116
A. Doernberg and T. Weith
example, the German TEEB report (Schröter-Schlaack et al. 2016) highlights the
role played by rural areas in providing ESS, and the use of ESS by urban dwellers.
The report also provides examples of cooperation between rural and urban actors
involved in agriculture and water management. In contrast, Gebre and Gebremedhin
(2019) stress the mutual benefits from ecosystem-based interlinkages between urban
and rural areas, but call for good management (including the protection of rural
services) in the face of an increased urban demand for rural resources.
6.4.2 Multi-Functionality
The concept of multi-functionality reflects the ability to use a site for multiple
different purposes. Adopting an economic perspective, the production process of
a commodity, e.g. the cultivation of wheat, always creates side effects in the form
of non-commodities. These are outputs with an economic, social and/or ecological benefit, such as food security, recreation or education (Wüstemann 2005). The
connection between both types of products is described as synergetic and joint. At the
farm level, multifunctional agriculture is seen as a means of diversification (Zasada
2011). Multi-functionality is often associated with agricultural activities, but “it is
not specific to agriculture; it is a property of many economic activities” (OECD
2001, p. 9). According to this statement and following Wüstemann et al. (2008),
the concept of multi-functionality can also be applied to reflecting on urban-rural
interlinkages. Changes in society and lifestyle in recent decades have increased the
importance of non-productive outcomes from rural areas compared to traditional agricultural commodities (Zasada 2011; see also Marsden 1999; Brandt and Vejre 2004;
Luttik and van der Ploeg 2004). Urban dweller therefore have a greater demand for
rural non-commodities such as enjoying the countryside, experiencing farm tourism
and buying locally produced food from the farm (Zasada 2011). Consequently, this
concept is ideal for depicting this new trend, enabling functional interrelations to be
analysed in a much more complex setting. This includes the necessity to reflect the
fact that one type of land use causes a variety of interconnections.
We assume that integrating these two analytical layers may make a valuable
contribution to the research and governance of urban-rural relations.
6.5 Governance of Interrelations: Knowledge
for Governance
Until now, interrelational models have mainly focused on an analytical understanding of functional connections and spatial relations. However, causes, effects
and flows also simultaneously affect the options for influencing and changing land
use. There has been little debate about modes of regional governance, particularly in
A. Doernberg and T. Weith
example, the German TEEB report (Schröter-Schlaack et al. 2016) highlights the
role played by rural areas in providing ESS, and the use of ESS by urban dwellers.
The report also provides examples of cooperation between rural and urban actors
involved in agriculture and water management. In contrast, Gebre and Gebremedhin
(2019) stress the mutual benefits from ecosystem-based interlinkages between urban
and rural areas, but call for good management (including the protection of rural
services) in the face of an increased urban demand for rural resources.
6.4.2 Multi-Functionality
The concept of multi-functionality reflects the ability to use a site for multiple
different purposes. Adopting an economic perspective, the production process of
a commodity, e.g. the cultivation of wheat, always creates side effects in the form
of non-commodities. These are outputs with an economic, social and/or ecological benefit, such as food security, recreation or education (Wüstemann 2005). The
connection between both types of products is described as synergetic and joint. At the
farm level, multifunctional agriculture is seen as a means of diversification (Zasada
2011). Multi-functionality is often associated with agricultural activities, but “it is
not specific to agriculture; it is a property of many economic activities” (OECD
2001, p. 9). According to this statement and following Wüstemann et al. (2008),
the concept of multi-functionality can also be applied to reflecting on urban-rural
interlinkages. Changes in society and lifestyle in recent decades have increased the
importance of non-productive outcomes from rural areas compared to traditional agricultural commodities (Zasada 2011; see also Marsden 1999; Brandt and Vejre 2004;
Luttik and van der Ploeg 2004). Urban dweller therefore have a greater demand for
rural non-commodities such as enjoying the countryside, experiencing farm tourism
and buying locally produced food from the farm (Zasada 2011). Consequently, this
concept is ideal for depicting this new trend, enabling functional interrelations to be
analysed in a much more complex setting. This includes the necessity to reflect the
fact that one type of land use causes a variety of interconnections.
We assume that integrating these two analytical layers may make a valuable
contribution to the research and governance of urban-rural relations.
6.5 Governance of Interrelations: Knowledge
for Governance
Until now, interrelational models have mainly focused on an analytical understanding of functional connections and spatial relations. However, causes, effects
and flows also simultaneously affect the options for influencing and changing land
use. There has been little debate about modes of regional governance, particularly in