Advertisement

Multifunctional agriculture and multifunctional landscapes — land use as an interface

  • Henrik Vejre
  • Jens Abildtrup
  • Erling Andersen
  • Peter S. Andersen
  • Jesper Brandt
  • Anne Busck
  • Tommy Dalgaard
  • Berit Hasler
  • Henrik Huusom
  • Lone S. Kristensen
  • Søren P. Kristensen
  • Søren Præstholm
Chapter

Abstract

In contemporary sciences dealing with cultural landscapes, the concept of multifunctionality has gained increasing attention in the last decade. The scientific literature displays several attempts to frame the concept (e.g DeVries 2000; Anon 2001; de Groot et al. 2002) but there is much frustration regarding proper sets of broadly based definitions and clear statements concerning the authors’ scientific points of departure (Anon 2001). Multifunctionality is on the one hand used to characterize the activities in the primary production sector, and the land use reflecting the material consequences of the various demands set by the society on land territories — these approaches relate to the agricultural understanding of multifunctionality. On the other hand, multifunctionality is used to characterize the landscape per se. The primary production sector (i.e. agriculture, forestry, horticulture and related land dependent activities) is considered having a primary or main function (production), and related joint productions, typically including a mix of material and non-tangible goods as well as a mix of private and public goods (externalities). Production of food and fibres is generally considered the primary products in this context, but the primary sector produces other material goods too, such as CO2 sequestration, groundwater recharge etc.

Keywords

Forestry Sector Landscape Function Landscape System Landscape Science Multifunctional Landscape 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abler D (2004) Multifunctionality, Agricultural Policy, and Environmental Policy. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33: 8–17.Google Scholar
  2. Anon. (1992) Rio Earth Summit — Agenda 21. UN Dept of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Anon. (1996) Rome Declaration on World Food Security, FAO. Rome Italy.Google Scholar
  4. Anon. (1999) The European Commission: Info-Paper, October 1999, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  5. Anon. (2001) Multifunctionality. Towards an analytical Framework. OECD Publications. Paris.Google Scholar
  6. Anon. (2005) Danish Forest Act. http://www.skovognatur.dk/NR/rdonlyres/9D92132E-C3A3-4EA2-AA7CCA099FA9B765/5784/Forestact.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohman M, Cooper J, Mullarkey D, Normile MA, Skully D, Vogel S, Young E (1999) The use and abuse of multifunctionality. USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  8. Brandt J, Vejre H (2004) Multifunctional Landscapes, Motives, concepts and perspectives. In: Brandt J., Vejre H. (eds) Multifunctional Landscapes. Vol 1 and 2. Advances in Ecological Sciences. Wit Press, Southampton.Google Scholar
  9. DeVries B (2000) Multifunctional Agriculture in the International Context: A Review. The Land Stewardship ProjectGoogle Scholar
  10. Farell EP, Fuhrer E, Ryan D, Anderson F, Huettl R, Piussi P (2000) European forest ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the past. Forest Ecol. Manag. 132: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forman RTT, Godron M (1985) Landscape Ecology. J. Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  12. de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasler B, Romstad E, Schou JS (2003) The complexity of modelling farmers’ provision of landscape goods in a multifunctional setting. In: Brandt J, Vejre H (eds) Multifunctional landscapes-monitoring, diversity and management. Advances in Ecological Sciences Volume 15. WIT Press, Southampton.Google Scholar
  14. Hägerstrand T (1995) A look at the political geography of environmental management. In: Landscape and Life: Appropriate scales for sustainable development. LLASS Working Paper No 17. University College Dublin.Google Scholar
  15. Huusom H. (2005) Transaktionsomkostningsteori og styringsmidler i miljøreguleringen af landbrug. Samfundsøkonomen 2: 20–23.Google Scholar
  16. Leser H (1991) Landschaftökologie. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  17. Meyer H v (1999) Nature and Farming in a European Perspective. Temarapport 1. Natur og Landbrug. Copenhagen, Naturrådet.Google Scholar
  18. Paarlberg PL, Bredahl M, Lee JG (2002) Multifunctionality and Agricultural Trade Negotiations. Review of Agricultural Economics 24: 322–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peterson JM, Boisvert RN, De Gorter H (2002) Environmental policies for a multifunctional agricultural sector in open economies. European Review of Agricultural Economics 29: 423–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Potter C, Burney J (2002) Agricultural Multifunctionality in the WTO-legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies 18:35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rodrigues MR, Gómez EG, Lorente JC (2004) Rural multifunctionality in Europe. The concept and policies. 90th EAAE Seminar “Multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets: Understanding the critical Linkage. Rennes, France.Google Scholar
  22. Romstad E (2004) Multifunctionality — focus and resource allocation. Plenary paper 90th EAAE Seminar Multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets: understanding the critical linkage. October 28–29, 2004, Rennes.Google Scholar
  23. Tait J (2001) Science, Governance and Multifunctionality of European Agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 30: 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vatn A (2002) Multifunctional Agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes. European Review of Agricultural Economics 29: 309–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vatn A, Kvakkestad V, Rørstad PK (2002) Policies for multifunctional agriculture: The trade-off between transaction Costs and Precision. Agricultural University of Norway, Department of Economics and Social Sciences. Report no. 23.Google Scholar
  26. Wytrzens HK, Pistich K (2003) Measuring the multifunctionality of mountaineous grassland in Austria. In: Brandt J, Vejre H (eds) Multifunctional Landscapes. Vol II WIT Press Southampton.Google Scholar
  27. Zonneveld I (1995) Land Ecology. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik Vejre
    • 1
  • Jens Abildtrup
    • 2
  • Erling Andersen
    • 1
  • Peter S. Andersen
    • 1
  • Jesper Brandt
    • 3
  • Anne Busck
    • 4
  • Tommy Dalgaard
    • 5
  • Berit Hasler
    • 6
  • Henrik Huusom
    • 2
  • Lone S. Kristensen
    • 1
  • Søren P. Kristensen
    • 4
  • Søren Præstholm
    • 4
  1. 1.Forest and LandscapeRoyal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityDenmark
  2. 2.Food and Resource Economics InstituteRoyal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityDenmark
  3. 3.Dept of GeographyRoskilde UniversityDenmark
  4. 4.Institute of GeographyCopenhagen UniversityDenmark
  5. 5.Danish Institute for Agricultural SciencesDenmark
  6. 6.National Environmental Research InstituteDenmark

Personalised recommendations