105
transition model as shown in Fig. 5.1. Venn images are added to represent possible
configurations of three capitals that describe each state of rural system transition.
The figure depicts two past states of rural system and possible future pathways
based on the present. The focal unit of this framework is a rural region and the quality of multifunctionality in each state is described by the totality of all kinds of local
resources, attributes of individual residents, and activities taking place. The separations of three states indicate each time period. However, these distinctions are
unclear because a system transition occurs over a long time, anywhere from 50 to
100 years perhaps, and is not spontaneous unless a fast and sudden rupture changes
the state of system quality dramatically.
The initial state of rural system is described as “Past 1. Subsistence farming” in
Fig. 5.2. In this phase, rural communities are agrarian and self-sufficient in food and
generally energy production. The quality of multifunctionality, therefore, appears
strong. The three types of capital are considered well balanced at this stage. Such a
solid balance is a crucial condition for the survival of a subsistence community.
Once rural communities increase their engagement with the outside world, often
when the global market is introduced, a rural system transits to “Past 2. Embedded
into global systems” phase (Fig. 5.2). In this phase, the economic capital strengthens to build an economical-oriented system. This transition from subsistence farming to an embedded system tends to drive agriculture toward intensification and
monoculture-based production, and causes declines in environmental and social
capital because of degradation in the local environment and out-migration of young
people (Parnwell 2007; Rigg et al. 2008; Wilson 2010).
The present state, the third state in Fig. 5.2, presents three possible pathways: (1)
super-productivist rural systems, (2) deagrarianized rural systems, and (3) relocalized low-intensity rural systems (Wilson 2010). Super-productivist rural systems
imply the economic-oriented state in Fig. 5.1, in which the concentration on economic capital is pursued. Towards this direction, approaches based on the productivist paradigm such as intensification and specialization in agricultural production
are preferred. The pathway of a deagrarianized rural system initiates a transition to
non-agricultural sectors in rural areas. The main goal of deagrarianization is achieving alternative measures to ensure economic capital development in rural systems.
The third possible pathway, a relocalized low-intensity rural system direction, aims
at a higher multifunctionality quality than the other two pathways by achieving a
well-balanced relationship among the three types of capital.
Based on this discourse, the choice of ‘1’ would lead to a lower quality of multifunctionality in a rural system, and ‘2’ and ‘3’ would maintain the same or higher
quality. However, these three possible pathways are not separated completely, and
in reality, each rural area or community would exhibit the mixed directions through
1–3. At the same time, all rural areas would still be affected largely by the external,
broader interests of society. For example, individual communities can direct themselves to a relocalized rural system pathway by conducting local initiatives, whereas
the national rural policy can be oriented towards super-productivist to build a competitive agricultural sector in the global market. In fact, the introduction of a market
mechanism caused a transition from subsistence farming (Past 1 state in Fig. 5.2) to
5 Framing in Placemaking When Envisioning a Sustainable Rural Community…
transition model as shown in Fig. 5.1. Venn images are added to represent possible
configurations of three capitals that describe each state of rural system transition.
The figure depicts two past states of rural system and possible future pathways
based on the present. The focal unit of this framework is a rural region and the quality of multifunctionality in each state is described by the totality of all kinds of local
resources, attributes of individual residents, and activities taking place. The separations of three states indicate each time period. However, these distinctions are
unclear because a system transition occurs over a long time, anywhere from 50 to
100 years perhaps, and is not spontaneous unless a fast and sudden rupture changes
the state of system quality dramatically.
The initial state of rural system is described as “Past 1. Subsistence farming” in
Fig. 5.2. In this phase, rural communities are agrarian and self-sufficient in food and
generally energy production. The quality of multifunctionality, therefore, appears
strong. The three types of capital are considered well balanced at this stage. Such a
solid balance is a crucial condition for the survival of a subsistence community.
Once rural communities increase their engagement with the outside world, often
when the global market is introduced, a rural system transits to “Past 2. Embedded
into global systems” phase (Fig. 5.2). In this phase, the economic capital strengthens to build an economical-oriented system. This transition from subsistence farming to an embedded system tends to drive agriculture toward intensification and
monoculture-based production, and causes declines in environmental and social
capital because of degradation in the local environment and out-migration of young
people (Parnwell 2007; Rigg et al. 2008; Wilson 2010).
The present state, the third state in Fig. 5.2, presents three possible pathways: (1)
super-productivist rural systems, (2) deagrarianized rural systems, and (3) relocalized low-intensity rural systems (Wilson 2010). Super-productivist rural systems
imply the economic-oriented state in Fig. 5.1, in which the concentration on economic capital is pursued. Towards this direction, approaches based on the productivist paradigm such as intensification and specialization in agricultural production
are preferred. The pathway of a deagrarianized rural system initiates a transition to
non-agricultural sectors in rural areas. The main goal of deagrarianization is achieving alternative measures to ensure economic capital development in rural systems.
The third possible pathway, a relocalized low-intensity rural system direction, aims
at a higher multifunctionality quality than the other two pathways by achieving a
well-balanced relationship among the three types of capital.
Based on this discourse, the choice of ‘1’ would lead to a lower quality of multifunctionality in a rural system, and ‘2’ and ‘3’ would maintain the same or higher
quality. However, these three possible pathways are not separated completely, and
in reality, each rural area or community would exhibit the mixed directions through
1–3. At the same time, all rural areas would still be affected largely by the external,
broader interests of society. For example, individual communities can direct themselves to a relocalized rural system pathway by conducting local initiatives, whereas
the national rural policy can be oriented towards super-productivist to build a competitive agricultural sector in the global market. In fact, the introduction of a market
mechanism caused a transition from subsistence farming (Past 1 state in Fig. 5.2) to
5 Framing in Placemaking When Envisioning a Sustainable Rural Community…