4.4 Article

Essential multiple functions of farms in rural communities and landscapes

期刊

RENEWABLE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 137-148

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1742170510000529

关键词

multifunctional agriculture; ecosystem services; village action groups; rural development; Sweden

资金

  1. Swedish Farmers' Foundation for Agricultural Research
  2. Swedish Board of Agriculture
  3. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
  4. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
  5. Swedish Research Council Formas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As farms are consolidated into larger operations and small farms close down for economic reasons, rural areas lose ecological, social and economic functions related to farming. Biodiversity and scenic, open-vista landscapes are lost as fields are left unmanaged. Social and economic benefits such as local job opportunities and meeting places disappear. Four Swedish rural communities were examined to increase our understanding of the functions that a diverse agriculture provides and which of these are lost as farms cease operation and overall rural social capital is depleted. Workshops and interviews with village action groups and with farmers were carried out. Both groups identified key functions from farming that are important to the rural community, such as production of food and fiber, businesses and jobs, human services, local security, ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling and biodiversity, and functions pertaining to quality of life. Several ways in which village action groups can support agriculture were identified that current industrial agriculture and even agri-environmental schemes fail to achieve. These include organizing local meeting places, encouraging local processing and consumption and supporting farmers in their work. We conclude that agriculture and village action groups match well in community development and that policies supporting this match would be useful.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据