Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
autonomy and food quality agendas, reinforcing European diversity and regional
specificities in the face of global production chains. This would support differentiation in
relation to world agriculture and, therefore, could contribute to competitiveness.
Concerning actors, the analysis also has shown how, in relation to the regime, a non-
organized niche acts differently to a niche resulting from collective action and a shared
intention to change the established regime. The three cases have shown that the changing
capacity of these actors is based on their economic power and their human capital,
combining higher education, entrepreneurship and often strong convictions. It may be the
case that an incremental change within the housing industry and real estate is becoming a
radical transition within agriculture.
Conclusion
Despite the acknowledgement of increased countryside consumption in the literature on
rural space and rural society, lifestyle farming remains a relatively unseen phenomenon by
those involved at the regime level. As has been discussed above, the agricultural regime is
not concerned with this niche. Those managing the real-estate sector are taking decisions
over land, and acknowledge the value of land due to its amenity interest but they do not
consider the related production activity. Only the conservation regime, which is by far the
weakest presence here, recognizes the importance of maintaining production and securing
sustainability. The conservation regime promotes the environmental agenda, and the
production of goods and services, which will in turn favour the real-estate regime but the
conservation regime does not have the power to significantly impact on the other regimes.
Finally, lifestyle farming remains primarily an unseen process. These are unseen
farmers and they seem to remain as such; they are seen as community members, property
owners and care-takers of the physical landscape, but not as farmers and food producers,
and not as active actors in promoting new production paradigms. Despite their potential to
enhance regional sustainability in many local areas in Europe, lifestyle farmers therefore
remain unsupported by policy actors.
References
Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B. and Leeuwis, C. (2012) Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts
to harvest energy from glasshouses. Environmental Innovations and Societal Transitions 5, 1-
18.
Darnhofer, I. (2015) Socio-technical transitions in farming. Key concepts. In: Sutherland, L-A.,
Darnhofer, I., Wilson, G.A. and Zagata, L. (eds) Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in
Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe . CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 17-32.
Darnhofer, I., Sutherland, L-A. and Pinto-Correia, T. (2015) Conceptual insights derived from case
studies on 'emerging transitions' in farming. In: Sutherland, L-A., Darnhofer, I., Wilson, G.A.
and Zagata, L. (eds) Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies
from Europe . CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 189-204.
Geels, F.W. and Schot, J. (2007) Typology of socio-technical pathways. Research Policy 36, 399-
417.
Holmes, J. (2006) Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in the
research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 142-160.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search