102
The third interpretation of multifunctionality takes further expansion from the
post-productivist paradigm to a sustainable development paradigm. This third
view of multifunctionality takes a holistic framing of the concept to realize the
connection between socio-environmental benefits from farming operations and
the demands of local societies (Marsden and Sonnino 2008). In this view, multifunctionality is viewed as a critical assessment tool for rural development. In
contrast to the previous two paradigms in which the social meanings of rural
areas are determined by external interests (e.g. food security concerns, competitive agricultural sector, and environmental protection), this third framing interprets multifunctionality as an inclusive development paradigm that takes the
internal socioeconomic state into account (Marsden and Sonnino 2008; Morgan
et al. 2010). It should be noted that agriculture is seen as one characteristic of
rural areas in this third framing. Because the notion of multifunctionality was
initially developed in agricultural policies, the multifunctionality discourse has
placed its centrality on agriculture, and other dimensions of rural areas were
treated as complementary factors. However, such a narrow framing of multifunctionality hinders depicting the rural system transition. In fact, agriculture is no
longer the backbone of rural economies today because its proportion in local
economic activities has been declining (Huylenbroeck et al. 2007; Milestad and
Björklund 2008). Such economic decline triggered an out- migration of young
people in search of better employment opportunities in urban areas (Klijin et al.
2005; Milbourne and Doheny 2012).
The author follows the multifunctionality discussions developed by Holms
(2006), Marsden and Sonnino (2008), Renting et al. (2009) and Wilson (2008,
2010). In this chapter, multifunctionality is considered as a holistic conceptual
framework that illustrates the quality changes in rural areas over time as rural areas
undergo a series of social changes. The applied framework in this study is based on
the recent works of Wilson (2008, 2010) which depict the quality changes in rural
systems in terms of multifunctionality.
In previous empirical studies on multifunctional agriculture, individual farms
were used as their analytical unit, and those types of operations that contributed
to the multifunctional quality of farmers were examined. These studies commonly
set their objectives to quantify the multifunctionality of individual farms by applying parameters (Andersen et al. 2013; Morgan et al. 2010). However, one point of
contention is how to select an adequate set of parameters to evaluate the multifunctionality of a target unit quantitatively as the concept of multifunctionality is
by no means “clearly and uniformly conceptualized or understood” (Marsden and
Sonnino 2008). This view is prominent when a study includes the time-scale
because which set of parameters would be appropriate differs according to the
socioeconomic state of rural regions over time. Additionally, external factors that
possibly affect rural regions are ubiquitous. For example, the state of rural areas
before and after the arrival of the global market system should differ from each
other considerably.
S. Kudo
The third interpretation of multifunctionality takes further expansion from the
post-productivist paradigm to a sustainable development paradigm. This third
view of multifunctionality takes a holistic framing of the concept to realize the
connection between socio-environmental benefits from farming operations and
the demands of local societies (Marsden and Sonnino 2008). In this view, multifunctionality is viewed as a critical assessment tool for rural development. In
contrast to the previous two paradigms in which the social meanings of rural
areas are determined by external interests (e.g. food security concerns, competitive agricultural sector, and environmental protection), this third framing interprets multifunctionality as an inclusive development paradigm that takes the
internal socioeconomic state into account (Marsden and Sonnino 2008; Morgan
et al. 2010). It should be noted that agriculture is seen as one characteristic of
rural areas in this third framing. Because the notion of multifunctionality was
initially developed in agricultural policies, the multifunctionality discourse has
placed its centrality on agriculture, and other dimensions of rural areas were
treated as complementary factors. However, such a narrow framing of multifunctionality hinders depicting the rural system transition. In fact, agriculture is no
longer the backbone of rural economies today because its proportion in local
economic activities has been declining (Huylenbroeck et al. 2007; Milestad and
Björklund 2008). Such economic decline triggered an out- migration of young
people in search of better employment opportunities in urban areas (Klijin et al.
2005; Milbourne and Doheny 2012).
The author follows the multifunctionality discussions developed by Holms
(2006), Marsden and Sonnino (2008), Renting et al. (2009) and Wilson (2008,
2010). In this chapter, multifunctionality is considered as a holistic conceptual
framework that illustrates the quality changes in rural areas over time as rural areas
undergo a series of social changes. The applied framework in this study is based on
the recent works of Wilson (2008, 2010) which depict the quality changes in rural
systems in terms of multifunctionality.
In previous empirical studies on multifunctional agriculture, individual farms
were used as their analytical unit, and those types of operations that contributed
to the multifunctional quality of farmers were examined. These studies commonly
set their objectives to quantify the multifunctionality of individual farms by applying parameters (Andersen et al. 2013; Morgan et al. 2010). However, one point of
contention is how to select an adequate set of parameters to evaluate the multifunctionality of a target unit quantitatively as the concept of multifunctionality is
by no means “clearly and uniformly conceptualized or understood” (Marsden and
Sonnino 2008). This view is prominent when a study includes the time-scale
because which set of parameters would be appropriate differs according to the
socioeconomic state of rural regions over time. Additionally, external factors that
possibly affect rural regions are ubiquitous. For example, the state of rural areas
before and after the arrival of the global market system should differ from each
other considerably.
S. Kudo