Future agricultural landscapes

Barr, Neil

doi:10.1080/07293682.2003.9995268

Cited by 46 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The research reported by Ford (1999), Colman et al (2002), Barr (2003), Fisher (2003), Hollier et al (2003Hollier et al ( , 2004, Hodges et al (2004), and Barr et al (2005) does provide some insight into the patterns of socio-economic variation within this sector. The research of Fisher (2003) appears closest to providing a set of profiles of these landholders, yet a comprehensive typology of these landholders is yet to be developed.…”

Section: Comparing Landholder Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The popularity for developing and applying typologies of landholders and farming systems has waxed and waned over the years and seems, at present, to be undergoing a resurgence. The developing interest in landholder typologies appears to parallel the social phenomenon that has been variously described as population turnaround, counter-urbanisation (Newton and Bell 1996;Argent 2002;Barr 2003;Dwyer and Childs 2004) and the 'sea-change' movement (Burnley and Murphy 2004) that has occurred in developed countries since the 1970s.…”

Section: Rationale For Developing Landholder Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cary et al 2001Cary et al , 2002Barr 2003). Many researchers and rural development personnel have argued that decision-makers and service providers need to understand better the variety of socioeconomic circumstances and value systems within the rural community, how this variation affects their land management attitudes and behaviour, and how the lists of landholders' psychological and socio-economic characteristics that are related to adoption of some NRM practice (e.g.…”

Section: Rationale For Developing Landholder Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The movement of urban-based people into rural landscapes has fundamentally altered the nature of the rural community by increasing the diversity of people that manage rural landholdings (Colman et al 2002;Barr 2003;Bohnet 2004;Barr et al 2005). The intermixing of people with varied social value systems and capacities to undertake sustainable land management practices poses a number of challenges to those seeking to promote sustainable land management (Hollier et al 2003;Dwyer and Childs 2004), and has reinforced the need to develop understanding of the socio-economic variability within the rural community.…”

Section: Rationale For Developing Landholder Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Landholder Typologies Used in the Development of Natural Resource Management Programs in Australia – A Review

Emtage¹,

Herbohn²,

Harrison³

2006

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T h i s a r t i c l e r e v i e w s t h e l i t e r a t u r e o n t h e identification of landholder typologies that can be used to assist the design and delivery of naturaldifferences lead to variation in the impacts of policies and programs across the community. The development of classification schemes to help understand the range of variation in a phenomenon and to assist in interpreting the reasons for, and effects of, the variety is characteristic of the development of any scientific discipline (Kostrowicki 1977 Kobrich et al. 2003;Emtage 2004aEmtage , 2004b. There is also considerable interest in being able to track effectively the impacts of financial assistance and economic development programs on landholders in varying circumstances and with differing life values (Johnson 2002; AAFC 2002). Anthropologists, marketing professionals and political analysts, whose task it is to track public opinions, have for a long time sought to identify homogeneous clusters or groups of people in the community.This type of approach can be applied to identify groups (or types) of landholders in relation to NRM. Developing a landholder 'typology' is one way of avoiding a blanket a p p r o a c h t o l a n d h o l d e r s , a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e recognising that it is impossible to have policies and programs tailored to each individual. One advantage of developing a landholder typology is that it provides a multi-dimensional profile of landholders and the interrelationships between their values, attitudes, informationseeking behaviour, socio-economic characteristics and N R M p r a c t i c e s . A n i n t i m a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f landholders' circumstances, values and capacities is needed for successful engagement and development programs (see, for example, Aslin and Brown 2004). Studies that have investigated landholders' capacity to adopt sustainable NRM practices have typically provided * Nick Emtage was formerly

show abstract

Section: Comparing Landholder Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Rationale For Developing Landholder Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rationale For Developing Landholder Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rationale For Developing Landholder Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Landholder Typologies Used in the Development of Natural Resource Management Programs in Australia – A Review

Emtage¹,

Herbohn²,

Harrison³

2006

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The competition for cultivated land is increasing, since it is used not only for food production but also for production of fibre and bioenergy as well as for buildings and roads (Barr 2003;Overbeek 2009;UNEP 2014). Using arable land for other uses can affect national and international food security as well as access by individuals to food and the possibility of remaining on their land in this and future generations (e.g., food sovereignty) (FAO 2009;Patel 2009).…”

Section: Introduction Studying the Competition For Cultivated Land Bymentioning

confidence: 99%

Preservation of Agricultural Land as an Issue of Societal Importance

Slätmo

2017

Rural Landscapes: Society, Environment, History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on concerns about food security and food sovereignty, it is appropriate to scrutinise societal measures for protecting agricultural land from conversion to other uses. Changes from agricultural to urban land use are particularly problematic, as they are largely irreversible. By analysing relevant Swedish policy, the present study investigated how the protection of agricultural land is framed as an issue of societal importance. Protection of agricultural land is enshrined in Swedish law, but its use is still continually changing to housing and other constructions. In a structured policy analysis, two questions were examined: (1) what are the societal motives for protecting agricultural land in Sweden, and (2) how do these motives influence the governance of agricultural land? The meaning of 'national importance', 'suitable for cultivation' and 'significant national interests' in Swedish land-use law was also analysed. The results showed that formulations in the law reflect the ambivalent discourses on agricultural land preservation and that the Swedish authorities view other land uses as more important than agriculture.The Swedish governance system is currently built on trust that municipal institutions will make satisfactory decisions concerning land and water use. However, it has been shown that these decisions have not been satisfactory concerning the protection of agricultural land, and it is important to acknowledge that the sum of local decisions can be degrading for these life-supporting resources. The present analysis revealed a looming conflict between the preservation of soils for food production, on one hand, and local participation in decision making, on the other. This raises the question of whether it is more important to defend subsidiarity or to preserve certain resources which are important for food security, such as agricultural land.

show abstract