research, 38:6, 799-817, DOI:10.1080/01426397.2013.772959</p><p>To link to this article:</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp;</p><p></p></li><li><p>Conditions of access and use can be found at</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inni</p><p>peg]</p><p> at 1</p><p>5:09</p><p> 11 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p><p></p></li><li><p>Intersecting Dynamics of AgriculturalStructural Change and Urbanisation withinEuropean Rural Landscapes: ChangePatterns and Policy Implications</p><p>JRGEN PRIMDAHL*, ERLING ANDERSEN*, SIMON SWAFFIELD** &amp;LONE KRISTENSEN**Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Denmark**School of Landscape Architecture, Lincoln University, New Zealand</p><p>ABSTRACT European rural landscapes are, with few exceptions, characterised by farming andforestry as key functions. Whilst farming has been dominant historically and is still a significantdynamic in most regions, urbanisation is also a vital factor. This involves ruralurban emigra-tion, urban expansion and migration from cities into the countryside (counter-urbanisation). Aconceptual framework for the analysis and understanding of change patterns in European rurallandscapes is presented and then applied at two spatial scales. First, the combined effect on locallandscapes of agricultural structural changes and counter-urbanisation is analysed using datafrom two Danish case studies. Second, their expression at a wider European scale is exploredusing available regional statistics. Research and policy implications of the change patterns areidentified and discussed, highlighting data limitations and challenges of managing the organisa-tional and regulatory interface between local landscapes and international market policy institu-tions.</p><p>KEY WORDS: European landscapes, dynamic interrelationship, changing functions, structuraladjustment, counter-urbanisation</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Historically, the political and socio-economic factors shaping European landscapesexpress differentiation by region and by stateparticularly in law and policy (Olwig,1996). Resulting rural landscapes also reflected natural conditions for agriculture anddifferent regional traditions of agriculture and forestry. However, cheap energy,combined with agricultural modernisation, to a large extent supported by the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) (or equivalent national policies), became important factorsreducing regional differences during the second half of the twentieth century (Jongman,2002). Over the past few decades, globalisation of finance and information (Harvey,2000) and creation of global systems of food production, processing and distribution</p><p>Correspondence Address: Jrgen Primdahl, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management,University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, Frederiksberg 1958, Denmark. Email:</p><p>Landscape Research, 2013Vol. 38, No. 6, 799817,</p><p> 2013 Landscape Research Group Ltd</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inni</p><p>peg]</p><p> at 1</p><p>5:09</p><p> 11 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>(Morgan et al., 2007; Watts &amp; Goodman, 1997) have further synchronised the nature,extent, intensity, velocity, and impacts (Held et al., 1999) of rural landscape change.</p><p>However, despite the cross-cutting dynamics that affect rural landscapes, currentresearch on rural landscape change tends to fall into three broad areas of investigation,which each correspond with different public policy discourses concerning rurallandscapes: 1) analysis of landscape character, both cultural and biophysical, and itsimplications for landscape planning and protection (Fry et al., 2009; Pedroli et al.,2007; Wascher, 2005); 2) analysis of agricultural structural change and its socio-economic and landscape ecological consequences (Brouwer et al., 2008; Evans et al.,2002; Ilbery &amp; Bowler, 1998); and 3) critique of urbanisation and counter-urbanisationprocesses and their implications for ruralurban relationships and periurban landscapes(Antrop, 2004; Busck et al., 2006; European Environment Agency, 2006; Wilson,2007). These different perspectives reflect contrasting disciplinary traditions and differ-ent public policy orientations, and are largely discrete realms of academic and policydiscourse. However, in order to understand and better manage rural landscape change inthe context of global trade and sustainability imperatives, and in order to implementlandscape specific imperatives such as the European Landscape Convention, it isnecessary to analyse and interpret the landscape effects of structural change inagriculture and urbanisation in combination.</p><p>This paper therefore asks the question: how are the complex dynamics at the intersec-tion of agricultural structural change and urbanisation expressed within European rurallandscapes? The analysis is undertaken at two scales: first at the local scale, with afocus on the agents who manage change, and second at the wider regional scale,focused on key indicators of change. At the local scale, agricultural landscapes areproduced, maintained and changed by farmers as the primary agent, and we analysehow different types of farmers are affecting two contrasting Danish landscapes. We usethe actions of full-time farmers as indicators of commercial imperatives for structuralchange, and hobby farmers as indicators of counter-urbanisation (Primdahl, 1999;Primdahl &amp; Kristensen, 2011). In order to supplement this agent-focused analysis witha more general, structural investigation we also present a study of 168 Western andSouthern European regions in which we focus on patterns of intensive agriculture (andintensification) seen in relation to simple indicators of agricultural conditions and thedegree of urbanisation. The approach is exploratory (rather than hypothesis testing), andcombines both inductive and deductive elements of analysis (Overmars et al., 2007) inorder to analyse the intersecting dynamics at two spatial scales. Implications fordeveloping an integrated policy approach to the management of landscape change arethen briefly discussed.</p><p>Changing Agricultural Landscapes: Key Concepts and Analytical Framework</p><p>This section introduces concepts that underpin the investigation, and outlines twocomplementary frameworks of analysis. One focuses upon the conditions of agriculturalproduction and their relationship with urbanisation (Figure 1), the other on public policyand the farmer as a landscape manager (Figure 2).</p><p>Basic natural conditions for agricultural production include soil, water, drainage,terrain, and climate, which establish the suitability of landscapes for production (Tivy,</p><p>800 J. Primdahl et al.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inni</p><p>peg]</p><p> at 1</p><p>5:09</p><p> 11 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>1990). Conditions vary greatly in space. Their significance may also change over time,as technological innovation changes the opportunities to produce, and thus thecomparative advantage of different areas for agriculture (Munton, 1992). However, inthe long term and on the large spatial scale these conditions are relatively stable (setting</p><p>Poor conditions foragriculture </p><p>High levels ofurbanisation </p><p>Low levels ofurbanisation </p><p>Good conditions foragriculture </p><p>Figure 1. Two main drivers of agricultural landscapes agriculture and urbanisation includingcounter urbanization and general influence of urban investments and urban values. (Modifiedfrom Primdahl and Swaffield 2010, p7).</p><p>Agricultural structural </p><p>developments </p><p>Sustainability policy agenda </p><p>Farmer as local agent </p><p>Producer-owner-citizen </p><p>Urbanisation (including counter-</p><p>urbanisation) </p><p>Land suitability Management </p><p>Local landscapes </p><p>Open market policy agenda </p><p>Figure 2. The two important policy agendas affecting rural landscape and the other key drivers.(Moderated from Primdahl and Swaffield 2010 with inspirations from Dwyer and Hodge 2001).</p><p>European Rural Landscapes: Change Patterns and Policy Implications 801</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inni</p><p>peg]</p><p> at 1</p><p>5:09</p><p> 11 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>aside for the moment issues of long-term climate change). Most of the regions inEurope with good conditions for agriculture currently were also considered favourableregions a century ago (Grigg, 1974).</p><p>Intensity of production is a critical variable in determining the character of agricul-tural landscapes. It can be analysed in several dimensions, such as labour, capital,energy, stock units, inputs and outputs. Agricultural intensification occurs where there isneed or potential to increase production due to market changes and/or technologicalinnovations. Intensification has a range of consequences, particularly upon ecosystemsand biodiversity (Tilman et al., 2002). Extensification is the reverse process, in whichinputs to agriculture are reduced, often as a response to declining prices or as partof land retirement (Brouwer et al., 2008). One key feature of the current phase ofglobalisation of agricultural systems is the intensification of particular systems in partic-ular types of location, and the counter trend of extensification in others (Pinto-Correia,2010; Primdahl, 2010).</p><p>Urbanisation is a complex phenomenon which historically has been closely linked toagricultural development (Rosen &amp; Tarr, 1994). Ruralurban migration is a dominantdriving force of urbanisation globally and remains significant even in developed coun-tries. Urbanisation competes for rural resources, as cities offer jobs, higher wages andsocial opportunity (Champion, 2001). This process has been documented in manymarginal regions of Europe and is a major public policy issue (Brouwer et al., 2008).Counter-urbanisation is an opposite movement of people and capital, as urban peoplemove to the country in search of a rural lifestyle (Champion, 2001; Kontuly, 1998),for retirement, as commuters, or as IT-based home workers. Counter-urbanisation hasalso been well documented in Europe (Fielding, 1982), and can lead to gentrificationof formerly agricultural settlements and increased part-time or hobby farming (Buscket al., 2006; Primdahl, 1999). Here the challenge for landscape policy is different, butstill relates to changing agricultural function and landscape patterns, combined with theeffects of new development in rural settlements.</p><p>Urban expansion into formerly rural land as suburbs and new towns represents athird dimension of urbanisation (Antrop, 2004). Although the absolute land areaconverted to urban uses may not be large in proportion to the region as a whole, theeffects can be extensive, for example through land values. Introduction of urban relatedfunctions into rural areas such as water storage, transportation infrastructure, distributioncentres, high-tech factories and recreational facilities, all contribute to disorganisedurban sprawl (European Environment Agency, 2006).</p><p>Figure 1 illustrates possible relationships between agricultural conditions andurbanisation. The vertical axis shows conditions for agriculture as a gradient from verygood (fertile, well drained soils with favourable climate and well functioning agricul-tural structures) to very poor (poor soils, unfavourable climate, inadequate structures orcombinations of these). The second axis indicates the proximity to urban centres,ranging from urban fringe to remote rural landscapes.</p><p>The position of the regions in this matrix willto a significant extentframe thedynamics and change forces affecting landscape. However, these relationships are notpredetermined, as urbanisation and agricultural structural changes are not the onlychange factors of importance to agricultural landscapes. Rural communities also initiatechange (van der Ploeg et al., 2002). Furthermore, relationships between urban and rural</p><p>802 J. Primdahl et al.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inni</p><p>peg]</p><p> at 1</p><p>5:09</p><p> 11 </p><p>Sept</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>areas are not geographically simple, with various dynamics typically expressed throughlayered networks (Murdoch, 2000).</p><p>Public Policy Agendas</p><p>The location of a region in the matrix of suitability and urbanisation and its characteris-tic intensity is more than a tool to compare and contrast regions. It is also an indicatorof needs and relevance of various public policy interventions that provide the regula-tory, incentive and advisory frameworks for agricultural landscape change. Two setsof policies in particular affect rural landscapes in Europe. First, there is the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) and other market policies related to land, food and energy.The CAP is under reform through progressive decoupling of payments to fa...</p></li></ul>


View more >