Rurality and agroecosystem sustainability: a case study at farm-field level in Terceira Island (Portugal) and in Viterbo Province (Italy)

Abstract

Defining the balance between socio-economical and bio-physical aspects in order to promote sustainable development in agriculture is a fundamental challenge for researchers. The aim of this study is to assist in constructing a science of sustainability in agriculture and to assess sustainability in various types of agroecosystem managements characterized by different agricultural and rural developments. This study evaluates sustainability on Terceira Island (Portugal) and in the Province of Viterbo (Italy) by using selected agroecosystem sustainability indicators capable of achieving an energetic and monetary input/output analysis. Overall, results showed two rural and agricultural realities that outline two different responses to world market demand, which are partly due to specific rural histories. In terms of energy supply, Terceira and Viterbo dairy farms use the same amount of input but in monetary terms the level of input is more than double in Viterbo (€1651 ha−1 versus €616 ha−1) which is due to the lower cost of direct energy (e.g., fuel) on the island. The use of direct energy input (fuel, electricity and lubricants) on the farms in Viterbo decreases in mixed farm systems and is at its minimum on dairy farms. On the other hand, the use of indirect energy input (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, seeds and feedstuffs) is greater on Terceira farms compared with those in Viterbo (0.76 versus 0.60, respectively). Generally speaking, the crops grown on Terceira are not diversified and this has caused environmental issues on the island due to the milk production that is mainly exported. In Europe, more intellectual and financial resources for measuring and monitoring sustainability conditions in agriculture are necessary, in order to appropriately inform decision makers at both institutional and individual level.

In-Between Sprawl and Neo-Rurality: Sparse Settlements and the Evolution of Socio-Demographic Local Context in a Mediterranean Region

“…Based on these premises, spatial planning should find a joint vision of spatial, economic and social combination among 'rurality' and industrial modernity [85]. By proposing new forms of sustainable development in traditional contexts [2,49,79], a new concept of 'rurality' should be increasingly faced with current landscapes that mix scattered settlements and fragmented cropland and are exposed to increasingly volatile economic downturns [86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]. In this regard, rural development is increasingly constrained by competition with non-agriculture, productive land-use (e.g., residential and industrial settlements, infrastructure and logistics).…”

Measurement and Path Selection of Rural Development Level in Enclave Areas: A Case Study of Jingyuan County, Gansu Province

“…The rural regional system is a rural spatial system with a certain structure, function, and interregional connection under the mutual connection and interaction of humanities, economy, resources, and environment [8,12]. From the current research on rural development, the themes focus on rural connotation and rurality [7,13,14], rural development type classification [15][16][17][18], rurality evaluation [19][20][21][22], rural transformation and reconstruction [17,18,23], rural construction, and revitalization [1,2]. Halfacree et al elaborated the specific connotation of rural in four dimensions: the descriptive definition, the sociocultural definition, the rural as geographical area, and the rural as the social representation reproduction [24].…”

“…The research content mainly focuses on the evaluation of rurality and the analysis of influencing factors, while the measurement of the rural development level within the micro unit is less. The existing research mainly focuses on the identification of rural development types [29,30], the construction of rural evaluation indicators [21,25,31], the spatial and temporal differentiation characteristics of rurality [13,32,33], and the evaluation of rural development and transformation. Zhang Xiaolin et al conducted a long-term exploration on the interpretation of the concept, classification, evaluation method, and index system of rurality, evaluated the rurality of different scales and regions in Jiangsu Province, and explored the evolution and influence mechanism of the rural spatial pattern [34][35][36].…”

“…From the perspective of research scale and regional selection, most studies focus on Europe, North America, Northeast Asia, and developed countries [5,13,38,41] such as the United States, France, South Korea, and Japan [22,[47][48][49][50]. Rural studies in China are mostly based on regional, provincial, and county scales [20,44,51,52].…”

“…The rural regional system is an open system with certain functions and structures, which is composed of natural environment, resource endowment, location conditions, cultural customs, and other factors within a specific rural area [2]. The rural development system is based on the rural regional system as the basic unit, which divides the rural internal regeneration and external development system from the subject and object of rural development [1,6,13,42,49]. It constitutes multi-factor, multi-scale, multi-directional external development conditions constraints, as well as an internal development matrix balance to promote rural dynamic sustainable development.…”