Content uploaded by Ingo Zasada
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ingo Zasada
Content may be subject to copyright.
TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN
Lehrstuhl für Strategie und Management der Landschaftsentwicklung
Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan
Peri-urban agriculture and multifunctionality: urban influence, farm
adaptation behaviour and development perspectives
Ingo Zasada
Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan für
Ernährung, Landnutzung und Umwelt der Technischen Universität München zur
Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines
Doktors der Agrarwissenschaften
genehmigten Dissertation.
Vorsitzender:
Univ.-Prof. Dr. J. Kollmann
Prüfer der Dissertation:
1. Univ.-Prof. Dr. St. Pauleit
2. Univ.-Prof. Dr. K. Müller (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
3. Prof. Dr. P. Verburg (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/Niederlande)
Die Dissertation wurde am 04.06.2012 bei der Technischen Universität München
eingereicht und durch die Fakultät Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan für
Ernährung, Landnutzung und Umwelt am 26.06.2012 angenommen.
“That city is more fully sufficient which the surrounding country supplies with all
its vital needs than is another which must obtain these supplies by trade.”
(St Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principum, 13th century)
V
Content
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ XIII
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ....................................................................................................... XV
1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1RESEARCH BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 1
1.2HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................ 2
1.3STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION .............................................................................. 4
2STATE OF THE ART ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1URBANISATION AND PERI-URBAN AREAS .................................................................. 6
2.2AGRICULTURE IN PERI-URBAN AREAS ..................................................................... 10
2.3URBAN PRESSURES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURE .............................. 13
2.4MULTIFUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE ................... 18
3METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 24
3.1RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................... 24
3.2LAND-BASED APPROACH – SPATIAL ANALYSIS ....................................................... 25
3.3FARM-BASED APPROACH – SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ........................................... 26
3.4CASE STUDIES, DATABASE AND EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGIES ............................ 28
VI
4SYNTHESIS OF EMPIRICAL RESULTS ...................................................................... 38
4.1PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE – ACTIVITIES AND URBAN INFLUENCE ..................... 38
4.2PERCEPTION OF PERI-URBAN FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS ...................................... 39
4.3FARM ADAPTATION AND MULTIFUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ............................. 43
5DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 45
5.1PERSPECTIVES OF MULTIFUNCTIONAL PERI-URBAN DEVELOPMENT ..................... 45
5.2PUBLIC INTERVENTION – INSTITUTIONS, POLICY AND PLANNING ........................ 50
6CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 60
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 77
ANNEX: RESEARCH PAPERS ............................................................................................. 79
VII
List of Publications
The following literature review and four research papers present the basis of this
cumulative dissertation. They are referred to in the text in Roman numerals. At the time of
the thesis’ submission two of them have been already published, two are in press and one
more is within the process of review.
I Zasada, I. (2011). Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture – A Review of societal
demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28(4):
639-648.
II Zasada, I., Loibl, W., Köstl, M. and Piorr, A. (in press). Agriculture under urban
influence: A spatial analysis of farming systems and land-use in European Rural-
Urban-Regions. European Countryside.
III Zasada, I., Fertner, C., Piorr, A. and Nielsen, T.A.S. (2011). Peri-urbanisation and
multifunctional adaptation of agriculture around Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift–
Danish Journal of Geography 111(1): 59-72.
IV Zasada, I., Berges, R., Hilgendorf, J. and Piorr, A. (in press). Horse-keeping and
the peri-urban development in the Berlin Metropolitan Region. Journal of Land Use
Science. DOI:10.1080/1747423X.2011.628706.
V Zasada, I. (2011). Peri-urban Adaptation Strategies of Horticultural Farms in the
Berlin Metropolitan Area. Cahiers Thématiques 11 ‘Agriculture métropolitaine
/Métropole agricole’: 131-140.
VIII
My contributions to the research papers contained in this doctoral thesis were as following:
I Sole author
II Development of the conceptual idea and analytical framework; Substantial
contribution to data processing and statistical analysis (the spatial modelling
has been carried out by co-authors); Predominant contribution to result
discussion and the writing process.
III Collaborative development of the conceptual idea and analytical framework
with the co-authors; Contribution to the data processing, statistical analysis of
the farming data (the peri-urbanisation modelling has been carried out by the
co-authors); Contribution to the discussion and conclusion, as well as to the
writing process in collaboration with the co-authors.
IV Main conceptual work; Contribution to the questionnaire survey preparation
(the survey has been carried out by a co-author); Predominant contribution to
the writing process of results, discussion and conclusion.
V Main conceptual work; Contribution to the interview guideline and
participation in the interviews; Predominant contribution to the writing process
of results, discussion and conclusion.
Erratum: The Journal has mistakenly indicated a sole authorship. Additional
authors of the article are Berges, R., Hinterstoisser, P. and Piorr, A.
IX
List of Figures
No. 1 Structure and overview of the dissertation. Page 5
No. 2 The form of the regional city. Source: Bryant and Johnston (1992). Page 7
No. 3 Delineation of urban, peri-urban, rural areas (detail from the
European map: Southern parts of the Netherlands, Belgium,
Luxembourg, and north-eastern France). Source: Paper II
Page 10
No. 4 Share of urban, peri-urban and rural areas per country within the EU
(no data available for Cyprus). Source: (Zasada et al. in press).
Page 10
No. 5 The structure of rural development at farm enterprise level. Source:
van der Ploeg et al. (2002).
Page 22
No. 6 Analytical model of the relationship between urbanisation, agriculture
and policy.
Page 23
No. 7 Rural-Urban Regions (RUR) within the EU. Source: Paper II. Page 29
No. 8 CSA Metropolitan Region Copenhagen. Source: Paper III. Page 32
No. 9 CSA Metropolitan Region Berlin-Brandenburg. Source: adapted from
Paper IV.
Page 32
No. 10 Distribution of horses kept in farms in the CSA Berlin-Brandenburg
2007. Source: LDS Berlin-Brandenburg.
Page 35
List of Tables
No. 1 Land-use change from Agricultural Area 1990-2006. Page 31
No. 2 Overview of the main findings. Page 44
X
List of Abbreviations
ARL Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Academy for Spatial
Research and Planning)
BBR Bundesamt für Bauen und Raumordnung (The Federal Institute for
Research on Building and Spatial Development)
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CEMAT Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for
Spatial/Regional Planning
CLC Corine Land Cover
CSA Case Study Area
EEA European Environment Agency
EESC European Economic and Social Committee
ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective
EU European Union
FSS Farm Structure Survey
GIS Geographical Information System
MFA Multifunctionality of Agriculture
NUTS Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques (Nomenclature of
Territorial Units for Statistics)
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PLUREL Peri-urban Land-use Relationships (Integrated Research Project)
XI
PUA Peri-urban Agriculture
PURPLE Peri-urban Regions Platform in Europe
RDP Rural Development Programme
RUR Rural-Urban-Region
SCoT Scheme of Territorial Coherence
UBA Umweltbundesamt (German Environment Agency)
WFD Water Framework Directive
XII
XIII
Summary
The analysis of the multifunctional character and development perspectives of peri-
urban agriculture represents the central topic of this doctoral thesis. Peri-urban agriculture
(PUA) is defined as the agricultural land-use in proximity to, and the under influence of,
nearby urban areas. Distinguished from agriculture in rural areas, PUA reflects the spatial
framework conditions of peri-urban areas brought about by adapting the mode of farming
activity being carried out. The individual research papers shed light on PUA from different
perspectives, with each focussing on its various elements which include the spatial
observation of actual agricultural systems and agricultural land-use activities, the
examination of framework conditions, and adaptation behaviour. This cumulative
approach has enabled the application of multiple spatial-analytic and social-scientific
methodologies to obtain a comprehensive picture, and in so doing has greatly improved
knowledge of this research issue. To this end, the thesis examines characteristics of peri-
urban farming systems on a European and regional case-study level. Differences to
agriculture in remote rural areas were identified as well as the relationship to urbanisation,
while valuable insights into perceptions and the strategic behaviour of individual farm
holders were also obtained.
The first paper reviews the literature on multifunctional peri-urban areas, since it
contrasts the services and functions provided by PUA with the demands and requirements
of those values in the urban society. In paper two, farming systems of Rural-Urban Regions
(RUR) in the European Union (EU) are comprehensively investigated, attempting to
indentify typical features of agriculture in metropolitan and urban-centred regions and the
relevance on the peri-urban extent. Similarly, but on a cross-municipal comparison using
the Copenhagen metropolitan region as a case study, the third paper analyses the spatial
occurrence of certain farming structures and activities in relationship to different types of
peri-urbanisation, distance to the urban core and other spatial determinants. Based on the
results of the previous articles, papers four and five focus on two farming activities which
XIV
typically prevail in peri-urban areas – horticulture and horse-keeping. Applying
questionnaire survey and purposeful in-depth interviews in the metropolitan region of
Berlin-Brandenburg, perceived urban pressures and opportunities and the adaptation
behaviour of farmers are investigated and distinguished for different types of farming.
Key findings indicate that the agricultural land-use in the peri-urban contributes to
the quality of life in urban regions, as it fulfils broad ranges of functions and services to the
nearby urban areas. This includes food production as well as the provision of recreational
services and other services related to the management of the cultural landscape, which in
turn contribute to the ecological capacity of the landscape. It has been found that PUA
distinguishes itself by the prevalence of two elements – an intensified, high-value
production on the one hand, and extensified, lifestyle and environmental-driven land-use
on the other. High-income revenues, small-scale farm structures and the parallelism of
horticulture and grassland cultivation represent typical characteristics. From the perspective
of farm-holders, the opportunities attached to the peri-urban framework conditions
outweigh the disadvantages, which have encouraged them to adopt activities that valorise
the urban demand potential. Finally, when reflecting on the planning and policy
requirements for the development of PUA, the main fields of action are the preservation of
farmland and encouragement of multifunctional land-use, the strengthening of urban-rural
relationships and the enhanced consideration and targeting of agriculture in peri-urban
areas.
XV
Zusammenfassung
Die Analyse des multifunktionalen Charakters sowie die damit verbundenen
Entwicklungsperspektiven peri-urbaner Landwirtschaft stellen die zentrale Thematik der
vorliegenden Dissertation dar. Peri-urbane Landwirtschaft ist dabei durch die räumliche
Nähe zu städtischen Agglomerationen, sowie deren Einfluss auf die agrarische
Landnutzung gekennzeichnet. Vor allem bestehen Unterschiede zur Landwirtschaft in
stärker ländlichen Räumen insofern, als das die, durch die räumliche Lage im direkten
Stadtumland bedingten Rahmenbedingungen Anpassungsprozesse hinsichtlich der Art und
Weise der landwirtschaftlichen Nutzung nach sich ziehen. In diesem Zusammenhang wird
im Rahmen der, zur Dissertationsschrift gehörigen, wissenschaftlichen Aufsätze das
Phänomen peri-urbaner Landwirtschaft aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln betrachtet. Der
kumulative Ansatz ermöglicht dabei eine interdisziplinäre Herangehensweise, welche
räumlich-analytische mit sozialwissenschaftlicher Untersuchungsmethoden miteinander
verbindet, um einer umfassenderen Betrachtung des Themas gerecht zu werden. Zum einen
steht die räumliche Analyse bestehender Betriebsstrukturen und landwirtschaftlicher
Bodennutzung in Metropolräumen und peri-urbanen Gebieten im Vordergrund. Zum
anderen soll die individuelle Wahrnehmung peri-urbaner Rahmenbedingungen durch
Landwirte, sowie deren strategisches Anpassungsverhalten im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung
für eine multifunktionale ländliche Entwicklung untersucht werden.
Anhand der Gegenüberstellung von Forschungsbeiträgen zu Funktionen und
Leistungen stadtnaher Landwirtschaft einerseits sowie der gesellschaftlichen Nachfrage
und den Anforderungen an diese andererseits, gibt der erste Aufsatz einen Überblick über
den Stand des aktuellen wissenschaftlichen Diskurses zum Thema multifunktionaler peri-
urbaner Landwirtschaft. Mit dem Ziel typische Merkmale der Landwirtschaft in
verstädterten und Metropolregionen zu identifizieren, werden im zweiten Beitrag
Agrarstrukturen in Stadt-Umland Regionen (Rural-Urban Regions) innerhalb der
Europäischen Union (EU) untersucht. Neben der Regionsklassifizierung fällt hierbei auch
XVI
der regionalen Verteilung spezifisch peri-urbaner Räume im Zusammenhang mit dem
Auftreten bestimmter Landnutzungsstrukturen eine wesentliche Rolle zu. Der dritte
Forschungsartikel hat die Analyse des räumlichen Verteilungsgefüges verschiedener Betriebs-
und Anbaustrukturen im Spannungsfeld sozio-ökonomischer Entwicklungen in
Stadtumlandgemeinden der Metropolregion Kopenhagen zum Thema. Hierbei ist vor
allem die Frage von Interesse, inwiefern die peri-urbane Landwirtschaft im Ergebnis eines
auf den städtischen Bedarf ausgerichteten Anpassungsprozesses multifunktionale
Charakteristika aufweist. Basierend auf vorherigen Ergebnissen, wird in den Aufsätzen vier
und fünf mit dem Gartenbau und der Pferdehaltung jeweils eine spezifische
landwirtschaftliche Nutzung näher betrachtet, die eine besondere peri-urbane Relevanz
aufweist. Begrenzt auf den engeren Verflechtungsraum der deutschen Metropolregion
Berlin-Brandenburg werden auf der Basis von Fragenbogenuntersuchungen und
Tiefeninterviews Erkenntnisse dazu gewonnen, inwiefern sich Stärken und Potenziale
sowie Schwächen und Hemmnisse des peri-urbanen Standortes für die landwirtschaftliche
Nutzung aus Betriebsinhabersicht darstellen. Einen Erklärungsbeitrag zu Unterschieden in
der Betrachtungsweise, sowie zu dem damit im Zusammenhang stehenden
Anpassungsverhalten soll dabei die Unterscheidung nach Betriebstypen leisten.
Die Kernergebnisse legen nahe, dass die landwirtschaftliche Nutzung im peri-
urbanen Raum in einem wichtigen Umfang zur Lebensqualität in Stadtregionen beiträgt,
indem es einen breiten Umfang an Funktionen und Leistungen erfüllt, die von der
Gesellschaft nachgefragt werden. Dazu zählen neben der Versorgung mit frischen und
hochwertigen Lebensmitteln vor allem das Angebot an Dienstleistungen im sozialen und
Freizeitbereich, die Pflege und Erhaltung der Kulturlandschaft sowie die damit verbundene
Bereitstellung von ökologischen Funktionen. Hinsichtlich des Anpassungsverhaltens
stadtnaher landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe können im Wesentlichen zwei gegensätzliche
strategische Richtungen unterschieden werden. Einerseits finden sich
Intensivierungstendenzen als Reaktion sich verknappender Anbauflächen. Andererseits
zeigen sich vielfach extensive, umwelt- und freizeitorientierte Ansätze landwirtschaftlicher
Nutzung. Abhängig von regionalen Gegebenheiten steht dabei oftmals ein kleinteiliger,
einkommensintensiver Gartenbau einer extensiven Grünlandwirtschaft gegenüber.
Grundsätzlich scheint im Gegensatz zum herkömmlichen Paradigma der marginalisierten
stadtnahen Landwirtschaft unter den Inhabern landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe die
Wertschätzung von Standortvorteilen, bedingt durch die Nähe zu städtischen Räumen,
XVII
durchzusetzen. Neben der Tatsache, dass Vorteile, wie Konsumentennähe und
infrastrukturelle Erschließung stärker wahrgenommen werden als Nachteile, wie
Bodenpreise oder Einschränkungen der landwirtschaftlichen Aktivität, zeigt sich, dass diese
bereits zu einem Anpassungsverhalten in dem die Orientierung auf den städtischen Markt
zu Ausdruck kommt, geführt haben.
Abschließend werden die vorliegenden Forschungsergebnisse im Hinblick auf die
regulativen Eingriffsmöglichkeiten zwischen räumlicher Planung, Regionalentwicklung bis
hin zum Agrarförderinstrumentarium diskutiert. Dabei steht das Ziel im Vordergrund, die
bestehenden Ansätze und Entwicklungspotenziale – Anpassungsfähigkeit, Ausrichtung auf
städtische Märkte, Diversifizierung – hinsichtlich der Etablierung und Stärkung einer
multifunktionalen, peri-urbanen Landwirtschaft nutzbar zu machen, die den vielfältigen
ökologischen, ökonomischen und sozialen Anforderungen städtischer Räume gerecht wird.
XVIII
INTRODUCTION 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
The rapid urbanisation process in the European Union (EU), as well as in other
parts of the world, has brought about the emergence, spatial expansion and dynamic
transformation of peri-urban areas – a zone around cities and urban agglomerations that
stretches into the rural hinterlands. There it transforms rural societies and economies while
also changing landscapes and the ecological capacities of regions. The process has therefore
increasingly drawn the attention of researchers, planners and decision-makers at various
administrative levels (Piorr et al. 2011, Nilsson et al. 2012). Despite its declining economic
role in most cases, agriculture continuingly represents the main peri-urban land-use
activity. Due to the extensive area currently under farm management, its value as a
multifunctional open space is being increasing recognised (CES 2004, PURPLE 2007,
COM 2010). Fuelled by post-productive, consumption-oriented and demographic
transitions of Western societies, and paired with a growing insecurity and awareness of
resource use, each of the following has become equally relevant to the quality of life in
urban areas: health and environment, the local and regional provision of food, outdoor
recreation, hospitality and care. This is due to the fact that the peri-urban landscape
represents an asset that is rich with amenities and acts in an ecologically balancing manner
(Bergstrom 2005). This specific multifunctional role of PUA has particularly grown in
political importance. In an initiative opinion, for example, the European Economic and
Social Committee (EESC) (CES 2004) stated: “that the environmental, social and economic role
played by agricultural areas is more important in peri-urban areas than elsewhere.” The platform of
European peri-urban regions PURPLE (2007: 1) adds that: “agriculture also still plays a major
part [in peri-urban areas], on the one hand representing highly modern and efficient sectors producing
for world markets, while other sectors fulfil a crucial role in maintaining the landscape and offering
products and services for the nearby city population.” This resonated within the public debate for
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 2
the design of the post-2013 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European
Commission (2010), where the necessity of an enhanced policy targeting PUA was called
for.
However, the emphasised multifunctional value is to some degree driven by
assumptions and expectations rather than profound scientific knowledge. Comprehensive
empirical evidence is rare or insufficient to substantiate this perspective of a multifunctional
peri-urban agriculture. Research results are often sector-focussed or solely of regional
significance. In an effort to create a more comprehensive picture of PUA, this dissertation
thesis aims to deliver an empirical investigation of farm adaptation behaviour and activities
within the scope of farming carried out in peri-urban areas and urban-centred regions.
Evidence based on regional cross-cutting analyses related to the types and diversity of
agricultural activities is provided. Insights into farmer’s perceptions of the peri-urban
framework conditions, including their strengths and weaknesses, are also identified. The
way in which farm holders conceive their economic environment is important to the extent
that these perceptions help shape decision-making behaviour which helps enable farming
activities to better deal with the opportunities and limitations affecting PUA. This is
desirable, since sustainable development of rural areas requires the identification of
regulatory and supportive pre-conditions in order to handle the multiple demands for
functions and values of agriculture, as well as to exploit its multifunctional potential. An
inter-disciplinary research approach has been chosen to empirically analyse PUA from a
social science as well as a geography and land-use science perspective within a common
framework. The application of the different methodologies and spatial scales is mirrored by
the different elements of the cumulative structure of the dissertation.
1.2 Hypotheses and Research Objectives
This dissertation project aims to comprehensively build upon the existing
knowledge of the role of the multifunctional model of agriculture in peri-urban areas from a
land-use and farming-community perspective. Different methodologies, spatial contexts
and scales of analysis are therefore consciously taken into consideration within the five
research papers. To ensure a coherent structure, four common research objectives were
INTRODUCTION 3
formulated in advance to function as a guideline throughout the scientific examination.
These research objectives are based upon the following hypotheses:
(i) The proximity to urban areas as loci of the increasing urban demand for multiple
functions and services involving regional quality food, natural amenities, leisure and
recreation represent important incentives for peri-urban farmers to carry out new activities
beyond commodity production.
(ii) Peri-urban farmers are aware of the prevailing beneficial and constraining urban
framework conditions, and therefore follow farm-type specific multifunctional adaptation
strategies including deepening, broadening and re-grounding trajectories.
(iii) At a countryside level, the diversity of peri-urban farm types as well as their
strategies, activities and functions, represents important requirements for a multifunctional
development.
Based on the formulated hypotheses, the five original research papers of this
dissertation thesis take up the notion of multifunctional rural development to analyse farm-
based transition strategies in peri-urban areas. They aim to investigate the degree to which
these strategies are implemented in peri-urban areas. The specific research objectives are as
follows:
Objective 1: Literature-based assessment of urban demand and peri-urban provision
of multiple functions and services provided by agriculture.
Objective 2: Analysis of the specific structure and activities of agriculture in peri-
urban areas and urban-centred regions and the spatial relationship between (peri-)
urbanisation and farming.
Objective 3: Analysis of urban pressures and opportunities perceived by peri-urban
farmers and their multifunctional adaptation behaviour with particular reference to
different farming types.
Objective 4: Identification of development perspectives of PUA and discussion of
corresponding requirements for a regional planning and governance framework, as
well as a rural development policy with regards to agriculture.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 4
1.3 Structure and Organisation
The structure and organisation reflects the thesis’ research objectives as well as the
multiple-method approach of the empirical research. Figure 1 provides an overview of the
structure of the thesis. It commences with a comprehensive literature review carried out in
paper I to provide an overview and juxtaposition of the multiple functions and services
demanded by the urban public and provided by peri-urban agriculture in order to unlock
and delineate the research field.
Based on the findings of the literature review, the empirical work is conducted
using two different methodological approaches – the spatial analysis of agricultural
activities and farming systems (Paper II & III), and the examination of farm households
(Paper IV & V). A spatial analysis of Rural-Urban Regions (RUR) on a pan-European level
(Paper II) examines the differences and similarities of the agricultural sector in rural, urban
and metropolitan regions in order to acquire knowledge related to the linkage between
urbanisation and the characteristics of farming. Looking more precisely at the metropolitan
region of Copenhagen, Denmark, paper III investigates the intra-regional pattern of the
agricultural sector, including farming types, farm structure and activities evident as a result
of adaptation to different peri-urbanisation processes.
The spatial evidence is complemented by farm household analyses in the
metropolitan region of Berlin. Focussing on two farming activities typical for PUA – horse-
keeping (Paper IV) and horticulture (Paper V) – the perceptions of farmers regarding the
prevailing urban-related framework conditions and the corresponding adaption strategies
between deepening, the further specialisation and intensification of agricultural production,
as well as broadening, the diversification of farming activities, are examined in terms of how
different farmers regard them.
I
NTRODUCTION
5
Figure 1: Structure and overview of the dissertation.
Subsequently, in the discussion chapter of this thesis, the empirical findings of the
papers II-V are evaluated in light of the current state of the research debate as it is outlined
in the literature review paper. The discussion results are used to identify the specific peri-
urban development aspects of a multifunctional and urban-oriented agriculture. In
conclusion, a design is sketched out for a regulatory framework which acknowledges the
requirements of PUA in general, and more specifically its multifunctional development,
from the levels of local planning and regional governance through to the European
agricultural and rural development policy level.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 6
2 State of the Art
2.1 Urbanisation and Peri-urban Areas
Over the past few decades, Western Europe, among other parts of the world, has
experienced a rapid process of urbanisation beyond former city limits. This development
encompasses urban sprawl – the physical conversion of open, non-built areas for settlement
purposes (EEA 2006) – and socio-cultural transitions of the rural countryside, such as the
adoption of urban lifestyles by the rural population, the in-migration of urban dwellers and
retirees, or changes in business structures. Addressing the negative externalities (basically
on agriculture) the dynamic character of the land-use change process at the urban fringe has
been highlighted by early commentators. So have Wehrwein (1942) and Pryor (1968)
similarly defined urban fringes as zones of transition between the urban land of the central
city and the rural countryside dominated by farmland. Later, the discontinuity of the
spatial phenomenon was increasingly acknowledged. Models became more popular among
planners, geographers and agronomists. These models were based on the spatial distinction
of concentric zones around cities with differing intensity of urban infiltration (Russwurm
1977, Bryant 1984). The four zone model as shown in figure 2, dividing regional cities into
the inner urban fringe, outer urban fringe, urban shadow and rural hinterland, was
particularly well recognised (Bryant et al. 1982).
S
TATE OF THE
A
RT
7
Figure 2: The form of the regional city. Source: Bryant and Johnston (1992).
Bridging the Urban-Rural Dichotomy
Although continuingly discussed from either an urban (Bontje & Burdack 2005,
Couch et al. 2007) or rural perspective (Antrop 2000, Shoard 2002, The Countryside
Agency 2004, Dewaelheyns & Gulinck 2008), there are visible attempts in present
academic discourse to overcome the urban-rural dichotomy. Perception of the urban fringes
has shifted with the increasing spatial integration of settlement and open landscapes. There
is an increasing awareness of a common spatial entity that is characterised by a
heterogeneous mix of land-use types, comprised of urban and rural elements but
differentiated from pronounced urban and rural areas. Sieverts’ (2003) Zwischenstadt,
Gulincks (2004) neo-rural areas or Meeus’ and Gulincks (2008) semi-urban areas are
typical examples for these models.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 8
Urban-rural Interface
When first introduced by the OECD (1979: 10), the authors directly formulated
difficulties with the definition and delimitation of the term ‘peri-urban area’ as it “cannot be
easily defined or delimited through unambiguous criteria”. Also later, the notion of peri-urban
areas continuingly suffered from a certain fuzziness and the lack of a widely acknowledged
definition due to a parallelism of the different approaches and models, as Meeus and
Gulinck (2008) concluded in their review on the debate on urbanisation. A further
perception of peri-urban areas includes its role as an interface between the urban and rural
sphere. Due to the high degree of spatial intertwining and interpenetration of urban and
rural elements in the peri-urban, it also represents the contact zone between both. A
number of scholars and research reports have highlighted the importance of peri-urban
areas, placed in the background of cities in the Western world and being functionally
alienated from their rural hinterlands, for their association with the reconnection of
functional and social urban-rural relationships and partnerships (Allen 2003, Esparcia &
Buciega 2005, ESPON 2005, Buciega et al. 2009).
Holistic Perspectives on peri-urban areas
Attempting to integrate the different aspects of location, land-use dynamism and
their role as interface between urban und rural areas, the Council of Europe (CEMAT
2007: 19 f.) defined peri-urban areas as: “areas that are in some form of transition from strictly
rural to urban. These areas often form the immediate urban-rural interface and may eventually evolve
into being fully urban. Peri-urban areas are places where people are key components: they are lived-in
environments. The majority of peri-urban areas are on the fringe of established urban areas, but they
may also be clusters of residential development within rural landscapes. Peri-urban areas are most
frequently an output of the process of suburbanisation or urban sprawl”.
The synthesis report of the European research project PLUREL (Peri-urban land-
use relationships) went a step forward insofar as it more comprehensively integrated the
landscape aspect, and also addressed regulatory and governmental challenges. The
researchers here defined the peri-urban as: “the area between urban settlement areas and their
rural hinterland. Larger peri-urban areas can include towns and villages within an urban
agglomeration. Such areas are often fast changing, with complex patterns of land use and landscape
fragmented between local and regional boundaries.” (Piorr et al. 2011: 10)
STATE OF THE ART 9
Spatial Determination and Delineation
The constant progression of empirical-driven theoretisation and perception lead to a
stronger acknowledgment of the peri-urban as a spatial category of its own. Being
determined by characteristics related to the type and structure of land-use, the process of its
transition, the adjacency to cities and metropolitan areas as well as aspects of public
intervention and decision making, the peri-urban eludes a generally accepted one-to-one
definition that is universally applicable in every territorial context. Due to this broadness
and fuzziness of definition, numerous empirical approaches exist in the EU but also in
countries like the UK, France and Germany to classify regions (BBR 2005, ESPON 2005,
OECD 2007, EUROSTAT 2010) and delineate areas (Le Jeannic 1997, COM 2004,
ODPM 2006) within an urban-rural continuum. An overview is compiled in (Zasada et al.
in press). Those approaches are based on either population density, settlement morphology
or commuting pattern.
Whereas regional typologies only indirectly address the notion of peri-urban areas
by determining population numbers and density in combination with the urban structure of
the entire region, spatially explicit approaches interpret peri-urban areas as zones which
belong to a delineated functional city-region, but are not part of the urban core. Depending
on the definitions of various empirical analyses, peri-urban areas encompass substantial
amounts of the territory of European countries. Gallent (2006) and Cavailhes et al. (2004)
estimated that peri-urban areas cover 20% of the territory in both Britain and France.
Another approach shows that other countries like the Netherlands, Germany or Belgium
consist of even higher shares of peri-urban areas, albeit with large differences in terms of
population density within the peri-urban exits (cf. Figures 3). This is based on the land-use
and population density carried out in the PLUREL project (Loibl & Köstl 2008, Zasada et
al. in press). The phenomenon is much less present in Scandinavian and Eastern European
countries where the degree of urbanisation in general is limited and concentrated on fewer
urban agglomerations (cf. Figure 4).
As far as the analysis on the European level is concerned (Paper II), the
comprehension of peri-urban areas in this dissertation follows the definition of peri-urban
delineation developed in the PLUREL project. For the regional case studies, the spatially
continuous delineation had to be extended to cover administrative entities or politically
defined mutual influence spheres, which are more relevant to the peri-urban area.
P
ERI
-
URBAN
A
GRICULTURE AND
M
ULTIFUNCTIONALITY
10
Figure 3: Delineation of urban, peri-urban, rural areas
(detail from the European map: Southern parts of the
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and north-eastern
France). Source: Paper II.
Figure 4: Share of urban, peri-urban and rural areas per
country within the EU (no data available for Cyprus).
Source: (Zasada et al. in press).
2.2 Agriculture in Peri-urban Areas
A large and continuingly increasing territorial share of peri-urban areas is used for
urban purposes. It is a place for living and working, as the definition by the Council of
Europe (CEMAT 2007) emphasises, as well as for downstream functions, such as
infrastructure, commercial and leisure. However, natural open spaces, forests and farmland
remain substantial if not the predominant elements of the peri-urban countryside. But while
a broad range of planning instruments and political regulations are available for the
preservation of natural resources (especially in high nature value areas) such as forests via
the European NATURA 2000 and Water Framework Directive (WFD) or nature
protection that individual sites have adopted, much less preservation is existent for
farmland in general, which lacks similar instruments of protection. Therefore, the ongoing
process of land conversion is almost entirely carried out at the expense of agricultural area.
Nevertheless, many peri-urban areas are continuingly dominated by agricultural land-use.
STATE OF THE ART 11
Historic Role
Agriculture in peri-urban areas cannot be seen as detached from the spatial context
in which it occurs. Even for its genesis and development, the inter-linkage with urban
centres plays a crucial role. On the one hand, cities historically required fertile farmland in
their hinterland to feed the (growing) population, particularly at a time when transportation
technology was far from sophisticated. As early human settlement depended on regional
food-supply, the quantity of the land resource base and soil quality represented a major
determining factor for the growth of cities. It is therefore not entirely coincidental that the
first cities were founded throughout the fertile flood plains of the Euphrates, Tigris, Nile
and Indus (Benevolo 1986).
On the other hand, with their concentration of population, cities provided
important markets for agricultural goods. Cultivation adjacent to market provided decisive
comparable advantages, particularly for products with high transportation costs or which
were fresh and easily perishable. For a long time, the phenomenon was important enough
for the economist Heinrich von Thunen in the mid-19th century to base his classical model
of agricultural land rents and corresponding land-use distribution entirely on the location to
the (urban) market, neglecting all other factors such as physical geography or
administrative boundaries. Depending on the variation of transportation costs, he assumed
varying bid rent curves for different agricultural goods, which he then used to delineate
concentric circles as production area based on optimum distance ranges from the central
city (Hall 1966).
Decline and Re-discovery
The advent of the industrialisation age and its far-reaching innovations in relation
to rail, road, shipping transportation, as well as those linked to advanced storage
technologies for agricultural produce, all meant that ‘distance’ successively lost its
determining character, since the costs and time of transportation were tremendously
reduced. Nowadays, despite rising fuel prices, a food product’s place of origin has only a
marginal influence on its price for the overwhelming proportion of typical dietary
consumption in the Western world. Over the past few decades, at least in the context of
food supply, the traditional rural-urban relationships have been eroded and instead
replaced by an inter-regional or even global form of flow and exchange.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 12
The perception of peri-urban agriculture has gradually changed in the political and
academic world. In 1979, when the OECD first addressed the topic of PUA by a broad
research project including extensive regional observations, the impression was that it faced
a pressured situation. While the authors’ definition of PUA as a “farming activity undertaken
in the peri-urban areas, i.e. in the periphery of urban agglomerations where economic and social
activities are directly affected by the presence and the expansion of the city” (OECD 1979: 9) can be
considered as a rather neutral or euphemistic reflection, they did not hesitate to reinforce
their critical view by saying that “peri-urban agriculture may also be defined as ‘agriculture
adversely affected (in terms of costs, land taken out of the farm, marketing, environmental conditions,
uncertainty etc.) by the presence and the expansion of urbanisation’.” (OECD 1979: 10) During
the 1960s and 1970s, this sort of perception was also shared by other commentators such as
Harris & Allee (1964), Krueger (1978) and Berry (1978) in North America as well as
Mattern (1964) and Rettig (1976) in Europe, who all saw agriculture in the urban shadow
under tremendous pressure and not being able to cope with the requirements of the Fordist
production system.
Later, with the rise of post-Fordism in the late 1980s and 1990s, the perception of
PUA became more differentiated. No longer was it viewed from a production function
standpoint only, since the development of new societal demands for, and interests in PUA,
as well as acknowledgement of its innovative and adaptive capability led to new
opportunities being identified for farming and farmers in the urban fringes. For instance,
Bryant and Johnston (1992: 195) emphasised that “this general thrust [of non-farm development
and its associated pressure] ignores the potential for positive interaction between urban development
and agriculture.” This ambiguous understanding of pressures and opportunities has been
increasingly consolidated in more recent considerations about PUA and its adaptation to
the near-urban environment (Heimlich & Brooks 1989, The Countryside Agency 2003,
Robinson 2004, FAO 2007, Galli et al. 2010).
STATE OF THE ART 13
2.3 Urban Pressures and Opportunities for Agriculture
Urban Pressures
European agricultural land-use in general has been increasingly put under pressure
– particularly since the 1990s. A combination of declining turnover as a result of falling
prices for agricultural products, the introduction of production quota systems, as well as
increasing input, technology and environmental costs have all combined to bring about a
‘cost-price squeeze’ of income in agriculture and rural economy (Ilbery 1991, van der Ploeg
et al. 2002). More recently, even though food prices have begun to rise again and the
income base of the commodity production has improved thanks to growing global demand
(Piesse & Thirtle 2009) and land competition with energy crops (Harvey & Pilgrim 2011),
prices have nevertheless remained much below what they were in the 1970s and 1980s
(Angus et al. 2009).
Along with these non-metropolitan pressures, PUA has additionally been impeded
by pressures related to urban growth. The OECD (1979) distinguished two elements of
urban pressure that affect PUA. Firstly, changes in population and agricultural labour
force, and, secondly, the transfer of land which causes land consumption stemming from
the additional demand for housing and infrastructure. Since then, the reduction of available
farmland through its conversion for urban purposes has been widely observed (Hofman
2001, UBA 2004, EEA 2006) and is assumed to continue in the future (Piorr et al. 2011).
Through a less noticeable process, farms are re-dedicated for residential use or other
functional and ownership changes, i.e. farm business structures (van den Vaart 1991,
Primdahl 1999, Antrop 2004, Busck et al. 2008). Farming has to compete on the land
market with other non-agricultural land-uses, such as housing with its higher bid rents
(Robinson 2004). Sinclair (1967) has therefore already extended the Von Thunen model to
integrate the growing urban demand for land to provide a more comprehensive picture of
the land-use distribution in urban-centred regions.
This competition for land also has an impact on the remaining farmland,
substantially increasing the costs for land resources (Cavailhes & Wavresky 2003). As the
price for a piece of farmland with an associated building permit rises dramatically, there is
a strong financial incentive for farmers to sell land for purposes of urban development.
Farmers are encouraged either to accelerate the depletion of the land resources, to increase
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 14
the intensity of production, or to withdraw labour and disinvest (as a farming-to-quit
strategy), all leading to an erosion of productive capacities of the land resources (Bryant &
Johnston 1992, Robinson 2004). Land speculation is accompanied by expanding shares of
non-agricultural owners and common land tenure by producers (Gant et al. 2011). Rising
prices for farmland around urban agglomerations have been recognised since the 1960s in
the developed world (OECD 1979). The authors of that study highlight the imperfectness
and failures of the land market. They argue that along with macro-economic framework
conditions, a greater number of factors contribute to the price formation, such as distance
from the city, present and future use, prevalence of amenities, land-use policy and taxation.
From his observations in the UK between 1996 and 2002, Munton (2009) recognised a
strong urban impact on the agricultural land market. Land prices rose overproportionally
for attractive and accessible land with accompanying dwellings. He notes that various
market conditions in the direct urban fringe were characterised by much higher land prices,
along with a fragmented and complex pattern of ownership and property rights such as
short-term land renting contracts. It is traditionally suspected that the increasing degree of
complexity and irregularity of the urban growth, accompanied by the perception of land
shortage and a rather short-term outlook, increases the uncertainty of the land owners and
the strategic decision-making processes of peri-urban farmers (Munton 1974, Berry 1978,
OECD 1979). More recent studies, however, draw a more differentiated picture, such as
Vandermeulen et al. (2005), who found land scarcity perception varying among farmers,
and that the perception depended on factors such as the degree of land ownership or on
future expansion plans.
In their conceptual framework for agricultural adaptation, Heimlich & Brooks
(1989) also referred to land and labour market concerns but included problems of actual
farm operation nuisance as well. The increasing proximity of housing and agriculture, as
well as the growing amount of non-farming residents in the rural hinterlands of cities, result
in further mutual conflicts and tensions. There are widespread complaints among farmers
regarding theft and vandalism, illegal trespassing and the dumping of litter and waste by
neighbouring residents (Shoard 2002, Bouraoui 2005, Qviström & Saltzman 2008).
Farming is also constrained through the fragmentation of infrastructure and small farm
sizes (The Countryside Agency 2003). Legal regulation issues, such as emission thresholds
or the local institutional environment influenced by the new residents, additionally restrict
STATE OF THE ART 15
the viability of farming activity, and thereby reduce its profitability and margins (Verspecht
et al. 2005, Diakosavvas 2008).
On the other hand, public complaints about agriculture have increased, especially
in relation to livestock or intensive forms of production, which are considered responsible
for continuing pollution, pesticide application, noise and odour issues (Heimlich &
Anderson 2001, The Countryside Agency 2003). From an aesthetical point of view,
problems have been identified that relate to an agriculture which is either extensively and
poorly managed, or operates intensively with greenhouses or as a factory farm (Rogge et al.
2011). In her investigation of the rural transformation in the US, Salamon (2006) argues
that the main challenges facing neighbourhoods of farmers and non-farmers is a sustaining
of community sense and local vitality among members of the rural community who share
differing values.
Urban Opportunities
However, opportunities for the economic activity of farming have also been
recognised in research in addition to the increasingly differentiated perception of the peri-
urban area as a place for the production of agricultural commodities as described above. In
particular, Bryant and colleagues (1992), with their comprehensive examination of
‘Agriculture in the city’s countryside’, first challenged the previously mostly one-sided focus on
the problems and shortcomings of PUA. They instead brought attention to the potentials of
the urban-rural interaction by pointing out three main opportunities of PUA – rental of
farmland from non-farming owners, the participation within the near non-farming labour
market of the urban-industrial complex, and the implementation of alternative marketing
strategies to exploit the proximity of the urban demand. As a part of pluriactive strategies,
farm households increasingly improve their income-base by seeking employment
opportunities outside agriculture (Fuller 1990, Evans & Ilbery 1993). Due to the wage
differences between rural and urban economy, the peri-urban location provides some
locational advantages in the context of off-farm income generation. Especially for marginal
farms, this represents a reasonable and increasingly popular opportunity for survival and
the continuation of farming activity on a part-time basis (Meert et al. 2005, Busck et al.
2006). Urban dwellers, which enter the agricultural business through part-time or
recreational farming, might also establish and even expand to full-time farming as
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 16
Diakosavvas (2008) argues. Yet, from his point of view, the labour market provides yet
another advantage, as more seasonal and part-time labour is available in peak periods.
Focussing more narrowly on food production, the exploitation of the proximity to
the urban-based consumers and their demand for regional, high-value and fresh food
represents a serious marketing possibility for peri-urban farmers, particularly for specialised
horticultural vegetable and fruit growers (Loureiro & Hine 2002). Therefore, the integration
of primary producers into local markets through short food supply chains gains political
priority as an important contribution to a sustainable and less transport-intensive mode of
food supply. It also enhances the self-sufficiency of cities and urban areas by increasing
local food security (COM 2011). Farm-gate purchasing, box delivery systems or pick-your-
own direct marketing schemes are therefore most often noticed within peri-urban areas
(Péron & Geoffriau 2007, Aubry et al. 2008).
Beyond local food demand, increasing interest in a broad range of services, from
leisure and accommodation to transportation, storage, construction or skilled crafts, has
been found near urban centres (and with increasing frequency) by residential neighbours
(Boulanger et al., 2004). These demands represent opportunities for farms in particular, not
necessarily the entire rural economy, since the corresponding economic activities often
require extensive area or storage capacity which farm holdings provide (Sharpley & Vass
2006, Præstholm & Kristensen 2007). The production of recreational values has especially
gained importance with the rise of the post-Fordist society. With growing standards of
living and extended leisure time, urbanites now have more time and resources for outdoor
recreation in the near countryside. Due to the proximity of urban centres as nuclei of
societal and lifestyle transitions, this process provides an opportunity to restructure farming
beyond the industrial model that is based on pure commodity production (Bergstrom
2005).
Although hardly researched, a third aspect refers to intrinsic comparative
advantages of agriculture in the hinterland of urban and metropolitan areas. In
contemporary farming, a shift has been recognised from the purely land-based advantages,
such as soil fertility, to innovation and knowledge as other forms of resources (Bryant et al.
1992). Due to the higher density and diversity of the farming community and the proximity
to non-farming land-use actors, it is argued that the increasing regional exchange of
knowledge and information results in an increase in innovation spill-over effects, as well as
STATE OF THE ART 17
an improved mutual learning process between the actors in the food chain process
(production, processing, marketing), in turn bringing about an improved competitiveness of
the regional farming system (Wilson 1996, Beauchesne & Bryant 1999). Contact with
urban lifestyles and ex-urban populations, as well as proximity to the urban-industrial
complex as the main loci of innovation, have both been regarded as comparative
advantages for peri-urban farmers to gain access to information and adopt new production
techniques and products (Le Grand & van Meekeren 2008). Other scholars have shown the
role of young and well-educated farmers, running intensive and specialised farms, as well
as the prevalence of hobby-farmers and new-comers as ‘test-ballooners’, who belong to a
group of early adopters of new ideas, technologies and activities, as they are less reliant on
economic profitability than regular farmers (Præstholm et al. 2007).
In summary, the framework conditions and post-Fordist driving forces of PUA are
well recognised. As the general perception of its viability has changed, a corresponding
shift in the evaluation of its pressures and opportunities has also taken place. Thirty years
ago, the authors of the OECD study commented on the farming conditions, in that they
were “frequently more difficult there [in peri-urban areas, author’s note] than elsewhere: the breaking
up of structures due to urban encroachment and the disamenities and pollution caused by the town
outweigh the advantages to the producers of the proximity of consumers. But the biggest problem is the
uncertainty due to the advance of urbanic uses when farm management needs a long-term view.”
(OECD 1979: 6) Even nowadays, the EESC (CES 2004) considers PUA “areas affected by
specific handicaps” and “whose survival is seriously threatened”. However, there is a wide-spread
acknowledgment of the opportunities and strengths peri-urban areas provide for the
agricultural activity carried out, so that “to consider peri-urban regions merely as areas under
urban pressure would not do justice to the vital role peri-urban areas play as interfaces between the
urban and the rural world.” as Diakosavvas (2008: 24) states. This dissertation also follows
this more differentiated view of farming activity carried out in peri-urban areas, and aims to
identify the multifunctional development potentials that the areas have at their disposal.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 18
2.4 Multifunctional Development of peri-urban Agriculture
Rural Change and Farm Adaption
Driven by output-related subsidies and the previously mentioned cost-price squeeze,
European agriculture in the second half of the 20th century has been constantly under
pressure to adjust production to substitute labour by capital investments under a Fordist
production paradigm of economies of scale, which in turn triggers falling prices. This
technological treadmill (Dexter 1977) gave way to a transition process characterised by the
modernisation and industrialisation of the agricultural sector, and led to a strong
intensification, concentration and specialisation of the production process. As a
consequence of economies of scale, farms became fewer and larger, the level of inputs and
investments (such as machinery, fertilisers, pesticides and the dependency of agri-input
industry) increased, with the result that agricultural labour is now more specialised (Bowler
1985, Ilbery 1991).
Later, from the 1980s onwards, societal trends, like growing hedonism,
consumerism and leisure-orientation, as well as increasing environmental consciousness
accompanied by the rise of green politics, all brought forward a perception of the
countryside as a place for nature conservation, outdoor recreation, vacation and personal
enjoyment, whereas modern agriculture, amplified by the frequency of food scandals, was
seen as harmful to nature, landscape and humans (Thomas 1996, Wandel & Bugge 1997,
Clouth 1998). These driving forces were associated with a comprehensive commodification of
the countryside, where farm holdings, natural amenities or landscape elements suitable for
leisure activities were transformed into purchasable goods demanded foremost by an urban
clientele (Cloke & Goodwin 1992, Urry 1995). In contrast to the intensive farming regions
with their large spaces of production, these are, in the post-productive countryside, replaced
by spaces of consumption, as Marsden (1999) termed the growing relevance of non-productive
activities such as ex-urban living, lifestyle farming and the delivery of non-commodities like
landscape management and nature conservation (Brandt & Vejre 2004, Luttik & van der
Ploeg 2004, Bergstrom 2005, Piorr et al. 2007).
Consequently, farm holders have adopted survival strategies to adjust their activities
and income sources to these new urban demands. Activities have shifted from quantity to
quality food production (Gilg & Battershill 1998, Marsden & Smith 2005, Bowen & De
STATE OF THE ART 19
Master 2011). Farmers increasingly entered pluriactivity schemes of on- and off-farm
diversification, particularly outside the prime agricultural areas, although such schemes
may not have been directly related to agriculture itself (Ilbery et al. 1997, Heimlich &
Barnard 1997, Inwood & Sharp 2012). In contrast to the Fordist production model, post-
Fordist farming is characterised by de-concentration and de-intensification processes,
reflected in the persistence of small family farms and the growth of part-time and hobby
farming. A growing relevance of environmental farming schemes, a differentiation of
farming styles and resonating voluntary schemes of agricultural policy have also been
observed as further driving forces (Ilbery & Bowler 1998, Lobley & Potter 2004).
Nevertheless, the structural and management change of agriculture is subject to
large regional variability. While less prevailing in traditional arable farming regions, it has
become more apparent in marginal or amenity-rich areas (Kristensen 2001, Lobley et al.
2004, Marsden & Sonnino 2008, Pfeifer et al. 2009). Clark et al. (2007) and Galli et al.
(2010) have argued that this model of post-Fordist adaptation is especially relevant in
urban-centred regions, since it provides niches which have little relevance to large industrial
production-oriented agriculture. The intensity of this rural change is nonetheless
particularly strong in those regions, as it is also the urban sphere which is the point of
departure for driving forces of socio-cultural change. The new needs of the post-Fordist
society find their origin within the cities and their suburban areas (Clouth 1998, Salamon
2006).
Still, the dichotomous view of a shift from a pure Fordist production-oriented
paradigm to a post-Fordist consumption paradigm of agriculture has been brought into
question by the argument that both development trajectories coexist spatially and
temporally (Evans et al. 2002, Wilson 2007). There is a core of professional farmers who
are able to adapt their business to changing market and demand conditions beyond post-
productivist pathways (Lobley et al. 2004). Various empirical evidences suggest this
dualism between strategies of intensification and specialisation on the one hand, as well as
extensification and diversification on the other, is particularly evident in peri-urban areas
(Kristensen 2001, Péron & Geoffriau 2007). Therefore, this thesis seeks to address the
question concerning the heterogeneity of farms and adaptation strategies, and provides
further comprehensive evidence for their prevalence in peri-urban agriculture.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 20
Multifunctional Transition in peri-urban Agriculture
The notion of multifunctionality has been established as a framework for the
implementation of sustainable development in agriculture and land-use (Wiggering et al.
2003). Under the assumption that agricultural land-use equally fulfils ecologic and social
functions along with its economic functions, multifunctionality has been defined by the
OECD (Maier & Shobayashi 2001) as a strategy to enable the joint production of commodities
and non-commodities. These include marketable goods like food, fibre (commodities) as well
as the public goods demanded by society, such as landscape management, recreation,
nature conservation or hydrological balance (non-commodities), thus contributing to the
development of the rural area as a whole. Wilson’s (2008) later advanced the concept of
weak and strong multifunctionality, where the latter is determined by high environmental
sustainability, weak integration within the global market but strong local and regional
embeddedness of the rural actors, local food demand and agro-food chains, high quality
food production as well as diversification.
In the course of the Lisbon strategy for economic growth and jobs (2000) and the
Gothenburg goals for sustainability (2001), the EU aimed at enhancing competiveness and
sustainability of agriculture and rural areas. Therefore the multifunctionality was
implemented within the CAP through the Agenda 2000 reforms to decouple financial
support from primary production outputs (COM 2000). Therefore, in 2001, the Rural
Development Programme (RDP) was introduced as a second pillar of the CAP to adopt the
European Model of Agriculture that reflects the concept of Multifunctionality of
Agriculture (MFA).
For its implementation within the ongoing funding period 2007-2013, the European
Council (COM 2005) has formulated a number of general objectives of the RDP for the
development of rural areas at Community level to be further concretised at a programming
level. Along with the competition between agriculture and forestry, rural development is
also to incorporate land management and environmental aspects, as well as quality of life
and the diversification of economic activities, and finally LEADER – a community-based
approach to foster endogenous regional development.
STATE OF THE ART 21
Farm-level Multifunctionality
Interpreting the consequences for individual farm holdings, van der Ploeg et al.
(2002) have conventionalised a framework of transition pathways from conventional
farming practices to multifunctional rural development, distinguishing deepening, broadening
and re-grounding types of farm development trajectories (cf. Figure 5). Deepening represents a
farm-adaptation strategy that aligns agricultural activities to enhanced coherence with
societal needs and expectations. According to the model of van der Ploeg et al. (2002),
typical fields of activities are the establishment of short-supply chains between producers,
processors and customers along the value chain, the introduction of quality production or
organic farming schemes, and regional marketing. The specialisation in horticulture and
intensive vegetable production traditionally represents a typical type of farming around
urban areas following the Thunensian regularity.
Embarking on a strategy to diversify the income-base of the farm enterprise,
broadening represents an adaptation trajectory to compensate decreasing revenues from
traditional agriculture by strengthening integration of the rural countryside into the farm
activities. It encompasses diversification as well as nature and landscape management
activities to provide goods and services demanded by a society willing to pay for either
directly, through the market prices, or indirectly, through compensation payments such as
agri-environmental schemes (van der Ploeg et al. 2002). There are different types of
diversification intrinsic and extrinsic to agriculture, including crop diversification, agri-
tourism and farm accommodation (Turner & Davies 1995, Hjalager 1996), social and care
services (Di Iacovo & O'Connor 2009) or the keeping of livestock for leisure purposes
(Elgåker 2011). Diversification has especially been identified as a frequent farm business
adjustment and survival strategy in peri-urban areas (Ilbery 1987, Ilbery 1991, Meert et al.
2005, Præstholm & Kristensen 2007). Nevertheless, the affinity to these adaptation
decisions depends on several other factors, such as locational conditions (Jongeneel et al.
2008, Pfeifer et al. 2009, Lange et al. in press), institutional environment (Vandermeulen et
al. 2006), and especially the farm, its household and its enterprise characteristics (Meert et
al. 2005, Dalgaard et al. 2007, Maye et al. 2009, Hansson et al. 2010).
As a third mode of multifunctional farm adaption strategy, re-grounding focuses on
cost reduction and additional income generation, which includes passive diversification
such as the renting out of farm buildings (Præstholm et al. 2007) and pluriactive off-farm
P
ERI
-
URBAN
A
GRICULTURE AND
M
ULTIFUNCTIONALITY
22
employment (Evans & Ilbery 1993). Peri-urban farmers are likely to make use of this
adaptation strategy due to the proximity of urban areas with all their employment
opportunities in the industry and service sector, as well as rural-urban wage differences.
Figure 5. The structure of rural development at farm
enterprise level. Source: van der Ploeg et al. (2002).
In conclusion, after reviewing the academic debate on land-use and agriculture in
peri-urban areas, the perception of farming and rural economy in peri-urban settings was
found to have continuously shifted from a pressured and marginalised edge of the
agricultural sector, to a more comprehensive and strengthened economic domain of its
own. A picture of a multifunctional, multi-actor, consumption-oriented countryside has
emerged. Informed by the research on peri-urban areas, its pressures and opportunities
from urban areas, external driving forces, rural change and farm transition have all created
a picture of a PUA which is highly heterogeneous in terms of the types of farming,
adaptation strategies and the activities carried out. Determined by this heterogeneous
farming community, the peri-urban countryside as a whole meets the requirements to
provide multiple functions and services for the (peri-urban) rural economy, society and
S
TATE OF THE
A
RT
23
environment and landscape, from the provision of important ecosystem services, such as
water and climate regulation, through to the provision of income and employment
opportunities for the peri-urban communities with the associated contributions to quality of
life, cultural landscape and local food security. Figure 6 provides an overview of these
relationships as an analytical framework for this doctoral thesis.
Figure 6: Analytical model of the relationship between urbanisation, agriculture and policy.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 24
3 Methodological Considerations
3.1 Research Design
In the context of studying multifunctional agriculture and rural development,
several scholars have emphasised specific methodological challenges to the topic’s multi-
disciplinary character and the scale-dependency of its mechanisms, processes and features
(Marsden 1999, Knickel & Renting 2000, Fry 2001, Renting et al. 2009). They all call for
more integrative trans-disciplinary approaches to enhance understanding of the role of
agriculture for society and rural development. Marsden & Sonnino (2008), for instance,
point out that pure farm-based research approaches are only capable of interpreting the
multifunctional character of agriculture in relation to the notion of pluriactivity. This
means that only the diversity of activities carried out on the farm is taken into
consideration when attempting to comprehend multifunctionality. Instead, they add that
under the post-productive paradigm, this model is replaced by a land-based approach of
landscape diversification (p.423). In the course of the countryside’s commodification, the
understanding of multifunctional agriculture is shaped by the functions and values
agriculture provides to nature and society. Only to a lesser extent is it shaped by the
activities carried out on farm itself. This, then, requires appropriate analysis methodologies
that do not only focus on the individual farm, but on larger spatial entities.
This dissertation specifically examines the multifunctional agriculture and rural
development in peri-urban areas – a space of particularly intense and complex inter-
relationships between farming and the neighbouring urban society. As these interactions
are either significant through the spatial configuration and distribution of agricultural
structure, activities and functions, or indeed through the individual farm-based activities
and household decision-making processes that finally lead to them, a combination of
research approaches addressing these two perspectives consequentially enhances the
understanding of the evolution of a characteristic peri-urban farming community.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 25
Within the methodology debate, this kind of methodological triangulation of
qualitative interviewing and quantitative observation techniques is controversially
discussed, but also acknowledged to contribute to the complementary and validation value
of the research, as well as to provide new perspectives for a theoretical saturation (Flick 1998,
Fielding & Schreier 2001). Patton (2002) argues that data from varying sources are
differently sensitive to different real-world nuances. He points out that “borrowing and
combining distinct elements from pure or coherent methodological strategies can generate creative
mixed inquiry strategies that illustrate variations on the theme of triangulation.” (Patton 2002: 248)
In terms of this thesis, farming systems at a regional or local level – entire regions or
municipalities – which only represent aggregates of the farming activities of the total of
individual farms, provide evidence as to whether the particular area has multifunctional
characteristics or not. At the moment, multifunctionality is understood as the diversity of
farming activities, functions and values (even though they are the result of farm-level
decision making and development strategies). Research on multifunctionality has to be
explored on a regional scale, too, however. The significance of a geographical land-based
and sociological farm-based dimension for the given research objectives suggests a
combination of methodologies borrowed from both perspectives. Whereas the application
of qualitative and quantitative methodologies from social sciences allows insights into the
individual perception of the peri-urban location and corresponding strategic decision-
making processes, the spatial analyses for municipal and regional cross-comparisons place
these within a wider context, and provide a more comprehensive picture of the generic
pattern of peri-urban agriculture.
3.2 Land-based Approach – Spatial Analysis
In the first part of the thesis, the question of multifunctional adaptation in PUA was
addressed from a geographical, land-based point of view. The individual farm has not been
subject to investigation here, but instead the farming systems in defined territorial entities –
municipalities and regions. Rooted in the academic discipline of agricultural geography
which “seeks to describe and explain spatial variations in agricultural activity”, as Ilbery (1986: 1)
has defined as being their main objective, spatial research approaches subsequently ought
to provide an opportunity to explore and interpret distribution differences of
(multifunctional) farming systems within a given territory, such as in metropolitan-centred
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 26
regions (Paper III) or even within the EU (Paper II). Therefore spatial research
methodologies are frequently applied in farming and multifunctionality research (e.g. Ilbery
et al. 1999, Beauchesne & Bryant 1999, Kristensen 2001, Tobias et al. 2005, Pfeifer et al.,
2009). By applying quantitative empirical information about regional characteristics related
to the type and the extent of peri-urbanisation of an area, such as distances to settlement
cores, share of artificial surfaces, population densities, and in-migration of specific types of
people across regions, regional cross-comparisons allow for the exploration and the
provision of statistical indicators associated with the extent and urbanisation effects of
farming, and, by implication, how and if agriculture in peri-urban areas differs significantly
from remote rural areas.
The land-based approach requires extensive, regionally cross-cutting socio-
economic and agricultural census data, as well as spatial land-use data, to be processed
through geographical information systems. In addition, it is important to acknowledge the
much larger number of non-metropolitan factors conditioning the evolution and
transformation of local and regional variations within the agricultural sector independently
from urbanisation and peri-urban framework conditions. These could be bio-physical
conditions, the level of overall economic performance and social welfare, technological
change, inter-regional competition or rural and agricultural policies (Bryant & Johnston
1992). After applying multivariate techniques to detect structures, similarities and
dissimilarities in value-distribution patterns, the aim of the spatial analysis is to develop
statistical models which associate independent variables of urban and non-urban factors
with the dependent variables describing farming systems. Significance levels and
coefficients indicate the strength and direction of the relationship between the location in
peri-urban areas and the prevalence and concentration of (multifunctional) farming
activities.
3.3 Farm-based Approach – Sociological Analysis
The development of agriculture and rural countryside in general depends on the
activities carried out and the strategic decision-making of individuals (farmers and other
actors of the rural economy and society) within the scope of natural conditions that allow a
certain level of farming intensity. Studying the characteristics of farming as a result of the
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 27
adaptation response to certain driving forces – in this case urban pressures and
opportunities prevalent within the peri-urban location – requires an investigation of the
smallest decision making unit’s individual behaviour, namely the farm household. This is
particularly important, as there is a common comprehension of the existence of a large
variety of farms, each distinguished by their household and business structure on the one
hand and corresponding economically, along with non-economically-related decision-
making motivations on the other. The authors of the OECD study (1979), as well as Bryant
et al. (1992), have emphasised the variation of the socio-economic structures of the peri-
urban farming community, and the differing adaptation pathways of intensification,
extensification or surrendering. Referring to the prevailing framework conditions, they
(p.19) have summarised that “farmers do not necessarily respond in the same way to the same
stimuli.” However, within the increasingly post-productive, consumption-oriented
countryside, economic factors are not the only relevant determinants for strategic decision
making. The increasing prevalence of farm holders being motivated by lifestyle and
residential factors has led some agricultural geographers such as Ilbery (1986) or Robinson
(2004) to indicate that motivations which lack an economic rational are also becoming
increasingly relevant to individual farm household behaviour, such as the prevailing social
environment, aspirations and attitudes.
Acknowledging the heterogeneity of the peri-urban farming community, its careful
consideration for the methodological approach is required. As an attempt to integrate the
internal farming community differences, especially regarding their relevance for individual
decision making, the notion of the farming type or farming style, differentiating farming
structure and management practices (arable, mixed, livestock), economic size as well as
household characteristics has been applied as the theoretical approach for research (e.g.
Bowler et al. 1996, Meert et al. 2005) or statistical purposes, such as the European farm
structure survey (FSS). Enhancing the understanding of the diversity within farming
communities, the notion of farming styles has been advanced by the Dutch rural sociologist
Jan Douwe van der Ploeg (1994, 2003, 2010). Defining farming styles, he refers to three
main elements: “[First], a farming style is a coherent set of strategic notions about the way in which
farming should be practised […]. [Second], a farming style also appears as a particular practice […].
[Third], we can regard a farming style as a socio-technological network [of internal and external
relationships].” (van der Ploeg 1994: 111) But as the different groups of farmers share similar
normative and strategic ideas of how farming should be carried out, “a farming style provides
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 28
a specific model for decision-making, one where the strategic notions [about the way farming should be
practiced] are repeatedly shared by groups of farmers” as van der Ploeg et al. (2009: S126) point
out.
The differentiation of farm types analogous to farming styles represents a central
analytical element within the farm household-based research of this dissertation, as strong
heterogeneity within the farming sector and consequently of adaptation strategies is
expected in the peri-urban case studies. When working with typologies of (groups of)
individuals and their pattern of actions and decisions, the combination of quantitative
(Paper IV) and qualitative (Paper V) methods as a form of methodological triangulation has
been acknowledged among sociological methodologists (Flick 1998, Patton 2002, Griese
2005).
3.4 Case Studies, Database and Empirical Methodologies
The case study areas (CSA) and corresponding methodologies have been carefully
selected according to the formulated research concept aiming at bridging geographic
analytic approaches and social science methodologies. Furthermore, data requirements,
such as value distributions, structure and prevailing type of data had to be taken into
consideration and compared with a broader application of statistical analysis techniques.
By means of secondary statistical data sources, the distribution and diversity of farming
systems and activities across regions (in the EU) and municipalities (in the Copenhagen
metropolitan region) are analysed under a land-based approach to multifunctional farm
adaptation. Via questionnaires and in-depth interviews, insights were drawn from the farm-
based research performed in the metropolitan region of Berlin-Brandenburg into the farm-
household decision-making process, as well as the type and extent of multifunctional
farming activities carried out in the area.
Rural-Urban-Regions (RUR)
The empirical research of the thesis starts with a cross-regional exploration of the
territory of the EU. The broad comparison of RUR under specific consideration of urban
and metropolitan-centred regions should provide a comprehensive overview of the regional
farming systems and their regional differences. The analysis carried out in paper II pursues
M
ETHODOLOGICAL
C
ONSIDERATIONS
29
the question in terms of what extent do metropolitan and densely urbanised regions
systematically exhibit different farming patterns in relation to remote rural ones. Therefore,
a regional clustering and classification approach was applied to differentiate RUR regions,
distinguishing 128 metropolitan regions, 190 regions with large urban centres, 216 regions
with small urban centres and 370 remote rural regions. Furthermore, on this European-
wide basis, a spatial definition of peri-urban areas was advanced that took into
consideration the proximity to settlement areas and population density. For a detailed
description of the methodology, see paper II. Figure 7 indicates the distribution of the RUR
regions over the EU.
Figure 7: Rural-Urban Regions (RUR) within the EU. Source: Paper II.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 30
For the statistical analysis, agricultural census data was obtained from the
EUROSTAT regional database (EUROSTAT 2012). Spatial and temporal compliance with
the urbanisation-related database was ensured by using a spatial resolution of NUTS31 and
the census year 2000. Variable values were aggregated according to the NUTS3 clustering
of RUR regions. The statistical analysis was carried out in several steps that made use of
multivariate techniques. For an exploratory data analysis with Principal Component
Analysis (PCA), 23 selected agricultural variables including farm holding sizes, ownership,
farm income, farmers’ age, occupation and specialisation were all considerably reduced to
seven single factors that described the regional farming system in terms of: (i) economic
size, (ii) grassland and livestock production, (iii) horticulture, (iv) land ownership, (v)
arable production, (vi) family labour force and (vii) age structure. To determine the
characteristics and distinctiveness of metropolitan and peri-urban agriculture, a
measurement was applied concerning urban determinants in terms of their strengths of
influence, such as the type of RUR region and the regional share of urban, peri-urban and
rural low and high population density areas. A spatial analysis of agricultural land-use and
land-use change as well as (5) uni- and bivariate statistics, which included descriptive
statistics, rank-size comparisons and correlation analysis was also applied.
Based on CLC2000 data sets for the years 1990, 2000 and 2006, the extent and
changes of farmland has been calculated for all 729 RUR regions for which data was
available. The loss of agricultural area in favour of settlement and industrial area, other
artificial surfaces as well as forest and semi-natural area has been calculated. Table 1 gives
an overview of the relative changes within the different regional classifications. It indicates
that agriculture in metropolitan regions especially faces continuing pressure from
competing land-uses, particularly for urban purposes. Between 1990 and 2006, an average
region of 4,270 ha of agricultural area was converted into artificial surface, about 1.75% of
the total agricultural area in metropolitan regions – with settlements and infrastructure
(2,544 ha) representing by far the largest share of the total land consumption. In this sense,
1 NUTS is an acronym for “Nomenclature d'Unités Territoriales Statistiques” (Nomenclature of
Territorial Units for Statistics). NUTS3 represents the smaller regional level, e.g. counties
(Germany), départements (France) or provinces in Spain and Italy.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 31
they differ substantially from regions that are much less urbanised and contain a lower
share of peri-urban areas.
Table 1: Land-use change from Agricultural Area 1990-2006.
Agricultural Area
Metropolitan
Regions
Regions with
large urban
centre
Regions with
small urban
centre
Rural
Regions
(n=120) (n=167) (n=192) (n=253)
Settlement &
industrial area
in ha 2,544.1 1,013.1 868.5 520.0
in % 1.09 0.61 0.57 0.51
Other artificial
surface
in ha 1,725.4 565.8 499.8 251.8
in % 0.66 0.26 0.26 0.20
Forest &semi-
natural area
in ha 677.1 606.5 938.8 856.5
in % 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.33
Wetland &
water area
in ha 194.6 104.6 127.0 115.3
in % 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.07
total in ha 5,141.1 2,290.1 2,434.1 1,743.6
in % 2.04 1.13 1.12 1.11
Source: Own calculations based on Corine Land Cover provided by the EEA.
Case Study Metropolitan Region Copenhagen
The metropolitan area of Copenhagen with an area of about 9,000 km² represents
the first CSA (cf. Figure 8). Some 503,000 inhabitants live in Copenhagen and
Frederiksberg. Næstved (76,000 residents), Roskilde (75,000 residents) and Helsingør
(54,000 residents) represent other major cities in the region (Danmarks statistik 2010). The
regional population has increased since the 1990s, reaching 2.32 Million in 2011. The
region has seen substantial urban growth in peri-urban and rural areas, both near
Copenhagen and in amenity-rich areas, such as the coastline (Herslund & Fertner, 2010).
P
ERI
-
URBAN
A
GRICULTURE AND
M
ULTIFUNCTIONALITY
32
Artificial surfaces covering settlement, industry and infrastructure have expanded by 7.2%
region-wide. An analysis of CLC data for the years 1990-2006 reveals that this has basically
taken place at the expense of agricultural land located close to urban areas. Agriculture,
which accounts for about 70% of the total area, is particularly subject to less physical but
more structural and functional changes such as transformations of farmsteads for
residential and recreational purposes (Præstholm & Kristensen 2007, Busck et al. 2008).
In the CSA, the spatial inter-relationships between different peri-urbanisation
processes and multifunctional farming activities are examined (Paper III). The spatial
analysis is carried out for a total of 95 municipalities in the region excluding the
metropolitan core of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg. The municipality level represents the
most disaggregated level to depict local variances of the farming systems. Population data
for each municipality has been obtained from national census data (Danmarks Statistik
Statistikbanken 2010, Danmarks Statistik 1989) for the years 1986, 1996 and 2006 to depict
the population change in this 20 year period. The population change has been
differentiated by age, income and household size. Local farming data has been taken from
statistical census data (Danmarks Statistik 2000) and was complemented by regional geo-
information data on agricultural land-use (Institut for Jordbrugsproduktion og Miljø,
Miljøministeriet) for the time period 1999 to 2005.
Figure 8: CSA Metropolitan Region Copenhagen.
Source: Paper III.
Figure 9: CSA Metropolitan Region Berlin-
Brandenburg. Source: adapted from Paper IV.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 33
Land-use Analysis
Regression models were applied to identify relevant explanatory variables to
explain the spatial distribution of different farming activities providing economic
production, ecological and social functions and services from the metropolitan region. The
models are composed of variables covering distinct peri-urbanisation processes (displaced-
urbanisation, ex-urbanisation, anti-urbanisation and hidden urbanisation), the general
urbanisation degree of the municipality (population density) as well as the variables related
to location (spatial distance to Copenhagen) and infrastructure (highway access).
Additionally, variables representing the availability of natural and landscape amenities
(coastal length, forest area, water and wetland area) as well as soil fertility (clay soils) are
considered as major drivers for different types of land-use – namely agricultural (Pfeifer et
al., 2009) and housing (Waltert & Schläpfer 2010).
Case Study Metropolitan Region Berlin
The second CSA is located in the German Federal State of Brandenburg and
encompasses the 66 municipalities around Berlin (cf. Figure 9). As delineation, the border
of the so-called sphere of mutual influence (engerer Verflechtungsraum) was used, which had
been normatively defined by the regional planning authorities2. Together with the capital
city of Berlin, the CSA constitutes the core area of Berlin’s metropolitan region. Some
major cities, such as Potsdam (157,900 inh.), Oranienburg (42,000 inh.), Falkensee (40,800
inh.) and Bernau (36,500 inh.) are located here. The region has a size of 4,834 km² (area
2007) and is populated by about one million inhabitants, growing annually by about one
percent (1996: 826,800; 2006: 1,013,500 inhabitants) (MLUR 2002, Statistik Berlin-
2 Between 1998 and 2007, the sphere of mutual influence (MLUR 2002) was legally defined as a
common planning area by the Common Regional Planning Authority (Gemeinsame
Landesplanungsabteilung Berlin-Brandenburg) of the Brandenburg Ministry for Environment,
Nature Protection and Spatial Development (MLUR) and the Berlin Senate Department for Urban
Development, Environment and Technology (SenStadt) to implement a common regulation of
urban growth, transportation as well as protection of open spaces and resources.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 34
Brandenburg 2008). Based on data of the FSS 20073, agriculture in the CSA is characterised
by large farms of, on average, 110 ha, which is still considerably smaller than the average of
220 ha in municipalities outside the sphere of mutual influence in Brandenburg. 42.6 % of
the farms are run as primary occupation with a clear domination of individual ownership at
84.5 %. The high degree of professionalisation of the farming community is underlined by a
low degree of pluriactivity, with employment outside agriculture (44.6 %) considerably
lower than the rest of Brandenburg (54.1 %). The prevalence of less-favoured conditions
due to low yield expectations on sandy and loamy soils and extensive grassland, wetland
and peat bog areas (MIL 2010) brings about a rather extensive type of land-use, as a
grassland share of 33.3 % indicates.
Keeping of Horses
Horse-keeping has experienced a strong growth in the metropolitan region of
Berlin-Brandenburg. Before the fall of the Berlin wall, the breeding and keeping of horses
represented a marginal activity in agriculture. At that time, productivist and industrial
schemes with very large, output-oriented farm co-operatives dominated the agricultural
structure. It was not surprising that 84 % of the farms that participated in our survey
established horse-keeping activities after 1989. Nowadays, horse-keeping is acknowledged
as an important economic factor for the rural development and tourism of this region (MIL
2008). According to the FSS 2007 (Statistisches Bundesamt 2007), little more than 20,000
horses are kept on farms (horses which are privately held are not taken into consideration).
The Brandenburg Ministry for Agriculture (MIL 2008) estimates that the total number of
horses throughout the entire Federal State of Brandenburg was approximately 34,000 in
2007. In the CSA, at least 8,169 horses were counted on 492 farms. The spatial distribution
of horses in Brandenburg (Figure 10) shows a strong concentration pattern with particularly
high numbers in municipalities of the CSA in the mutual influence sphere.
3 The farm structure survey data (Agrarstrukturerhebung) for the year 2007 was provided by the
Federal Statistical Office (Forschungsdatenzentrum des Statistischen Bundesamtes) on an
aggregated base for municipalities. Due to data confidentiality issues, data for municipalities with
less then three cases (farm holdings) were left out.
M
ETHODOLOGICAL
C
ONSIDERATIONS
35
Figure 10. Distribution of horses kept in farms in the CSA Berlin-Brandenburg 2007.
Source: LDS Berlin-Brandenburg.
Questionnaire Survey
The empirical research in the CSA of Berlin-Brandenburg was carried out to gain a
much more detailed impression of the perception of farmers in regards to the peri-urban
framework conditions and the mechanisms of their adaptation behaviour. Initially, two
questionnaire surveys were planned to cover horse-keeping and horticultural farming, as
well as archetypical types of agriculture in peri-urban areas (as identified in the cross-
regional and cross-municipal spatial analyses carried out in paper II and III). In the case of
horse-keeping farmers, a questionnaire was developed which covers three different
categories of questions: Firstly, the farm household and business background; secondly, the
farmers’ perception of the peri-urban framework conditions, and, thirdly, their responding
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY 36
activities. The questionnaire was discussed and pre-tested with experts from the horse-
sports association (Landespferdesportverband Berlin-Brandenburg) and Brandenburg
Ministry for Agriculture (Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft) and sent out to
a total of 330 horse-keeping farmers, obtaining a final response rate of 18% (n=59). The
gathered quantitative data has been statistically analysed.
Horticultural Production
Horticultural production in the CSA Berlin-Brandenburg is characterised by a
number of traditionally cultivated products of nation-wide importance, such as asparagus,
fruit trees or cucumber. In 2005, the Brandenburg agricultural census counted over 800
holdings with primary or secondary occupation in horticulture producing on 12,000 ha of
agricultural land (LDS 2006). Although horticulture represents only 0.9% of the total
agricultural area and 12% of the total holdings, it accounts for about 20% of the net value
added of the entire farming sector, thereby illustrating its economic relevance (MIL 2010).
Horticultural production prevails in some traditional growing regions, such as the
Spreewald, Havelland or the Oderbruch. However, according to the FSS 2007, particular
concentrations of cultivation areas for fruits, vegetables and flowers can be found in
municipalities within the peri-urban CSA, such as Werder (697 ha), Beelitz (1,296 ha) and
Groß Kreutz (551 ha) to the South-west as well as Altlandsberg (346 ha) to the East of
Berlin.
In-depth interviews
In the case of the horticultural farmers, serious data confidentiality issues emerged
so that the preparation of the survey comparable to the horse-keeping case was not
possible. In this situation, the decision to conduct in-depth interviews was taken following
Patton’s (2002: 253) suggestion for a methodological triangulation approach. Here,
qualitative methods were applied to pragmatically respond to design constraints that
excluded other methodological opportunities. As they allow in-depth inquiries into selected
topics with qualitative methods, more attention was given to detail, context and nuance of
the subject of study. Whereas quantitative approaches have the advantage of having a large
number of respondents, the idea here is to move from studying the behaviour of larger
groups towards focussing on individual observations that are generalised to the specific
groups of farmers they represent. A deterministic, not-statistically probabilistic approach
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 37
was chosen to substitute the missing survey. The number of investigated cases was reduced
through a theory-guided, purposeful sampling of archetypical cases to cover the variety of
farmers under investigation as recommended by Patton (2002: 230 ff.). Working within an
adaption-strategy spectre between active and passive adaptation (as well as intensification
and extensification analogous to van der Ploeg’s approach), the use of a farming-style
approach, which is differentiated by traditional, adaptive, phasing-out and innovative types as a
theoretical foundation, emphasised these aspects for the definition of farming styles. To
ensure a required level of comparability between the interviewee cases, but allowing as
much as possible for insights into individual perspectives, the general guideline interview
method has been applied for the qualitative research. The interview guideline – a pre-
developed list of questions – allows for exploratory topics in the course of the interview
(Patton 2002: 343 f.). Content analysis has been performed to process the qualitative data.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
38
4 Synthesis of Empirical Results
In the following section, the main results of the four explorative and empirical
research papers are summarised and synthesised in regards to the previously formulated
research questions addressing: (i) agricultural land-use change; (ii) the farm holder’s
perception of the prevailing peri-urban framework conditions; and (iii) the forming and
adaption of specific farming characteristics in PUA. The result synthesis represents the
basic foundation for discussing development perspectives for PUA and implications of, as
well as requirements for, policy and planning. Table 2 at the end of the section gives an
overview of the research papers’ key findings.
4.1 Peri-urban Agriculture – Activities and Urban Influence
Multifunctional agriculture has been examined in the land-based analyses on two
different spatial scales – the farming community on regional (Paper II) and municipal level
(Paper III) as well as farm-based analyses (Paper IV & V). Although the investigated
European regions vary in terms of socio-economic framework conditions, geography,
climate, predominant landscape and land-use, the peri-urbanisation of a respective region
as well as the RUR classification (metropolitan, large and medium-size cities, rural)
accounted for a significant influence on prevailing agricultural activities and farming
systems. Agriculture in metropolitan regions and in regions with extensive peri-urban areas
is characterised by specialised farming and horticulture and, to a minor extent, grassland
and livestock production, whereas ‘regular’ arable production represents a feature of the
rural areas (cf. Tab. 3, 4 & 5, Paper II). Farms in these regions compensate the limited and
shrinking land-base through the generation of more revenues per ha area and higher labour-
intensity. Positive correlation could be identified between peri-urbanisation variables and
the horticultural specialisation of farms. (cf. Tab. 5 & Fig. 4a-d, Paper II). Highly peri-
SYNTHESIS OF EMPIRICAL RESULTS 39
urbanised regions, i.e. in the Benelux countries, Western Germany and Northern Italy,
exhibit particularly highly specialised and competitive horticultural production.
These observations are further supported by the investigation of peri-urbanisation
processes4 in the metropolitan region of Copenhagen (Paper III). Here, significant
relationships exist between urban-related location determinants (i.e. population density,
accessibility and distance to the urban centre) and the adoption of specific farming activities
beyond the conventional arable production, such as organic farming schemes, horticultural
production or the keeping of horses. Firstly, environmental-friendly farming schemes, such
as extensive grassland and organic farming, prevail in some peri-urban municipalities in the
northern part of the region. Secondly, horse-keeping activities to enhance the recreational
function operated within the peri-urban landscape occur frequently in municipalities that
are characterised by both high population density and ex-urbanisation, i.e. the in-migration
of affluent urbanites. Thirdly, intensive greenhouse production is concentrated in the direct
neighbourhood of the city of Copenhagen, making an important contribution to the food
production function (cf. Fig. 3 & Tab. 4, Paper III). Particularly the relevance of the
distance to the urban core has been confirmed in the spatial analysis of the Copenhagen
study. With standardised Beta coefficients of 0.56 (horticulture) and 0.45 (horse-keeping),
distance contributed significantly to the explanation of farm activity distribution.
4.2 Perception of peri-urban Framework Conditions
Exemplified by horticultural growers and horse-keepers, the case studies in the
metropolitan region of Berlin (Paper IV & V) explore farm holder perceptions of peri-urban
framework conditions. Both cases exhibit a distinct heterogeneity within the farming
community in terms of farm structure and farming activities. It has been found that even
within specific farming activity such as horse-keeping and horticulture, a broad spectrum of
farmer types exists. In paper IV, farm types have been statistically differentiated into
Diversified traditional farms, Extensive horse-oriented farms, Hobby farms and Intensive equine
service farms which differ strongly in terms of land size and ownership, stocking rates,
4 Peri-urbanisation is here understood as processes of in-migration of specific social groups.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
40
employment and specialisation (cf. Tab. 1, Paper IV). The investigation of the horticultural
production sector also led to a necessary differentiation of farm types that took into
consideration aspects of farm household and business structures as well as behavioural
patterns. Traditional (type A), Adaptive (type B), Phasing-out (type C) and Innovative (type D)
have been identified as archetypical farm types (cf. Fig. 2, Paper V).
Farm type Differences
In both empirical studies of the CSA Berlin, differences have been analysed
between the various farm types in terms of their sensitivity towards, and perception of,
strengths and opportunities, as well as the weaknesses and threats of the peri-urban
framework conditions. In the example of horse-keeping farms, it was determined that there
is a general tendency among farmers in peri-urban areas to realise strengths and
development potentials had by being in the vicinity of the urban agglomeration (between
3.6 and 4.5, average 3.9)5, while being less sensitive to restricting conditions (between 2.4
and 3.9, average 3.0). Still, the perceptions are rather varied among the different farm
types. Farms which rely the most on urban customers, (and are generally located closest to
them6) such as specialised horse-keeping farms, appreciate the accessibility, urban
proximity and good infrastructure in peri-urban areas and usually have a positive
perception of the spatial framework conditions. In contrast, hobby farms, and to some
extent traditional farms, are much less enthusiastic about the peri-urban location. They
both perceive the strengths and opportunities less favourably and are more sensitive to the
weaknesses and threats related to the spatial framework conditions. This is particularly
surprising, since those are the farm holdings which are located even further into the
countryside (cf. Tab. 2, Paper IV).
Among the horticultural growers investigated in paper V, the peri-urban framework
conditions are seen much more ambivalently. The qualitative analysis of the interviews
showed dominance of neither advantages, nor disadvantages, but rather differences
occurring between the various types of farms. Attitude and value proposition of the
5 A five-point Likert scale was used to measure the response behaviour with the response levels 1 =
“not agree”, 2 = “less agree”, 3 = “neutral”, 4 = “more agree”, 5 = “fully agree”.
6 77% of the “Intensive equine service farms” are located within 10 km of the city border.
SYNTHESIS OF EMPIRICAL RESULTS 41
individual farm holder played an important role for the perception of the peri-urban
framework conditions. While farm holders of a traditional or phasing-out type at least
struggle with the hardships and conflicts related to the proximity with urban dwellers, more
open-minded adaptive and innovative types hardly recognise any weaknesses or threats.
They prefer to proactively make use of the existing market opportunities, since they have
specifically chosen the very peri-urban location in question.
Urban Opportunities
In papers VI and V, mainly aspects of urban market opportunities and the
infrastructural situation, as well as their perceived importance for farming activities, have
been surveyed. On average, there is some agreement (3.6) that both infrastructure and the
existing urban demand represent strengths for farmers in the peri-urban fringe of Berlin to
start an equine service activity. Ranked even higher is the potential importance of the urban
proximity (4.0) and accessibility to urban consumers (4.5). No significant results were
found regarding type-specific differences in the evaluation of the current infrastructure and
urban demand situation. Only specialised equine service providers stand out with their high
regard of their proximity to Berlin (4.6) and accessibility to customers (4.9). Accordingly,
they have developed specific urban-oriented services, such as social and therapy services
(62%) or horse-pension services (85%), while showing low interest in area-intensive
activities such as fodder production or the implementation of agri-environmental measures,
which do not require close proximity to the city (cf. Paper IV).
All the horticultural farm holders interviewed acknowledged the proximity to urban
consumers and access through transportation infrastructure as important location factors,
which they utilize through various types of short food-supply chain measures (i.e. just-in-
time supply for local processing and canteens, farm shops, box services). Here, it was
surprising that particularly the traditional and phasing-out producers (type C) have very
intensive ties to customers in the urban area of Berlin and Potsdam – even more so than the
adaptive farmer (type B) who has purposefully chosen the peri-urban location to establish
his farming activities (cf. Paper V).
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
42
Urban Pressures
Among the weaknesses and threats, the particularly high land prices (between 2.0
and 4.1, average 3.4) and the limited expansion opportunities (between 3.0 and 4.4,
average 3.9), of the land market have been assessed as the main restricting factors for peri-
urban horse-keeping farms, whereas the issue of short rental contracts was hardly seen as a
problem (between 1.7 and 3.2, average 2.4). However, the results exhibit strong variations
between the different types. Extensive horse-oriented farms tend to own their land. They
are also located further away from Berlin. Owners here mainly see the limited expansion
possibilities (3.0) and short rental contracts as problems (1.7), whereas the small-scale,
intensive farm holdings worry mostly about land shortage (4.0), land prices (4.1) and the
long term perspective (3.2) (cf. Paper IV).
The results from interviews with horticultural farmers in the Berlin peri-urban area
also suggest that land shortage and uncertainties about land-use changes have only a minor
affect on the farm holders’ decision-making process. Despite their direct proximity to urban
areas (mainly low density residential housing), there is a common trust in existing
municipal zoning legislations to safeguard a long-term planning perspective for agricultural
land-use. The innovative farmer in particular bases their future development perspective
strongly on the informal interaction with, and support from, the urban neighbourhood (cf.
Paper V).
Among the horse-keeping farm holders, the pressure from the competition with
urban land-use is perceived as much less of a problem than the general land market
situation. The large-scale traditional farms (1.9) and the extensive horse-oriented farms
(1.9) mostly disagree with such a statement, whereas it represents an issue for hobby
farmers (3.3) and the intensive producers (3.3). Other disadvantages of the peri-urban
location, such as conflicts with the direct neighbourhood (2.6) and legal restrictions (2.7),
are less important for horse-keepers and show no significant differences between the
different farm types (cf. Paper IV). However, the in-depth interviews with the horticultural
farmers revealed a somewhat contrasting picture. The traditional, phasing-out farmer, and,
to a lesser extent, the innovative, socially-embedded farmer regularly witness
neighbourhood conflicts (e.g. trespassing, theft, vandalism and free-roaming dogs). The
traditional farmer even experiences neighbouring residents complaining about the exposure
to farming-related noise and dust.
SYNTHESIS OF EMPIRICAL RESULTS 43
4.3 Farm Adaptation and Multifunctional Development
By studying the producer-consumer relationships of peri-urban horticultural
growers in the metropolitan area of Berlin, a high degree of specialisation in the production
of fruit and vegetables was found. Only the adaptive and the phasing-out type have
established animal husbandry activities. All have developed a strong urban-market
orientation, relying completely on the level of urban demand, since the production is
entirely sold in the Berlin metropolitan region. Therefore, different direct marketing and
short supply links to customers have been established: direct relations to a near-urban
processor (traditional farmer), farm gate purchase (adaptive), farmers’ markets, food boxes
and local canteens (phasing-out farmer) and pick-your-own (innovative) (cf. Paper V).
The spatial distribution of farm holdings with a typical post- or non-productive
activity, such as horse-keeping, exhibits a concentration within the inner urban fringe. In
the case of the Berlin metropolitan region, an overwhelming share of 77% of all horse-
keeping farms is located within a distance of 10 km from the city border (cf. Paper IV).
About one third of the surveyed farms have established horse-keeping as a sideline activity
to broaden their income base. It has been shown that their contribution to a multifunctional
peri-urban countryside goes beyond the additional provision of recreational services. Often
social and educational services are jointly established. Particularly in the case of more
extensive and diversifying farm types, the holding of horses keeps pastures in less-favoured
areas and redundant farm buildings in operation and also contributes to the maintenance of
the cultural landscape. Fodder requirements (composition of grass and herbs), pasture
management and agri-environmental measures especially bring about other ecological
values such as habitat and biodiversity or water balance.
Taking horse-keeping and horticultural production as two typical examples of peri-
urban agricultural activities, a general tendency towards multifunctional adaptation can be
recognised on individual farms, but even more within the peri-urban farming community
and countryside as a whole, bearing in mind the heterogeneity of farming types, their
activities carried out and consequently the functions they provide.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
44
Table 2: Overview of the main findings.
Urban influence on peri-urban agriculture
Continuation of farm loss in metropolitan and peri-urban areas
Heterogeneity of farming activities, farm types and farm sizes (bi-modal distribution) within the peri-
urban farming community
Intensity of labour and revenues generated (Compensation to limited land resource)
Urban-market orientation of activities (frequent horticulture and horse-keeping)
Less conventional arable farming (property of the rural domain)
Perception of peri-urban framework conditions
Major differences between farm types (traditional, adaptive, innovative, hobby/phasing out)
Emphasis of strengths and opportunities (accessibility and proximity to urban consumer valued)
Weaknesses and threats less important (Land market and legal restrictions play only minor roles)
Multifunctional Adaptation
Diversity of farming systems and activities contribute to multifunctionality of the peri-urban
ld
Frequent diversification and direct marketing initiatives
Horse-keeping as contribution to the recreation function
Extensive grassland management through horse-keeping
DISCUSSION 45
5 Discussion
The research issue of agriculture in peri-urban areas has been addressed from
different spatial and farm-based perspectives. In the following section, the empirical results
related to the characteristics of agriculture under urban influence and in peri-urban areas
are discussed in terms of their agricultural activities and farming systems. Here, the
examination of the perception of urban pressures and opportunities as well as adaptation
strategies and the corresponding farming activities used by farmers are reflected within the
wider context of agricultural and land-use research. It needs to be verified whether, firstly,
the image of an adaptive, post-productive and multifunctional PUA can be substantiated,
and if so, secondly, specific development perspectives of the peri-urban farming community
can be derived from it. Furthermore, the ability and capacity of spatial planning and
regional development policy to comply with the requirements of a multifunctional PUA are
also discussed.
5.1 Perspectives of multifunctional peri-urban Development
Taking into consideration the research results at hand, agriculture in peri-urban
areas is exposed to severe urbanisation pressures related to land availability, especially in
metropolitan regions, as urban growth there, to a large extent, takes place at the expense of
farmland. In addition, neighbourhood conflicts, limitations and nuisances linked to farm
activity itself have been reported. However, despite its declining role for the regional
economy, agriculture continuously represents the main peri-urban land-use actor. Overall,
the framework conditions do not seem to cause any anxiety among the farm holders, as
they perceive more advantages than deficits. At the same time, it has been revealed that
PUA in many regions across the EU and within the Copenhagen-Zealand and Berlin-
Brandenburg CSA is highly competitive and multifunctional in terms of the diversity of
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
46
activities carried out on either single farms or within the farming community. In the
following section, the main development perspectives of PUA that can be derived from
these results will be discussed, and which perspectives correspond to the initial hypotheses
of this dissertation: (i) the urban-market orientation, (ii) the innovation and flexible
adaptation capacities and (iii) multifunctional development opportunities.
Urban-market Orientation
Despite decades of urban demand for food supply being de-coupled from its rural
hinterlands, the empirical results of the various case studies indicate a continual presence of
producer-consumer relationships between urban centres and peri-urban farming
communities. Farm holders have acknowledged the customer potential stemming from a
nearby urban location, since they have specialised on horticultural products relevant to the
urban market and established different forms of direct marketing schemes. This was
particularly evident in the findings from the agricultural land-use analyses of the papers II
and III. The spatial analyses across European RUR regions and the examination of the
agricultural communities in the Copenhagen regions have indicated an orientation of
farming activities that serve the requests of the nearby urban market, since equine services
and the production of horticultural products (cf. Tab. 5, Paper II & Fig. 3, Paper III)
showed particularly strong spatial concentrations in peri-urban areas. The frequent
provision of these goods and services by agriculture in peri-urban areas, which are
characterised by the in-migration of affluent residents, is particularly evident in the CSA
Copenhagen. This indicates the relevance of local demand and purchasing power as
incentives for farmers to carry out these activities. Such findings substantiate previous
research results. In their study on short supply chains in the peri-urban area of Paris, Aubry
et al. (2008) found that at least half of the horticultural farmers there have established short
food links to urban consumers, in part to help cope with domestic and global competition.
However, these relationships do not play an eminent role in the urban food supply,
as they are limited to certain segments of the product palette only, particularly fresh and
perishable food – a situation which has not changed ever since it was recognised (Bryant &
Johnston, 1992). The urban-rural relationships appear to have intensified when broadening
the perspective from food production to other functions and services that agriculture
provides for urban areas, namely in the provision of recreational services such as equine
services, but also through the participation in other diversification measures that are
DISCUSSION 47
particularly pronounced in peri-urban farming communities. In the literature review (Paper
I), empirical evidence was found that suggests an increasing consumer demand for
regionally produced food (Boulanger et al. 2004, van Huylenbroeck et al. 2005) and rural
goods and services in general (Buciega et al. 2009). Also, the popularity of urban
agricultural initiatives and community supported agriculture indicates a desire to bring
agriculture and food production closer to urban society, with urban dwellers themselves
increasingly involved in gardening, food harvesting and distribution activities (Garnett
2001, Rosol 2010). This growing interest in, and awareness of, local food represents a
serious development opportunity for PUA as a regional food producer and provider of
recreational services, and effects the peri-urban development in a number of ways,
including: increasing the net value added for regional farming households, synergy effects
with landscape management,(Knickel & Hof 2002, Roep 2002), as well as ensuring local
embeddedness and trust-building with consumers (Hinrichs 2003).
As argued by Buciega and colleagues (2009), however, the opportunities of these
urban-rural consumer-producer relationships are only marginally captured due to
insufficient systems of management and the inadequate coordination of bringing together
peri-urban producers and urban consumers. Developing new institutional arrangements for
common marketing and cooperation activities for regional (quality) production and direct
marketing has been suggested as a way of increasing the accessibility of local and regional
markets, such as intermediate management actors, cooperative and regional trademarks
(Roep 2002, Knickel et al. 2002). Brunori and Orsini (2010) further emphasised the
importance of involving the local community and the implementation of actor-networks for
the consolidation of peri-urban agriculture and the establishment of local food supply.
Finally, shorter supply chains and regional marketing have become objectives of the
European agricultural policy as a priority in the rural development support towards 2020
(COM 2011), emphasising their assigned role for regional development.
Innovation and flexible Adaptation Capacity
Empirical results about the uptake of alternative means to generate revenues
through diversification within and beyond agriculture (as well as the urban market-oriented
specialisation) strongly indicates a pronounced capability of peri-urban farming
communities to adapt to the prevailing framework conditions as determined by the
proximity to urban areas. Despite existing inconveniences and disadvantages of bordering
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
48
urban areas, it is noticeable that farming in the urban fringes is everything else but a
marginalised and pressured land-use object ripe for speculation, or indeed is it simply land
reserved for future urban expansion. To the contrary, and particularly at the urban fringes,
agriculture was found to be very ‘lively’, rather intensive and diversifying, as well as
innovatively and actively dealing with the prevailing framework conditions and making use
of the existing comparative advantages. Some farms have even been explicitly established
deliberately in near-urban location with a long-term perspective. In their comparative study
of vegetable production in different European metropolitan regions, Péron and Geoffriau
(2007) confirmed that despite urban pressures and the growing competition of large-scale
agriculture, peri-urban vegetable growers have developed specific strategies to ensure the
continuation of production, namely specialisation of certain crop types, area concentration
and water management.
The innovative capacity and adaptation ability of peri-urban farmers can be
attributed to the heterogeneity of the peri-urban farming community found within various
farming types, including the specific role of ‘alternative’ and hobby farms, and the activities
carried out therein. The analysis of their adaptation behaviour showed that peri-urban
farmers substantially vary depending on the socio-economic characteristics (business and
household structure) – those being either traditional, adaptive, innovative, or hobby farmer.
Depending on the farm type, strong differences were found regarding the intensity,
investment volumes, diversification activities, relationships to customers, marketing
strategies, and the integration and communication with urban society in general. Among
horticultural farms, for example, large scale, traditional producers were found who do not
diversify at all, but who have adjusted their production according to customer
requirements. On the other hand, small-scale farmers were found who seek to intensify the
dialogue and exchange with urban dwellers, either as communication and feedback with
direct customers to acquire knowledge on (changing) preferences, through to the
participation in innovative local food systems, or the involvement of informed and
interested urban residents in the gardening activity without any pressure to farm
economically, but as an expression of lifestyle and personal fulfilment. Thus, peri-urban
horticultural farmers apply a broad spectrum of mechanisms to utilise the urban proximity
not only as a market but also as a source of information and knowledge.
To a large extent, these findings align with existing farm typology models applied to
peri-urban or metropolitan agriculture. The differentiation of traditional, adaptive and
DISCUSSION 49
hobby farming has been frequently observed in other regions (Heimlich & Barnard 1997,
Van Huylenbroeck et al. 2005, Cicia et al. 2008). The coexistence of different farm types
and the diversity of farm strategies enhance the overall ability to adapt to changing
demands and the availability of resources, to occupy and exploit niches, as well as to adopt
innovations and technologies in production, processing or marketing of products –
therewith strengthening the resilience of the peri-urban farming community as a whole.
Among peri-urban farmers, the roles of hobby and alternative modes of farming are
particularly interesting. As their motivation is not economically driven, they perceive and
carry out agricultural activity for leisure and reasons of self-fulfilment. It was observed that
they adopt organic production schemes and innovative modes of organisation and
production. The spatial correlation between the in-migration of affluent parts of the
population and the prevalence of organic production schemes in the CSA Copenhagen
supports this reasoning. Alternative concepts include a strong transitional element as a sort
of intermediate land-use, keeping farmland in production in environments of dynamic
land-use developments. The presence of hobby farmers has been understood as important
for the innovation process within a farming community. Due to their low economic
pressure and financial risk, hobby farmers adopt new technologies (machinery, seeds, etc.)
often before their regularly producing neighbours, who tend to implement them at a later
stage (Bryant & Johnston 1992, Præstholm et al. 2007).
Multifunctional development
Multifunctionality of PUA was analysed from two different perspectives – from the
individual farm level, as well as from a regional level covering landscapes and farming
communities. In regards to farm adaptation behaviour, it was found that the agricultural
community in peri-urban areas has developed along the lines of intensive and specialised
farming (deepening) and lifestyle-oriented activities diversification (broadening) at farm
level over time – a process determined by the spatial conditions of the peri-urban
framework conditions (and here, first of all , by the level of urban demand). This indicates
that peri-urban areas have been exposed to the post-productive turn in agriculture, which
means that the countryside is commodified to provide functions and values beyond
commodity production as Clouth (1998) and Marsden (2003) have argued. The frequent
occurrence of horticultural production (purposefully in proximity to the city), however,
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
50
questions this line of argument, as it can be assumed that the importance of local food
production has increased even further.
The spatial analyses of regional (Paper II) and local agricultural structure (Paper
III) found that PUA is characterised by the presence of multiple farming activities, from
intensive horticulture and greenhouse production to equine services and landscape
management such as extensive grassland. Although the degree of pluriactivity and
diversification of the surveyed farms was limited, indications for a multifunctional
character of PUA could be recognised when the perspective was shifted from the individual
farm to territorial, as suggested by Marsden & Sonnino (2008). Considering the whole peri-
urban farming community, there is larger diversity of multiple functions and values for
urbanised regions – namely quality food provision, leisure and care services, and landscape
management. The prevalence of agricultural activities in the CSA Copenhagen (Paper III)
provides evidence in this direction. As shown in the literature review (Paper I), a high
degree of compliance between urban demand and peri-urban supply can be deduced from
the multiple demands and interests in urban areas for environmental quality, amenities,
outdoor recreation, leisure and regional food heading the list. Together with the
environmental and cultural landscape values connected to the agricultural activity, the
increasing relevance of local food supply and the diversification within and beyond
agriculture, the strengthening of social and cultural values indicates a transition of the peri-
urban area into a landscape of Wilson’s (2008) strong multifunctionality.
5.2 Public Intervention – Institutions, Policy and Planning
It has been previously discussed that a number of development perspectives exist for
agriculture in peri-urban areas thanks to a closer linkage to the urban market, innovation
and adaptation capacity, as well as for its multifunctional structure. At the same time,
urban pressures and disturbances, such as farmland lost to urbanisation, threaten the
territorial basis and economic viability of farming. Therefore, requirements for a regulatory
framework – institutions and instruments such as agricultural and rural development policy
and land-use planning to maintain and strengthen farm activity in the peri-urban fringe –
need to take prevailing framework conditions and development potentials into
consideration. These specifics, which are different to other rural areas, have to resonate in
DISCUSSION 51
the design of the respective planning instruments and spatial development policies that
currently neglect peri-urban areas and their requirements. Its reflection in the context of
public intervention through institutions, policy and planning departs from the discussion
part carried out in the review paper I, but extends and deepens it further to incorporate the
local, regional and European level including (i) land-use planning and zoning instruments,
(ii) regional governance and (iii) agricultural and rural development policy.
Preservation of peri-urban Farmland
One basic objective of policy and planning in peri-urban areas is the preservation of
farmland in general. It concerns the basis of all agricultural activity, since the conversion of
farmland for urban purposes continues unabated, as has been argued above. In order to
sustain agricultural activity in the peri-urban areas of metropolitan regions, instruments of
public intervention through urban containment and growth management policies are
required (Piorr et al. 2011). Combined with financial incentives, zoning and urban growth
boundaries represent the main planning instruments, such as the Green Belts in the UK
(Gant et al. 2011), regional and comprehensive planning (e.g. with priority areas) in
Germany (ARL 1999), Scheme of Territorial Coherence (SCoT) in France (Buyck et al.
2010) or more regional approaches, such as the Copenhagen ‘Fingerplan’ (Vejre et al. 2007)
or the Green Heart within the Randstad metropolitan region and buffer zones in the
Netherlands (Koomen et al. 2008).
The main idea of these concepts is to geographically define zones adjacent to urban
areas where urban development is prohibited or limited to prevent encroachment of urban
sprawl into the peri-urban open spaces. Adopted in the different countries between the
1930s and 1960s, these zoning schemes have become relatively important and successful in
limiting urban growth in the designated areas: developments have been postponed (Gant et
al. 2011), general urbanisation rates were reduced (Koomen et al. 2008) and structural
requirements for open-space development have been retained (Vejre et al. 2007).
Additionally, territorial separation allows for the co-existence of conflicting land-uses
within the peri-urban area, either production-intensive, or leisure and environmentally
oriented (Daniel & Perraud 2009).
However, the actual impact of these zoning measures on land preservation is a
moot point. By not limiting urbanisation potential in general, restrictions within the open
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
52
space zones only redistribute development pressure to areas adjacent to them. As Robinson
(2004) has argued, containment policies put additional pressure on the suburban
neighbourhoods and brownfield re-development inside the Green Belt, and encourage ex-
urban leapfrogging outside of it. Furthermore, changing growth boundaries, local calls for
restriction easements, and uncoordinated municipal planning and development
permissions (which have been observed in various regional settings) have all raised doubts
about the zoning measures’ preservation ability (Vejre et al. 2007, Koomen et al. 2008,
Gant et al. 2011).
Planning for Multifunctional Agriculture
The criticism applies even more to the multifunctional development of farming in
the peri-urban area. Open space preservation comes under the purview of natural areas
rather than farmland. Although natural areas are highly valued by the public from an
environmental and aesthetic perspective, farming is only given a marginal reason to survive
in peri-urban areas (Koomen et al. 2008). More societal acknowledgement is required for
the functions and values agriculture can provide to the urban society, such as local food
and comparably cost-efficient provision of landscape features. Kerselaers et al. (2011) have
called for a clear vision as to how and where agricultural land under pressure should be
preserved. Furthermore, zoning-type land-use planning with its mono-functional approach
to land-use is often rather ill-prepared to respond to multifunctional land-use challenges
such as horse-keeping and other urban-like diversification activities which cannot clearly be
attributed to the agricultural areas. Typically, zoning legislations are undermined through
the spread of non-agricultural land-uses on farms, or the switch from full-time farming to
the consumption-oriented use of hobby farmers and residents (Vejre et al. 2007, Bomans et
al. 2010). In contrast to planning methods aiming at prescribing durable land-use, the
regulation of a peri-urban, post-productive and multifunctional agriculture requires a
greater flexibility to respond to the dynamic transitions and the mixture of land-uses.
British scholars such as Shoard (2002) as well as Gallent and colleagues (2006) have
criticised the adoption of preservation-planning like the Green Belt in the urban fringe as a
defensive preservation approach that rather reinforces the urban-rural divide in planning,
while lacking a positive and visionary development agenda. Gant et al. (2011) have
formulated the need for a proactive approach with a specific peri-urban agenda. However,
it can be agreed that it is necessary to actively control the transformation of the peri-urban
DISCUSSION 53
agriculture as well as its diversification process and supervise the targeted provision of
environmental services to meet urban societal demands, while also carefully reflecting the
region’s prevailing natural characteristics and potentials.
Both Gallent et al. (2006) and Rode et al. (2006), for instance, have argued for an
implementation of consensus-oriented concepts of commonly shared, multipurpose land to
enable closer multifunctional development by spatial and temporal integration of multiple
activities and intermediate agricultural land-use approaches. In this context, Ryan and
Hansel Walker (2004) and von Haaren and Reich (2006) have highlighted the necessity of
farmers’ participation as main land managers in implementing this kind of multifunctional
greenway planning. Similarly, Leinfelder (2009) proposed an adaption of the traditional
zoning practice in the case of open space planning. Instead of a geographical definition of a
future land-use, he suggests a strategic zoning approach that describes purposes and
contextual conditions. This appears particularly promising, since it provides a planning
opportunity to formulate and support the required co-existence of the same entity’s
multiple purposes.
Regional Governance
While formal zoning-based planning instruments represent measures to provide a
legal basis to curb the physical land-use transition of agricultural areas, governance-based
approaches can be applied to encourage the multifunctional development of peri-urban
agriculture itself, thereby strengthening the urban-rural relations, adaptive and innovative
character of the agricultural sector, as well as the heterogeneity of the peri-urban
agricultural community in terms of farm types and the activities carried out. The literature
review (paper I) has shown that there are multiple ecological, economic and societal claims
and requirements on the peri-urban countryside and the multiple goods and services it
should provide. Applying adaptation strategies either to deepen, broaden or re-ground
activities, peri-urban agriculture already copes with these demands in terms of marketable
goods and services. To some extent peri-urban farmers have actively established
connections to urban consumers. Still, the relationship between urban society and peri-
urban farming is first of all characterised by mutual disregard, land-use competition and
conflict. Therefore, encouragement of urban-rural linkages and enhancement of the
integration of the peri-urban countryside in spatial development strategies for urban regions
is suggested by the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (COM 1999). New
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
54
managerial and governance mechanisms are necessary to negotiate the multiple conflicts
and common interests of urban and peri-urban actors and the different types of farmers in
the limited and complex peri-urban space. More integrated, holistic and spatial approaches,
and a common rather than a sectoral framework of action have been repeatedly suggested
(Marsden 1999). The EESC (CES 2004) has called for participatory and managerial based
“supra-municipal management projects” dealing with cross-sectoral issues in the peri-urban, its
land-use and the role agriculture should play within it.
Examples of such governance approaches are inter-municipal co-operations, or the
establishment of territorial units covering urban and peri-urban legislative bodies. Using the
example of the Ile-de-France region, Guiomar (2010) for instance outlines how municipal
and regional entities support farming in peri-urban areas by addressing multiple objectives,
such as land market, land access, agricultural production structures, product quality,
environmental quality, marketing or integration into the local cultural heritage. A variety of
measures has been proposed, including financial support (e.g. for purchasing farm-land,
financial incentives to set up farms, diversification and agri-environmental production),
valorisation of the agricultural landscape (e.g. pathways and orchard planting) or
information and awareness rising (e.g. inventories of fallow land, certification and branding
of products, competitions, festivals and the use of media).
The establishment of regional and landscape parks represents another example to
integrate urban and rural actors within regional participatory approaches. Often intended
as a means of valorising the landscape via a form of environmental protection or a form of
touristic infrastructure development, sustainable, multifunctional agricultural-use
nevertheless also represents a frequent objective, such as currently found in the regional
parks of Berlin-Brandenburg. Here, strategic-development concepts for the peri-urban area
have been formulated based on a co-operation network of peri-urban municipalities, Berlin
district administrations, regional authorities, as well as other actors involved in the peri-
urban economy, society and the field of nature protection. Objectives and specific measures
have been set up to enhance regional marketing and quality production through the
establishment of a regional trademark, regional supply chains, as well as quality and quality
management. Further objectives are the support of environmentally oriented and organic
farming schemes, as well as agriculture-related tourism (Regionalpark Barnimer Feldmark
2007).
DISCUSSION 55
Focussing on agricultural competitiveness and preservation issues in peri-urban
areas, agricultural parks such as in Barcelona (Parc Agrari del Baix Lobregat) and Milan
(Parco Agricolo sud Milano) present exemplary approaches to maintaining and
strengthening agricultural land-use in peri-urban areas under pressure by including their
territorial base as well as their ecological, cultural and productive values. The projects cover
modernisation and competitiveness of agriculture, regional branding and marketing, and
resource protection (Montasell & Callau 2008) and the implementation of agri-
environmental schemes, the establishment of agricultural information systems, as well as
the promotion of regional marketing for organic agriculture (Scelsi 2002). These all
represent valuable examples of how the multifunctionality of PUA can be addressed
through regional governance approaches. The participation of regional actors from urban
society and the peri-urban farming community allows for the setting up of development
objectives and implementation measures that are relevant to the specific regional
circumstances.
Rural Development Policy
Rural Development Programmes (RDP) have been introduced as a political
instrument to promote the “multifunctional role farming plays in the richness and diversity of
landscapes, food products and cultural and natural heritage throughout the Community” (COM
2006: 2) as a second pillar of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Compared
to the agricultural market intervention of the direct single farms payments, the RDP
represent a more programmed approach guided by overarching objectives – competiveness
(axis 1), environment and countryside (axis 2), quality of life in rural areas and
diversification (axis 3) and LEADER (axis 4) as a territorial community-based approach.
Therefore, strategic guidelines are set up at an EU level, while, based on subsidiary
principles, specific measures are defined to be selected for RDP design on national and
regional levels. By principle, Rural Development is therefore able to take into account
regional (peri-urban) specifics, and represents a suitable support instrument to address
typical peri-urban issues, such as the diversification, innovation and modernisation.
The design of the support schemes – in terms of the intervention logic of eligibility
criteria – does not reflect the requirements of peri-urban agriculture and even excludes it
from the funding scheme. The Rural Development programming instead focuses on a
continuous and uniform rural area, as van Berkel & Verburg (2010) criticise, and is
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
56
particularly ill-prepared to meet the requirements of, and set incentives for, the
development of a heterogeneous and dynamic peri-urban farming community with small,
intensive and specialised farms that are both extensive and diversified. To comply with the
specific urban pressure and development trajectories, agriculture and rural development
schemes require a more pronounced regional targeting that is oriented towards the specifics
of the region and the beneficiaries in PUA, as has been suggested by Piorr et al. (2011). The
intervention needs to be tailored to small and active farmers. Multifunctional farming
activities are not solely performed by farmers, particularly in peri-urban areas, but by other
(groups of) actors and land owners, e.g. associations or on municipal jurisdictions. Changes
to eligibility criteria are therefore necessary, such as minimum farm sizes or long contract
durations for the participation in agri-environmental schemes that inhibit any flexible
response to changed land-use conditions. Further measures are necessary to more
specifically address peri-urban issues, such as the encouragement of urban-rural
relationships and the demand-oriented provision of collective goods and services. Also,
specific peri-urban farming types and activities such as horse-keeping or specialised
horticultural production need to receive further attention.
In addition, the legal definitions of rural areas that often excluded peri-urban areas
from eligibility need to be questioned. By referring to the OECD (2007) definition of
intermediate and predominantly rural regions, some RDP explicitly exclude peri-urban farmers
from certain funding schemes. An alternative approach is chosen, for instance, in French
rural development, where the peri-urban zone as peri-urban and rural crowns is explicitly
included in the RDP intervention (EN RD 2011). In the consultation process for the
reconfiguration of the CAP towards 2020, it has in general been emphasised that the PUA
requires specific attention (COM 2010).
CONCLUSION 57
6 Conclusion
At its commencement, four central objectives were formulated to guide the research
carried out in the context of this dissertation thesis – (i) from the juxtaposition of urban
demand and peri-urban supply of agricultural functions and values, (ii) the analysis of the
characteristics of PUA under urban influence, (iii) the examination of farm holder
perceptions on urban pressures and opportunities as well as their corresponding adaptation
strategies, and finally (iv) the identification of suitable modes of regulatory intervention to
foster the multifunctional development of peri-urban agriculture.
Addressing the first research objective of this dissertation thesis, it can be reasoned that
the peri-urban area represents an important part of the rural sphere, as it is the very place
where the societal demand for rural goods and services from urban areas is concentrated.
Alongside forestry, agriculture plays a key role in managing open landscape and therefore
provides valuable public goods and services to the nearby urban areas. Along with forests
and other natural area, farmland contributes to the ecological capacity, since it provides
functions like groundwater replenishment, flood control, urban climate moderation and
carbon sequestration. As an integral element of the cultural landscape in peri-urban areas,
agriculture is further appreciated for its provision of the visual and landscape amenities.
The surrounding countryside of cities and agglomerations has become increasingly relevant
as a recreational space. Urban dwellers benefit directly in terms of living conditions and
quality of life. Driven by consumer awareness for food quality and renewed town-country
relations, interest in localised supply of food has increased. Despite that, post-productive
demands play an important role in the peri-urban countryside. These demands are felt
within an area of tension between synergy and a jointness of production, as well as conflicts
with other land-use claims within and beyond the realm of agriculture.
Agriculture under urban influence – in metropolitan regions or more specifically in
peri-urban areas – exhibits substantial differences to its more remote rural counterpart.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
58
Aiming at objective two, the exploration of peri-urban agriculture has delivered indications
that farming communities at the urban fringes have already responded to these emerging
demands. Empirical evidence for intensified, small-scale agriculture, focussing on
horticultural products and the generation of higher income revenues has been found
alongside extensified, environmental-oriented grassland cultivation associated with
lifestyle-orientation and the prevalence of equine service. The expansion of horse-keeping
and other recreational services, quality and organic food schemes linked with direct
marketing activities or small-scale and extensive lifestyle farming only represent the most
prominent examples of growing trends in PUA that lead to further differentiation of the
farming community.
Particularly when examining individual perceptions of peri-urban framework
conditions by farm holders and their response behaviour under objective three, it was
revealed that the proximity to the urban market is well-acknowledged by horticultural and
horse-keeping farms. In the case of these two types of agricultural activity, the opportunities
related to the urban influence outweigh the disadvantages in the eyes of farm holders.
Accordingly, guided by their awareness of the urban consumer demands, they have either
deepened or broadened their activities to comply with the multiple urban demands and
desires by making adjustments to their farming activities along the food-supply chain, like
direct marketing as well as by establishing on-farm diversification. The heterogeneity of the
farming community as a whole, its multifunctional adaptation strategies and economic
activities brings about a peri-urban countryside which provides multiple functions and
values.
Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge the peri-urban countryside as an
individual policy arena to overcome the urban-rural divide and strengthen urban-rural
relationships by coordinating the interests and conflicts of land-users within and beyond
agriculture, but also by generating synergies and bringing together demand and supply that
requires more governance-oriented approaches. But to conclude on the last objective, the
development of peri-urban areas will nevertheless not go without incisive planning
instruments. In the face of the enormous pressure from urban growth, measures of urban
containment and zoning measures are also necessary to safeguard the preservation of open-
spaces in general, and agricultural land-use more specifically. In this context, proper ways
need to be found to deal with the blurring frontiers and hidden developments from urban
and farming land-uses, as well as the definition of (multifunctional) peri-urban agriculture
CONCLUSION 59
itself. Last but not least, further public interventions through targeted agricultural and rural
development policies are necessary to encourage the otherwise marginalised farming land-
use in the peri-urban area, and to valorise the functions and values it provides for the urban
areas nearby.
In recent decades, many peri-urban hinterlands of urban centred-regions have
undergone a transformation into a post-productive, consumption-based countryside. But
despite the reduced relevance of pure commodity production and the increasing amount of
competing land-use claims (such as housing), agriculture in peri-urban areas has a raison
d’être in the future. Although the continuing conversion of farmland for urban purposes –
housing, commercial and industry, as well as the corresponding infrastructure – is almost
entirely carried out at the expense of agricultural area, it is important to note that
agricultural activity exists right on the city’s doorstep, where a considerable amount of area
is cultivated and managed, food produced, people employed and rural communities kept
liveable. It is not just a space reserved for future urban development, but a comprehensive,
self-sufficient economic and land-use activity.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
60
Bibliography
ARL (1999). Grundriss der Landes- und Regionalplanung. Akademie für Raumforschung und
Landesplanung (ARL), Hannover.
Allen, A. (2003). Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface:
perspectives on an emerging field. Environment and Urbanization 15(1): 135-148.
Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg (2008). Bevölkerungsprognose des Landes Brandenburg 2007-2030.
Statistischer Bericht A18-07. Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg, Potsdam
Angus, A., Burgess, P.J., Morris, J. and Lingard, J. (2009). Agriculture and land use:
Demand for and supply of agricultural commodities, characteristics of the farming and
food industries, and implications for land use in the UK. Land Use Policy 26(S1): S230-S242.
Antrop, M. (2000). Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe.
Landscape Ecology 15(3): 257-270.
Antrop, M. (2004). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape
and Urban Planning 67: 9-26.
Aubry, C., Kebir, L., Pasquier, C., Traversac, J.B. and Petit, C. (2008). Transitions in peri-
urban agriculture: how short supply chains evolutions question research. Examples and
emerging researches in the Ile de France. In: Conference Transitions towards sustainable
agriculture, food chains and peri-urban areas. Wageningen, The Netherlands, 26-29 October
2008.
BBR (2005). Raumordnungsbericht 2005. Bonn: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung
(BBR).
Beauchesne, A. and Bryant, C. (1999). Agriculture and Innovation in the Urban Fringe:
The Case of Organic Farming in Quebec, Canada. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Geografie 90(3): 320-328.
Benevolo, L. (1986). Die Geschichte der Stadt. (3ed.). Campus Verlag, Frankfurt.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 61
Bergstrom, J.C. (2005). Postproductivism and changing rural land use values and
preferences. In: Goetz, S.J. Shortle, J.S. and Bergstrom, J.C. (Eds.). Land Use Problems and
Conflicts. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 64-76.
Berry, D. (1978). Effects of Urbanization on Agricultural Activities. Growth and Change
9(3): 2-8.
Bomans, K., Steenberghen, T., Dewaelheyns, V., Leinfelder, H. and Gulinck, H. (2010).
Underrated transformations in the open space--The case of an urbanized and
multifunctional area. Landscape and Urban Planning 94: 196-205.
Bontje, M. and Burdack, J. (2005). Edge Cities, European-style: Examples from Paris and
the Randstad. Cities 22(4): 317-330.
Boulanger, A., Meert, H. and Van Hecke, E. (2004). The societal demand for public goods
in peri-urban areas: A case from the Brussels urban region. In: 90th EAAE Seminar
Multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets: Understanding the critical linkages. Rennes,
France, 28-29 October 2004.
Bouraoui, M. (2005). Agri-urban development from a land-use planning perspective: the
Saclay Plateau (France) and the Sijoumi Plain (Tunisia). In: Mougeot, L.J.A. (Ed.).
Agropolis: The social, political and environmental dimensions of urban agriculture. Earthscan,
London, pp. 203-238.
Bowen, S. and de Master, K. (2011). New rural livelihoods or museums of production?
Quality food initiatives in practice. Journal of Rural Studies 27(1): 73-82.
Bowler, I.R. (1985). Some consequences of the industrialisation of agriculture in the
European Community. In: Healey, M.J. and Ilbery, B.W. (Eds.). The industrialisation of the
countryside. GeoBooks, Norwich, pp. 75-98.
Bowler, I.R., Clark, G., Crockett, A., Ilbery, B.W. and Shaw, A. (1996). The development
of alternative farm enterprises: A study of family labour farms in the northern Pennines of
England. Journal of Rural Studies 12(3): 285-295.
Brandt, J. and Vejre, H. (2004). Multifunctional landscapes - motives, concepts and
perspectives. In: Brandt, J. and Vejre, H. (Eds.). Multifunctional Landscapes, Volume I -
Theory, values and history. WIT Press, Southampton, pp. 3-31.
Brunori, G. and Orsini, S. (2010). Food for the cities: urban policies and the role of
farmers. In: Galli, M., Lardon, S., Marraccini, E. and Bonari, E. (Eds.). Agricultural
management in peri-urban areas: The experience of an international workshop. Felici Editore,
Ghezzano, pp. 45-52.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
62
Bryant, C.R. (1984). The Recent Evolution of Farming Landscapes in Urban-Centered
Regions. Landscape Planning 11(4): 307-326.
Bryant, C.R. and Johnston, T.R.R. (1992). Agriculture in the city's countryside. Belhaven
Press, London.
Bryant, C.R., Rosswurm, L. and McLellan, A. (1982). The City's Countryside: Land and it's
Management in the Rural Urban Fringe. Longman, London.
Buciega, A., Pitarch, M.D. and Esparcia, J. (2009). The Context of Rural–Urban
Relationships in Finland, France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain. Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning 11(1): 9-27.
Busck, A.G., Pilgaard Kristensen, S., Praestholm, S. and Primdahl, J. (2008). Porous
landscapes - The case of Greater Copenhagen. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7(3): 145-
156.
Busck, A.G., Pilgaard Kristensen, S., Praestholm, S., Reenberg, A. and Primdahl, J.
(2006). Land system changes in the context of urbanisation: Examples from the peri-urban
area of Greater Copenhagen. Geografisk tidsskrift-Dansish Journal of Geography 106(2): 21-34.
Buyck, J., Chery, J.-P. and Jarrige, F. (2010). Analysis of regional spatial planning and decision
making strategies and their impact on land use in the urban fringe. PLUREL Deliverable Report
3.3.2. Last retrieved January 18, 2012 from http://www.plurel.net/images/D332.pdf.
Cavailhes, J., Peeters, D., Sekeris, E. and Thisse, J.F. (2004). The Periurban city: Why to
live between the suburbs and the countryside. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34(6):
681-703.
Cavailhes, J. and Wavresky, P. (2003). Urban influences on periurban farmland prices.
European Review of Agricultural Economics 30(3): 333-357.
CEMAT – Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Spatial / Regional
Planning (2007). Spatial development glossary. Territory and landscape, No. 2. Council of
Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
CES (2004). Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Agriculture in peri-urban
areas European Economic and Social Committee, 2005/C 74/12.
Champion, A.G., Fielding, A.J. and Keeble, D. (1989). Counterurbanization in Europe.
The Geographical Journal, 155(1): 52-80.
Cicia, G., Colantouni, F., Del Giudice, T. and Pascucci, S. (2008). Towards a re-
conceptionalisation of farm types in the urban fringe: some empirical evidence from the
Regional Park of "Campi Flegrei" in the metropolitan areas of Naples. In: Conference
BIBLIOGRAPHY 63
Transitions towards sustainable agriculture, food chains and peri-urban areas. Wageningen, The
Netherlands, 26-29 October 2008.
Clark, J.K., Jackson-Smith, D., Sharp, J.S. and Munroe, D.K. (2007). The Geography of
US Peri-urban Agricultural Adaption. In Conference on the Science and Education of Land Use:
A transatlantic, multidisciplinary and comparative approach. Washington DC, USA, 24-26
September 2007.
Cloke, P. and Goodwin, M. (1992). The changing function and position of rural areas in
Europe. In: Huigen, P., Paul, L. and Volkers, K. (Eds.). The changing function and position of
rural areas in Europe. Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap/
Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, Nederlandse geografische studies 153, pp. 19-36.
Clouth, H.D. (1998). The European countryside: contested space. In: Graham, B. (Ed.).
Modern Europe. Place, Culture and Identity. Arnold, London, pp. 287-309.
COM – Commission of the European Communities (1999). European Spatial Development
Perspective. Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union.
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
COM – European Community (2000). Resolution on the reform of the common agricultural
policy. COM(97)2000, Official Journal C210, 06/07/1998, p. 19.
COM – Commission of the European Communities (2004). Urban Audit – Methodological
Handbook. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
COM – European Community (2005). Council Regulation No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005
on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD), Official Journal L277, 21/10/2005, p. 1–40.
COM – European Community (2006). 2006/144/EC: Council Decision (EC) of 20 February
2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013),
Official Journal L55, 25/02/2006, p. 20–29.
COM – Commission of the European Communities (2010). The Common Agricultural Policy
after 2013: Public debate Summary Report. Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels.
COM – Commission of the European Communities (2011). Proposal for a regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on
support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
COM(2010)0537, C7-0295/10.
Couch, C., Leontidou, L. and Petschel-Held, G. (2007). Urban sprawl in Europe – Landscapes,
Land-use Change and Policy. Blackwell, Oxford.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
64
Dalgaard, T., Kjeldsen, C., Hutchings, N., Happe, K., Osuch, A., Damgaard, M., Zander,
P. and Piorr, A. (2007). Multifunctional farming, multifunctional landscapes and rural
development. In: Mander, Ü., Wiggering, H. and Helming, K. (Eds.). Multifunctional Land
Use. Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services. Springer, Berlin and
Heidelberg, pp. 183-193.
Dewaelheyns, V. and Gulinck, H. (2008). Rurality near the city. Editorial Paper. In:
Dewaelheyns, V. and Gulinck, H. (Eds.). Proceedings of the international Conference and
Workshops Rurality near the city. Leuven, Belgium, 7-8 February 2008, pp. 5-22.
Dexter, K. (1977). The impact of technology on the political economy of agriculture.
Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(3): 211-219.
Di Iacovo, F. and O'Connor, D. (2009). Supporting policies for Social Farming in Europe:
Progressing Multifunctionality in Responsive Rural Areas. Florence: Agenzia Regionale per lo
Sviluppo e l'Innovazione nel settore Agricolo-forestale.
Diakosavvas, D. (2008). How far can agricultural policies contribute to achieving rural
development objectives in semi-urban areas? In: Dewaelheyns, V. and Gulinck, H. (Eds.).
Proceedings of the international Conference and Workshops Rurality near the city. Leuven,
Belgium, 7-8 February 2008, pp. 23-32.
EEA (2006). Urban Sprawl in Europe – The ignored challenge. Report No. 10/2006. European
Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen.
Elgåker, H. (2011). Horse Keeping in Peri-urban Areas: Changing Land Use with Possibilities and
Conflicts. Dissertation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp.
EN RD (2011). Thematic Working Group 1: Targeting territorial specificities and needs in Rural
Development Programmes. Case Study on Rural Areas Eligible for Axis 3 Measures. 17 February
2001. European Network Rural Development (EN RD) Contact Point.
Errington, A.J. (1994). The peri-urban fringe: Europe's forgotten rural areas. Journal of
Rural Studies 10(4): 367-375.
Esparcia, J. and Buciega, A. (2005). New Rural - Urban Relationships in Europe: A Comparative
Analysis. Experiences from The Netherlands, Spain, Hungary, Finland and France. Universitat de
Valáencia, Valencia.
ESPON (2005). Urban-rural relations in Europe – ESPON 1.1.2 Final Report. European Spatial
Planning and Observation Network (ESPON), Luxembourg.
EUROSTAT (2010). Regional Yearbook 2010. EUROSTAT, Luxembourg.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 65
EUROSTAT (2012). Regional agriculture statistics database. Last retrieved January 18,
2012 from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database.
Evans, N.J. and Ilbery, B.W. (1993). The pluriactivity, part-time farming, and farm
diversification debate. Environment and Planning A 25(7): 945-959.
Evans, N.J., Morris, C. and Winter, M. (2002). Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of
post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography 26(3): 313-332.
FAO (2007). Profitability and sustainability of urban and peri-urban agriculture. Agricultural
Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper 19. Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2007). Strukturerhebung in landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben 2007.
Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
Fielding, N. and Schreier, M. (2001). Introduction: On the Comparability between
Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. Forum Qualitative Social Research 2(1); Art.
4.
Flick, U. (1998). Triangulation – Geltungsbegründung oder Erkenntniszuwachs. Zeitschrift
für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 18: 443-447.
Fry, G.L.A. (2001). Multifunctional landscapes – towards transdisciplinary research.
Landscape and Urban Planning 57(3-4): 159-168.
Fuller, A. (1990). From part-time farming to pluriactivity. Journal of Rural Studies 6(4): 361-
373.
Gallent, N. (2006). The rural-urban fringe: a new priority for planning policy? Planning
Practice & Research 21(3): 383-393.
Gallent, N., Anderson, J. and Bianconi, M. (2006). Planning on the edge: the context for
planning at the rural-urban fringe. Routledge, London and New York.
Galli, M., Lardon, S., Marraccini, E. and Bonari, E. (2010). Agricultural management in peri-
urban areas: The experience of an international workshop. Felici Editore, Ghezzano.
Gant, R.L., Robinson, G.M. and Fazal, S. (2011). Land-use change in the 'edgelands':
Policies and pressures in London's rural-urban fringe. Land Use Policy 28(1): 266-279.
Garnett, T. (2001). Urban Agriculture in London: Rethinking our Food Economy. In:
Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Guendel, S., Sabel Koschella, U. and de Zeeuw, H. (Eds.).
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
66
Growing Cities Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda: A Reader on Urban
Agriculture. DSE / Zentralstelle für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Feldafing, pp. 477-500.
Gilg, A. and Battershill, M. (1998). Quality farm food in Europe: a possible alternative to
the industrialised food market and to current agri-environmental policies: lessons from
France. Food Policy 23(1): 25-40.
Griese, B. (2005). Triangulation: Ein Forschungsmodell in der empirischen Sozialforschung.
Universität Mainz. Last retrieved January 18, 2012 from http://www.uni-
mainz.de/FB/Paedagogik/Erwachsenenbildung/triangulationonline.pdf.
Guiomar, X. (2010). Peri-urban agriculture and local authorities: which policies for which
proximities? Example of local policies in Ile de France. In: Galli, M., Lardon, S.,
Marraccini, E. and Bonari, E. (Eds.). Agricultural management in peri-urban areas: The
expirience of an international workshop. Felici Editore, Ghezzano, pp. 29-44.
Gulinck, H. (2004). Neo-rurality and multifunctional landscapes. In: Brand, J. and Vejre,
H. (Eds.). Multifunctional landscapes – Volume I Theory, Values and History. WIT Press,
Southampton, pp. 63-73.
Halfacree, K.H. (1997). Contrasting roles for the post-productivist countryside: a
postmodern perspective on counterurbanisation. In: Cloke, P. and Little, J. (Eds.). Contested
Countryside Cultures: Otherness, Marginalisation and Rurality. Routledge, London and New
York, pp. 70-91.
Hall, P. (1966). Von Thunen's Isolated State: An English Edition of Der Isolierte Staat. (transl. by
Carla M. Wartenberg). Pergamon, Oxford.
Hansson, H., Ferguson, R. and Olofson, C. (2010). Understanding the diversification and
specialization of farm businesses. Agricultural and Food Science 19: 269-283.
Harris, C.C. and Allee, D.J. (1964). Problems on the Rural-Urban-Fringe. California
Agriculture 18(4): 8-9.
Harvey, M. and Pilgrim, S. (2011). The new competition for land: Food, energy, and
climate change. Food Policy 36(S1): S40-S51.
Heimlich, R.E. and Anderson, W.A. (2001). Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond:
Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. Agricultural Economic Report No. 803. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.
Heimlich, R.E. and Barnard, C.H. (1997). Agricultural Adaption to Urbanization: Farm
Types and Agricultural Sustainability in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. In: Audirac, I. (Ed.).
Rural Sustainability Development in America. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 283-303.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 67
Heimlich, R.E. and Brooks, D.H. (1989). Metropolitan growth and agriculture: Farming in the
city's shadow. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.
Herslund, L. and Fertner, C. (2010). Anti-urbanisation as development chance for rural
areas. In-migration and self-employed business in the countryside around Copenhagen. In:
Conference Managing the Urban Rural Interface. Copenhagen, Denmark, 19-22 October 2010.
Hinrichs, C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural
Studies 19(1): 33-45.
Hjalager, A.M. (1996). Agricultural diversification into tourism: Evidence of a European
Community development programme. Tourism Management 17(2): 103-111.
Hofman, N. (2001). Urban Consumption of Agricultural Land. Rural and Small Town
Canada Analysis Bulletin 3(2): 1-13.
Hoggart, K. (2005). City Hinterlands in European Space. In: Hoggart, K. (Ed.). The city's
hinterland: dynamism and divergence in Europe's peri-urban territories. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 1-
18.
Ilbery, B.W. (1986). Agricultural geography: A Social and Economic Analysis. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Ilbery, B.W. (1987). The development of farm diversification in the UK: evidence from
Birmingham's urban fringe. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 148: 21-35.
Ilbery, B.W. (1991). Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of
the West Midlands. Journal of Rural Studies 7(3): 207-218.
Ilbery, B.W. and Bowler, I.R. (1998). From agricultural productivism to post-productivism.
In: Ilbery, B. (Ed.). The Geography of rural change. Longman, Harlow, pp. 57-84.
Ilbery, B.W., Healey, M. and Higginbottom, J. (1997). On and off-farm Business
Diversification by Farm Households in England. In: Ilbery, B., Chiotti, Q. and Rickard, T.
(Eds.). Agricultural restructuring and sustainability: A geographical perspective. CAB
International, Wallingford, pp. 135-151.
Ilbery, B.W., Holloway, L., and Arber, R. (1999). The Geography of Organic Farming in
England and Wales in the 1990s. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 90(3): 285-
295.
Le Jeannic, T. (1997). Trente ans de périurbanisation: extension et dilution des villes.
Economie et statistique 307: 21-41.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
68
Inwood, S.M. and Sharp, J.S. (2012). Farm persistence and adaptation at the rural-urban
interface: Succession and farm adjustment. Journal of Rural Studies 28(1): 107-117.
Jongeneel, R.A., Polman, N.B.P. and Slangen, L.H.G. (2008). Why are Dutch farmers
going multifunctional? Land Use Policy 25(1): 81-94.
Kerselaers, E., Rogge, E., Dessein, J., Lauwers, L. and van Huylenbroeck, G. (2011).
Prioritising land to be preserved for agriculture: A context-specific value tree. Land Use
Policy 28(1): 219-226.
Knickel, K. and Hof, S. (2002). Direct Retailing in Germany: Farmers Markets in
Frankfurt. In: van der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A. and Banks, J. (Eds.). Rural Development Process
in Europe: The State of the Art. Elsevier, Doetinchem, pp. 104-113.
Knickel, K. and Renting, H. (2000). Methodological and Conceptual Issues in the Study of
Multifunctionality and Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis 40(4): 512-528.
Koomen, E., Dekkers, J. and van Dijk, T. (2008). Open-space preservation in the
Netherlands: Planning, practice and prospects. Land Use Policy 25(3): 361-377.
Kristensen, L. (2001). Agricultural change in Denmark between 1982 and 1989: the
appearance of post-productivism in farming? Geografisk tidsskrift-Dansish Journal of Geography
101: 77-86.
Krueger, R.R. (1978). Urbanization of the Niagara fruit belt. Canadian Geographer 22(3):
179-194.
Lange, A., Piorr, A., Siebert, R. and Zasada, I. (in press). Spatial differentiation of new
target groups for farm diversification: How vicinity to cities and rural attractiveness
determine farm households strategies for future CAP options. Land Use Policy.
LDS (2006). Gartenbauerhebung im Land Brandenburg 2005. Potsdam: Landesbetrieb für
Datenverarbeitung und Statistik (LDS).
le Grand, L. and van Meekeren, M. (2008). Urban-rural relations: Dutch experiences of the
Leader+ network and rural innovation in areas under strong urban influences. In:
Dewaelheyns, V. and Gulinck, H. (Eds.). Proceedings of the international Conference and
Workshops Rurality near the city. Leuven, Belgium, 7-8 February 2008, pp. 95-100.
Leinfelder, H. (2009). Formalisation of "Open Space as Public Space" in Zoning: The
Belgian Experience. In: van der Falk, A. and van Dijk, T. (Eds.). Regional Planning for Open
Space. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 223-247.
Lobley, M. and Potter, C. (2004). Agricultural change and restructuring: recent evidence
from a survey of agricultural households in England. Journal of Rural Studies 20(4): 499-510.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 69
Loureiro, M.L. and Hine, S.E. (2002). Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of
Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free
Products. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34(3): 477-487.
Luttik, J. and van der Ploeg, B. (2004). Functions of agriculture in urban society in the
Netherlands. In: Brouwer, F. (Ed.). Sustaining Agriculture and the rural Economy: Governance,
Policy and Multifunctionality. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 204-222.
Maier, L., Shobayashi, M. (2001). Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical framework.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.
Marsden, T. (1999). Rural Futures: The Consumption Countryside and its Regulation.
Sociologia Ruralis 39(4): 501-526.
Marsden, T. (2003). The Condition of Rural Sustainability. van Gorcum, Assen.
Marsden, T. and Smith, E. (2005). Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable development in
local communities through quality food production and local branding. Geoforum 36(4):
440-451.
Marsden, T. and Sonnino, R. (2008). Rural development and the regional state: Denying
multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 24(4): 422-431.
Mattern, H. (1964). Gras darf nicht mehr wachsen. Ullstein, Frankfurt.
Maye, D., Ilbery, B. and Watts, D. (2009). Farm diversification, tenancy and CAP reform:
Results from a survey of tenant farmers in England. Journal of Rural Studies 25(3): 333-342.
Meert, H., van Huylenbroeck, G., Vernimmen, T., Bourgeois, M. and van Hecke, E.
(2005). Farm household survival strategies and diversification on marginal farms. Journal of
Rural Studies 21(1): 81-97.
Meeus, S. and Gulinck, H. (2008). Defining semi urban areas in landscape research. Living
Reviews in Landscape Research 2(3).
MLUR (2002). Gemeinsamer Landesentwicklungsplan für den engeren Verflechtungsraum
Brandenburg-Berlin. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umweltschutz und Raumordnung
Land Brandenburg (MLUR), Potsdam.
MIL (2008). Agrarbericht 2008. Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft Land
Brandenburg (MIL), Potsdam.
MIL (2010). Agrarbericht 2010. Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft Land
Brandenburg (MIL), Potsdam.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
70
Montasell, J. and Callau, S. (2008). The Baix Llobregat Agricultural Park (Barcelona): An
instrument for preserving, developing and managing a periurban agricultural area. In:
Dewaelheyns, V. and Gulinck, H. (Eds.). Proceedings of the international Conference and
Workshops Rurality near the city. Leuven, Belgium, 7-8 February 2008, pp. 69-74.
Munton, R. (1974). Farming on the Urban Fringe. In: Johnson, J.H. (Ed.). Suburban
Growth. John Wiley, London, pp. 201-263.
Munton, R. (2009). Rural land ownership in the United Kingdom: Changing patterns and
future possibilities for land use. Land Use Policy 26(S1): S54-S61.
Nilsson, K., Pauleit, S., Bell, S., Aalbers, C. and Sick Nielsen, Th. (Eds.) (2012). Peri-urban
futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg.
ODPM (2006). A framework for City-Regions. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM),
London.
OECD (1979). Agriculture in the planning and management of peri-urban areas. Volume 1:
Synthesis. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.
OECD (2007). Regional Typology. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), Paris.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Péron, J.Y. and Geoffriau, E. (2007). Characteristics and Sustainable Development of Peri-
Urban Vegetable Production in Europe. In International Horticultural Congress – IHC2006:
International Symposium on Horticultural Plants in Urban and Peri-Urban Life. Seoul, 13-19
August 2006.
Pfeifer, C., Jongeneel, R.A., Sonneveld, M.P.W. and Stoorvogel, J.J. (2009). Landscape
properties as drivers for farm diversification: A Dutch case study. Land Use Policy 26(4):
1106-1115.
Piesse, J. and Thirtle, C. (2009). Three bubbles and a panic: An explanatory review of
recent food commodity price events. Food Policy 34(2), 119-129.
Piorr, A., Müller, K., Happe, K. and Uthes, S. (2007). Agricultural management issues of
implementing multifunctionality: commodity and non-commodity production in the
approach of the MEA-Scope project. In: Mander, Ü., Wiggering, H. and Helming, K.
(Eds.). Multifunctional Land Use: Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services.
Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 167-181.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 71
Piorr, A., Ravetz, J. and Tosics, I. (2011). Peri-urbanisation in Europe: Towards a European
Policy to Sustain Urban-Rural Futures. Synthesis Report. University of Copenhagen / Academic
Books Life Sciences, Frederiksberg.
Præstholm, S. and Kristensen, S.P. (2007). Farmers as initiators and farms as attractors for
non-agricultural economic activities in peri-urban areas in Denmark. Geografisk tidsskrift-
Dansish Journal of Geography 107(2): 13-27.
Primdahl, J. (1999). Agricultural landscapes as places of production and for living in:
owner's versus producer's decision making and the implications for planning. Landscape and
Urban Planning 46(1-3): 143-150.
Pryor, R.J. (1968). Defining the rural-urban fringe. Social Forces 47(2): 202-215.
PURPLE – Peri-urban Regions Platform Europe. (2007). PURPLE and the CAP Reform –
position paper. Final Version, 8 November 2007. Last retrieved January 18, 2012 from
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/healthcheck/consultation/contributions/purple_en.pdf.
Qviström, M. (2008). A waste of time? On spatial planning and 'wastelands' at the city edge
of Malmö (Sweden). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7(3): 157-169.
Qviström, M. and Saltzman, K. (2008). Ambiguous Edgelands: Landscape studies beyond
rural-urban divides and disciplinary trench-lines. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7(3): 143-
144.
Regionalpark Barnimer Feldmark (2007). Entwicklungskonzept Regionalpark Barnimer
Feldmark 2020 – Brandenburger Teil, Entwurf, Stand überarbeitete Fassung Juli 2007,
Regionalpark Barnimer Feldmark e.V., Ahrensfelde.
Renting, H., Rossing, W., Groot, J., van der Ploeg, J., Laurent, C., Perraud, D.,
Stobbelaar, D.J. and van Ittersum, M.K. (2009). Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A
review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework.
Journal of Environmental Management 90(S2): S112-S123.
Rettig, S. (1976). An investigation into the problem of urban fringe agriculture in a green
belt situation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 19(1-2): 50-74.
Robinson, G.M. (2004). Geographies of agriculture: globalisation, restructuring and sustainability.
Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
Rode, M., Brink, A., von Haaren, C. and Tessin, W. (2006). Naturschutzorientierte
Entwicklung im suburbanen Bereich am Beispiel Hannover-Kronsberg. Natur und
Landschaft 81(3): 146-151.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
72
Roep, D. (2002). Value of Quality and Region: The Waddengroup Foundation. In: van der
Ploeg, J.D., Long, A. and Banks, J. (Eds.). Rural Development Process in Europe: The State of
the Art. Elsevier, Doetinchem, pp. 87-102.
Rogge, E., Dessein, J. and Gulinck, H. (2011). Stakeholders perception of attitudes towards
major landscape changes held by the public: The case of greenhouse clusters in Flanders.
Land Use Policy 28(1): 334-342.
Rosol, M. (2010). Public Participation in Post-Fordist Urban Green Space Governance:
The Case of Community Gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 34(3): 548-563.
Russwurm, L.H. (1977). The surroundings of our cities: problems and planning implications of
urban fringe landscapes. Community Planning Press, Ottawa.
Ryan, R.L. and Hansel Walker, J.T. (2004). Protecting and managing private farmland and
public greenways in the urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning 68(2-3): 183-198.
Salamon, S. (2006). The rural household as consumption site. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T.
and Mooney, P. (Eds.). Handbook of Rural Studies. SAGE Publications, London, pp. 330-
343.
Scelsi, F. (2002). Rapporto di gestione 2002. Parco Agricolo Sud Milano. Milan, Itlay: Parco
Agricolo Sud Milano. Last retrieved January 18, 2012 from
http://www.comune.settala.mi.it/downloads/Piano%20di%20Gestione%20Parco%20Agr
icolo%20Sud%20Milano.pdf.
Sharpley, R. and Vass, A. (2006). Tourism, farming and diversification: An attitudinal
study. Tourism Management 27(5): 1040-1052.
Shoard, M. (2002). Edgelands. In: Jenkins, J. (Ed.). Remarking the Landscape: The Changing
Face of Britain. Profile Books, London, pp. 117-146.
Sieverts, T. (2003). Cities Without Cities: Between Place and World, Space and Time, Town and
Country. Routledge, London and New York.
Sinclair, R. (1967). Von Thunen and urban sprawl. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 57(1): 72-87.
Statistisches Bundesamt / Amt für Statistik Berlin Brandenburg (2007).
Agrarstrukturerhebung 2007.
Loibl, W. and Köstl, M. (2008). Report on a methodology to delineate RUR sub-regions.
PLUREL Deliverable Report 2.1.4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 73
The Countryside Agency (2003). The state and potential of agriculture in the urban fringe. The
Countryside Agency, London.
The Countryside Agency (2004). The Countryside In and Around Towns: A vision for connecting
town and country in the pursuit of sustainable development. The Countryside Agency, London.
Thomas, F. (1996). Stadt, Land, Landwirtschaft. Verbindungen und Verhältnisse. In:
TAURUS-Institut (Ed.). Regionen im Aufbruch. Beiträge und Beispiele zur eigenständigen und
nachhaltigen Regionalentwicklung. TAURUS-Institut, Trier, pp. 135-146.
Tobias, S., Nuesch, A., Nebel, R. and Guilmain, A. (2005). Suburbane Landwirtschaft
oder Landschaftsmanagement? Agrarforschung 12(7): 306-311.
Turner, J. and Davies, W. (1995). Farm-based tourism and recreation in the United
Kingdom. Agricultural Progress 70: 21-43.
UBA (2004). Hintergrundpapier: Flächenverbrauch, ein Umweltproblem mit wirtschaftlichen
Folgen. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
Urry, J. (1995). Consuming Places. Routledge, London and New York.
van Berkel, D.B. and Verburg, P.H. (2010). Sensitising rural policy: Assessing spatial
variation in rural development options for Europe. Land Use Policy 28(3): 447-459.
van den Vaart, J.H.P. (1991). Conversion of farmsteads: Hidden urbanisation or a
changing rural system? In: van Oort, G.M.R.A. van den Berg, L., Groenendijk, J.G. and
Kempers, A.H.H.M. (Eds.). Limits to rural land use: proceedings of an international conference
organized by the Commission on Changing Rural Systems of the International Geographical Union
(IGU). Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 123-129.
van der Ploeg, J.D. (1994). Styles of farming: an introductory note on concepts and
methodology. In: van der Ploeg, J.D. and Long, A. (Eds.). Born from within: practice and
perspectives of endogenous rural development. van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 7-30.
van der Ploeg, J.D. (2003). The Virtual Farmer: past, present and future of the Dutch peasantry.
van Gorcum, Assen.
van der Ploeg, J.D. (2010). Farming Styles Research: The State of the Art. In: Workshop on
'Historicising Farming Styles'. Melk, Austria, 22-23 October 2010.
van der Ploeg, J.D., Laurent, C., Blondeau, F. and Bonnafous, P. (2009). Farm diversity,
classification schemes and multifunctionality. Journal of Environmental Management 90(S2):
S124-S131.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
74
van der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A. and Banks, J. (2002). Rural development: The state of the
art. In: van der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A. and Banks, J. (Eds.). Living Countrysides. Rural
development processes in Europe: the state of the art. Elsevier, Doetinchen, pp. 8-17.
van Huylenbroeck, G., van Hecke, E., Meert, H., Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A.,
Vernimmen, T., Boulanger, A. and Luyten, S. (2005). Development strategies for a
multifunctional agriculture in peri-urban areas – Summary. Belgian Science Policy, Brussels.
Last retrieved January 18, 2012 from
http://www.belspo.be/belspo/organisation/Publ/pub_ostc/CPagr/rappCP18r_en.pdf
Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A. and van Huylenbroeck, G. (2005). Perception of Land
Scarcity by Peri-Urban Farmers. In 11th Congress of the EAAE 'The Future of Rural Europe in
the Global Agri-Food System'. Copenhagen, Denmark, 23-27 August 2005.
Vejre, H., Primdahl, J. and Brandt, J. (2007). The Copenhagen Finger Plan: Keeping a
green space structure by a simple planning metaphor. In: Pedroli, B., van Doorn, A., De
Blust, G., Paracchini, M.L., Wascher, D. and Bunce, F. (Eds.). Europe's living landscapes:
Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. KNNV Publishing, Zeist, pp. 311-328.
Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A., Huylenbroeck, G., Meert, H., Boulanger, A. and van
Hecke, E. (2006). The importance of the institutional environment for the
multifunctionality of the agriculture in the peri-urban area of Brussels. Land Use Policy
23(4): 486-501.
Verspecht, A., Vandermeulen, V. and van Huylenbroeck, G. (2005). Multifunctional
agriculture in urbanized regions: characteristics of farmers in the fringe of Brussels. Ghent: Ghent
University. Last retrieved January 18, 2012 from
http://diba.cat/parcsn/parcs/life/pdfs/GuidoVanHuylenbroeck.pdf
von Haaren, C. and Reich, M. (2006). The German way to greenways and habitat
networks. Landscape and Urban Planning 76(1-4): 7-22.
Waltert, F. and Schläpfer, F. (2010). Landscape amenities and local development: A
review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies. Ecological economics
70(2): 141-152.
Wandel, M. and Bugge, A. (1997). Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food
quality. Food Quality and Preference 8(1): 19-26.
Wehrwein, G. (1942). The Rural-Urban Fringe. Economic Geography 18(3): 217-228.
Wiggering, H., Mueller, K., Werner, A. and Helming, K. (2003): The concept of
multifunctionality in sustainable land development. In: Helming, K. and Wiggering, H.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 75
(Eds.). Sustainable Development of Multifunctional Landscapes. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg,
pp. 3-18.
Wilson, G. (2007). 'Post-productivism' or 'non-productivism'? In: Wilson, G. (Ed.).
Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. CAB International, Wallingford.
Wilson, G. (2008). From 'weak' to 'strong' multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-level
multifunctional transitional pathways. Journal of Rural Studies 24(3): 367-383.
Wilson, N. (1996). The supply chains of perishable products in northern Europe. British
Food Journal 98(6): 9-15.
Zasada, I., Alves, S., Müller, F.C., Piorr, A., Berges, R. and Bell, S. (2010). International
retirement migration in the Alicante region, Spain: process, spatial pattern and
environmental impacts. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53(1): 125-141.
Zasada, I., Loibl, W., Berges, R., Piorr, A. and Werner, A. (in press). Rural-Urban-
Regions – A spatial approach to trace urban-rural relationships in Europe. In: Pauleit, S.,
Bell, S., Aalbers, C., Nielsen, T.A.S. and Nielsson, K. (Eds.). Peri-urban futures: land use and
sustainability. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
76
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 77
Acknowledgements
Coming to an end, I would like to express my gratitude to all those people who gave me
support during the years and months of time for this doctoral thesis. It would not have
come into existence.
First of all, I would like to thank my two supervisors Stephan Pauleit and Klaus Müller as
well as Armin Werner for their guidance, constructive criticism and patience, helping me
keeping track.
I am particularly grateful to Annette Piorr not only for the academic discussion and advice
but also for her constant optimism and motivation in difficult phases of the working
process.
For their fruitful discussions, inspirations and co-operations, I would like to thank all
colleagues who actively contributed to the individual articles, which represent the heart of
this dissertation, including Regine Berges, Christian Fertner, Thomas Alexander Sick
Nielsen, Wolfgang Loibl, Mario Köstl as well as Julia Hilgendorf and Peter Hinterstoisser.
This dissertation has been carried out within the European Commission funded FP6
Integrated research project PLUREL (Peri-urban land use relationships) (GA number
036921), which gave me orientation of a larger scientific context, but also the opportunity,
time and freedom to carry out the research.
Otherwise I would like to express my thanks to Sigrid Ehlert, Angelika Neumeyer, Anne
Winter, Viola Kannemann, Gerlinde Prentkowski, Kerstin Franke, Renate Wille and
Martin Hecker for their technical advice, organisational support and for the warm
atmosphere at the Leibniz Centre of Agricultural Landscape Research and Aranka,
Katinka and Janna for final comments and corrections.
Last but not least I would like to thank my parents Petra and Helmut for always believing
in me.
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
78
ANNEX: RESEARCH PAPERS 79
Annex: Research Papers
PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
80
Paper I
Zasada, I. (2011). Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture – A Review of
societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming.
Land Use Policy 28(4): 639-648.
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Land
Use
Policy
journa
l
h
o
me
pa
g
e:
www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Review
Multifunctional
peri-urban
agriculture—A
review
of
societal
demands
and
the
provision
of
goods
and
services
by
farming
Ingo
Zasadaa,b,∗
aLeibniz
Centre
for
Agricultural
Landscape
Research,
Müncheberg,
Germany
bCenter
of
Life
and
Food
Sciences
Weihenstephan,
Technical
University
Munich,
Germany
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
22
April
2010
Received
in
revised
form
17
January
2011
Accepted
19
January
2011
Keywords:
Urban
fringe
Landscape
functions
Multifunctionality
Diversification
Land
use
policy
Urban–rural-relationships
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Peri-urban
areas
around
urban
agglomerations
in
Europe
and
elsewhere
have
been
subject
to
agricultural
and
land
use
research
for
the
past
three
decades.
The
manner
in
which
farming
responds
to
urban
pres-
sures,
socio-economic
changes
and
development
opportunities
has
been
the
main
focus
of
examination,
with
urban
demand
for
rural
goods
and
services
representing
a
driving
factor
to
adapt
farming
activities
in
a
multifunctional
way.
Working
within
the
peri-urban
framework,
this
review
pays
particular
attention
to
the
relevance
of
multifunctional
agriculture.
Academic
discourses
and
empirical
insights
related
to
farm
structure
and
practices
beyond
conventional
agriculture
are
analysed.
Diversification,
recreational
and
environmental
farming,
landscape
management
and
specialisation,
as
well
as
direct
marketing
are
all
taken
into
consideration
and
discussed
within
the
context
of
landscape
functions.
The
provision
of
rural
goods
and
services
is
contrasted
with
societal
demands
on
peri-urban
agriculture.
This
review
finds
that
multifunctional
agriculture
has
been
commonly
recognised
in
peri-urban
areas
–a
phenomenon
that
includes
a
large
variety
of
activities
and
diversification
approaches
within
the
context
of
environmental,
social
and
economic
functions
of
agriculture.
In
response
to
the
post-productive,
consumption-oriented
requirements
of
the
urban
society,
peri-urban
farmers
have
intensified
their
uptake
of
multifunctional
activities.
Nevertheless,
not
all
multifunctional
opportunities
are
being
fully
developed
when
one
consid-
ers
the
large
and
growing
urban
demand
for
goods
and
services
provided
by
agriculture
carried
out
near
the
city.
This
paper
discusses
policy
and
planning
approaches
to
support
multifunctional
agriculture
in
peri-urban
areas.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.640
Peri-urban
agriculture
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.640
Objectives
and
methodology
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.640
Multifunctional
agriculture
in
peri-urban
areas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.641
Demands
and
preferences
for
multiple
goods
and
services
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.641
Environmental
quality
and
cultural
landscapes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.641
Leisure
and
recreation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.642
Regional
food
supply
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.642
Multifunctional
farming
activities.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.642
Landscape
management
and
agri-environmental
production
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.642
Lifestyle
farming
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.643
Recreation-oriented
diversification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.643
Social
farming
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.644
∗Correspondence
address:
Leibniz
Centre
for
Agricultural
Landscape
Research,
Institute
of
Land
Use
Systems,
Eberswalder
Strasse
84,
15374
Müncheberg,
Germany.
Tel.:
+49
3343282
152;
fax:
+49
3343282
308.
E-mail
address:
ingo.zasada@zalf.de
0264-8377/$
–
see
front
matter ©
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008
640 I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648
Short
supply
chains
and
direct
marketing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.644
Multifunctional
development
of
peri-urban
agriculture.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.644
Policy
and
planning
for
a
multifunctional
peri-urban
agriculture
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.645
Reconnecting
urban–rural
relationships
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.645
Zoning,
agricultural
preservation
and
urban
containment.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.645
Rural
development
policy
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.646
Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.646
Acknowledgements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.646
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.646
Introduction
Peri-urban
agriculture
Western
Europe,
among
other
parts
of
the
world,
has
experi-
enced
a
rapid
process
of
urbanisation
beyond
former
city
limits
over
the
past
few
decades.
This
development
comprises
physical
conversion
of
open,
non-built
areas
for
settlement
purposes
(EEA,
2006;
Thomas
et
al.,
2008)
as
well
as
socio-cultural
transitions
such
as
the
adoption
of
urban
life
styles
by
the
rural
population,
the
in-migration
of
retirees
into
rural
areas
neighbouring
urban
agglomerations,
or
changes
in
business
structures
(Antrop,
2004;
Bergstrom,
2005;
Busck
et
al.,
2006;
Zasda
et
al.,
2010).
Although
urban
growth
increasingly
takes
place
on
brownfield
and
infill
sites,
the
conversion
of
non-built-up
areas
has
occurred
almost
exclusively
at
the
expense
of
farmland
(Munton,
2009).
Productive
land
and
fertile
soils
are
therefore
lost,
and
the
number
of
farms
decreases
(EEA,
2006;
Poppe
et
al.,
2005).
In
peri-urban
areas,
farming
has
to
compete
on
the
land
mar-
ket
with
other
non-agricultural
land
uses,
such
as
housing
with
its
higher
bid
rents
(Robinson,
2004).
As
the
price
for
a
piece
of
farm-
land
with
an
associated
building
permit
rises
dramatically,
there
is
a
strong
financial
incentive
for
farmers
to
sell
land
for
purposes
of
urban
development.
Land
speculation
is
accompanied
by
expand-
ing
shares
of
non-agricultural
owners
and
common
land
tenure
by
producers
(Gant
et
al.,
2011).
From
observations
in
the
UK
between
1996
and
2002,
Munton
(2009)
recognised
a
strong
urban
impact
on
the
agricultural
land
market.
Land
prices
rose
overproportion-
ally
for
attractive
and
accessible
land
with
dwellings.
He
notes
that
in
the
direct
urban
fringe,
there
exists
various
market
conditions
with
much
higher
land
prices,
along
with
a
fragmented
and
com-
plex
pattern
of
ownership
and
property
rights,
such
as
short-term
contracts.
Aggravating
the
situation
are
those
shadow
markets
that
form
around
the
expected
housing
development
permissions,
which
is
a
development
that
in
turn
challenges
the
traditional
landlord-tenant
system
(Munton,
2009).
This
increases
the
influ-
ence
of
the
heterogeneous
group
of
land
owners
who
are
not
farmers
of
the
land
they
use,
as
Primdahl
(1999)
notes.
At
the
fringes
of
cities
and
agglomerations,
the
high
degree
of
land
use
transition
and
conversion
for
urban
purposes
as
well
as
the
existence
of
idle
and
marginal
open
spaces
result
in
a
com-
plex
and
chaotic
mix
of
heterogeneous
land
uses,
which
is
how
Shoard
(2002)
characterised
the
“edgelands”
in
the
UK.
In
such
a
landscape,
agriculture
is
exposed
to
numerous
additional
pressures
and
tensions.
There
is
a
major
build
up
of
litter,
wrecks
and
house-
hold
waste,
even
if
such
refuse
is
dumped
legally
(Shoard,
2002;
Qviström,
2008).
Farming
is
additionally
constrained
through
the
fragmentation
of
infrastructure,
trespassing,
widespread
vandal-
ism
and
theft
(Catherine
Bickmore
Associates,
2003)
as
well
as
legal
issues,
such
as
emission
thresholds
(Verspecht
et
al.,
2005).
Although
marginalised,
the
delivery
of
environmental
and
recreational
values
by
peri-urban
agriculture
(PUA)
has
gained
importance
with
the
rise
of
the
post-fordist
society.
Many
scholars
argue
that
traditional
agricultural
functions
and
values
have
notice-
ably
been
replaced
by
new
non-
or
post-productive
ones,
adding
a
consumption-oriented
component
to
a
formerly
production-
oriented
agriculture
(Marsden,
1999;
Brandt
and
Vejre,
2004;
Luttik
and
van
der
Ploeg,
2004).
Due
to
the
proximity
to
urban
centres
as
nuclei
of
societal
and
lifestyle
transitions,
this
pro-
cess
provides
an
opportunity
to
restructure
farming
beyond
the
industrial
model
based
on
pure
commodity
production.
Increased
standards
of
living
and
extended
leisure
time
of
urbanites
are
mirrored
by
a
tendency
to
purchase
regional
organic
food,
spend
leisure
time
in
the
near
countryside,
or
even
to
permanently
settle
down
in
the
countryside
around
towns.
Recreational
opportuni-
ties,
attractive
living
environments
and
ecological
quality
represent
soft
locational
factors,
which
gain
relevance
within
the
interna-
tional
competition
of
urban
regions.
Therefore
commentators,
such
as
Weber
and
Seher
(2006),
argue
that
multifunctional
oriented
PUA
plays
an
important
role
for
their
provision.
A
tremendous
pressure
to
adjust
agriculture
to
the
modified
peri-urban
frame-
work
conditions
has
been
observed
(van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.,
2005;
Busck
et
al.,
2008).
As
a
result,
PUA
has
been
identified
as
being
more
diversified,
polarised
and
multifaceted
than
else-
where,
stressing
that
this
organisation
of
production
contributes
to
the
viability
and
persistence
of
agriculture
and
its
societal
esteem.
Objectives
and
methodology
This
literature
review
provides
a
comprehensive
overview
and
analysis
of
the
existing
academic
discussion
and
empirical
insights
from
various
peri-urban
regions.
Going
beyond
simple
examinations
on
findings
of
multifunctional
farming
practices,
it
methodologically
relates
them
to
urban-centred
societal
valuation
and
appreciation
for
agricultural
goods
and
services.
Under
the
premise
that
the
concept
of
multifunctional
agriculture
is
based
on
the
integrated
provision
of
different
goods
and
services,
relevant
literature
is
arranged
in
groups
of
functions
and
services,
which
are
provided
by
the
agricultural
landscape
and
represent
the
economic,
social
and
environmental
dimensions
of
sustainability.
The
following
section
introduces
the
theoretical
framework
for
the
concept
of
multifunctionality
and
how
it
is
applied
to
peri-urban
areas.
Sections
three
and
four
cover
more
detailed
investigations
into
multifunctional
PUA,
focusing
on
values
and
functions
of
landscape,
such
as
environment
and
landscape,
recre-
ational
and
social
issues,
short
supply
chains
and
direct
marketing.
Existing
research
is
balanced
with
results
from
research
on
actual
urban
demands
and
preferences.
This
procedure
has
been
chosen
to
address
research
questions
such
as
the
following:
to
what
extent
is
multifunctionality
a
property
of
PUA?
How
well
do
provided
goods
and
services
from
multifunctional
agriculture
match
urban
demands?
And
finally;
which
factors
and
framework
conditions
enhance
or
constrain
the
diversification
of
farming
activities?
The
last
section
discusses
the
relevance
and
contribution
of
multifunc-
tional
agriculture
for
sustainable
development
in
peri-urban
areas,
I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648 641
as
well
as
the
role
and
requirements
of
preservation,
supporting
policy
and
planning
instruments.
Methodologically,
the
review
is
based
on
an
iteratively
structured
literature
survey
through
the
internet
databases
of
‘ScienceDirect’,
‘ISI
Web
of
Knowledge’
and
‘Google
Scholar’.
Combinations
of
key
words
related
to
peri-urban
areas;
i.e.
“urban
fringe”;
“sprawl”;
“urbanisation”
and
multifunctionality;
i.e.
“diversification”;
“farm
tourism”;
“landscape
management”;
have
been
used
for
the
literature
search.
Further
sources
have
been
found
by
browsing
through
more
general
multifunctionality
literature;
which
also
refer
to
peri-urban
areas.
The
review
con-
tains
sources
on
both
the
theoretical
and
conceptual
background
and
empirical
insights
into
multifunctional
peri-urban
farming
practices.
These
include
comprehensive
statistical
analyses
and
in-
depth
regional
case
studies
that
have
been
carried
out
over
longer
periods
of
time.
The
spatial
scope
of
the
literature
has
been
geo-
graphically
limited
to
research
within
the
European
context.
Multifunctional
agriculture
in
peri-urban
areas
Driven
by
output-related
subsidies,
the
European
rural
coun-
tryside
in
the
second
half
of
the
20th
century
was
characterised
by
mono-functional
and
intensive
production-oriented
agricul-
ture.
Urban
pressures
on
agriculture
and
prevalent
development
potentials
presented
the
main
reasons
to
adapt
farming.
The
multifunctionality
paradigm
in
particular
represented
a
suitable
pathway
to
the
development
of
peri-urban
agriculture.
As
a
general
definition,
and
based
on
the
paradigm
of
sustainable
develop-
ment,
the
concept
has
been
developed
as
a
framework
for
rural
development
to
enable
agriculture
to
cope
with
post-productive
challenges
(Wiggering
et
al.,
2003).
It
aims
at
spatial
and
tempo-
ral
integration
of
land
uses
and
functions
beyond
traditional
food
production,
with
such
uses
including
aesthetical
and
recreational
values,
nature
conservation
or
hydrological
balance.
Enabling
the
co-existence
of
different
types
of
land
use
in
a
close
spatial
context,
multifunctionality
is
characterised
by
synergies,
jointness,
and
a
mitigation
of
conflict
situations
(Brandt
and
Vejre,
2004;
Gulinck,
2004).
Multifunctional
agriculture
encompasses
various
strategies
and
activity
fields
for
farms,
such
as
diversification
on
and
off
the
farm,
specialisation
in
production
and
processing,
direct
market-
ing
or
measures
in
nature
and
landscape
management.
Different
explanatory
approaches
have
been
put
forward
to
analyse
multi-
functional
transitions
at
farm
level.
van
der
Ploeg
et
al.
(2002)
focus
on
rural
development
trajectories.
They
distinguish
deepening,
broadening
and
re-grounding,
depending
on
whether
more
value
is
added
per
unit,
additional
activities
are
started,
or
more
resources
are
mobilised.
Wilson
(2007)
reflects
on
multifunctionality
as
tran-
sition
processes,
whereas
Meert
et
al.
(2005)
see
multifunctional
approaches
as
a
farm
survival
strategy.
Multifunctionality
has
become
a
buzzword
in
research
and
pol-
icy.
Wilson
(2007)
criticises
that
it
suffers
from
a
rather
diverse
and
fuzzy
conceptualisation,
depending
on
the
field
of
research,
stretching
from
rural
sociology
and
agricultural
economics
to
geog-
raphy.
Noteworthy
is
the
distinction
between
multifunctionality
from
a
broader
landscape
and
ecology
perspective
(Brandt
and
Vejre,
2004)
and
the
notion
of
multifunctional
agriculture
(van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.,
2007;
Wilson,
2007),
which
represents
the
the-
oretical
background
for
this
review.
Wilson
(2007)
distinguishes
between
more
narrow-sensed
economistic
or
policy-based
dis-
courses
and
broader
holistic
interpretations:
the
first
group
draws
upon
agriculture
as
economic
activity,
jointly
producing
com-
modity
and
non-commodity
outputs
as
well
as
the
regulatory
framework
for
a
multifunctional
pathway.
Interlinkages
to
socio-
cultural
processes
and
rural
development
are
reflected
by
the
latter.
This
idea
of
linking
the
positive,
supply
side
and
the
normative
demand
side
has
been
described
by
van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.
(2007)
as
a
locally
embedded
model
of
agriculture.
As
it
set
urban
demand
and
rural
supply
into
a
close
spatial
context,
this
model
attains
particular
relevancy
for
peri-urban
areas.
During
the
agricultural
crisis
of
the
1980s,
diversification
had
already
been
observed
in
PUA
as
a
survival
strategy
in
rural
areas
(Ilbery,
1987;
Bryant
and
Johnston,
1992).
More
recently,
in
the
course
of
a
more
comprehensive
discussion
on
multifunc-
tional
rural
development
(van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.,
2007;
Piorr
and
Müller,
2009),
peri-urban
areas
have
also
been
subject
to
mul-
tifunctionality
research.
Nevertheless,
the
specifics
of
PUA
have
not
yet
received
much
attention.
Only
a
few
research
initiatives
on
a
national
level
(Catherine
Bickmore
Associates,
2003;
van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.,
2005;
Allaert
et
al.,
2006)
have
brought
the
topic
onto
the
academic
agenda.
However,
it
has
been
acknowl-
edged
that
a
multifunctional
PUA
requires
specific
attention,
since
its
structures,
processes
and
particularly
the
interplay
with
the
urban
area
are
not
yet
fully
understood.
Allaert
et
al.
(2006:
5)
con-
cluded
that
“if
agriculture
wants
to
have
a
reason
for
existence
in
an
urbanised
society,
agriculture
no
longer
can
and
may
be
consid-
ered
as
an
economic
activity
sensu
stricto.”
Wilson
also
points
out
that
elements
necessary
for
what
he
calls
“strong
multifunction-
ality”
are
particularly
evident
in
peri-urban
areas,
such
as
strong
non-productivist
tendencies
including
local
embeddedness,
short
supply
chains,
low
farming
intensity,
a
high
degree
of
diversifica-
tion,
and
open-minded
societies
(Wilson,
2007).
Demands
and
preferences
for
multiple
goods
and
services
Environmental
quality
and
cultural
landscapes
Due
to
its
large
spatial
extent,
agriculture
plays
a
key
role
in
managing
the
peri-urban
landscape
and
the
social,
aesthetic
and
environmental
functions
of
urban
agglomerations
nearby
(Davoudi
and
Stead,
2007).
Depending
on
the
type
and
intensity
of
the
farm-
ing
practise,
agriculture
provides
abiotic
resources
and
ecosystem
functions
for
the
nearby
urban
areas.
With
its
high
water
infiltration
rates,
pasture
and
arable
land
possess
capacities
for
groundwater
replenishment
(Haase
and
Nuissl,
2007)
and
flood
control
(Kenyon
et
al.,
2008;
Wheater
and
Evans,
2009).
Along
with
forest
and
wet-
lands,
farmland
also
contributes
to
the
moderation
of
urban
climate
(Lamptey
et
al.,
2005)
and
carbon
sequestration
(Freibauer
et
al.,
2004;
Hutchinson
et
al.,
2007).
However,
the
agricultural
countryside
is
also
appreciated
by
society
from
a
visual
amenity
perspective,
as
indicated
by
economic
valuation
methods
such
as
contingent
valuation,
choice
experi-
ments
or
willingness-to-pay
techniques.
In
their
review,
Hall
et
al.
(2004)
found
that
agriculture
is
recognised
as
an
integral
part
of
the
cultural
landscape
in
densely
urbanised
areas.
Bouraoui
(2005)
could
reveal
in
his
studies
that
agriculture
in
the
eyes
of
urban
beholders
represents
a
supportive
element
for
the
countryside’s
image
and
surrounding
landscape.
But
along
with
a
general
appre-
ciation
of
agricultural
land
use,
other
studies
have
concluded
with
a
more
differentiated
picture.
Therefore,
according
to
the
empir-
ical
evidence
provided
by
Fleury
(2002)
and
Buijs
et
al.
(2006),
the
view
of
urban
visitors
on
agricultural
landscapes
has
changed
from
a
functional-productive
to
a
hedonic-aesthetic
one
over
the
last
few
decades.
Other
commentators,
such
as
Thomas
(1996)
as
well
as
Rode
and
von
Haaren
(2005)
argue
that
a
homogenously
structured
and
intensively
used
agriculture
does
not
represent
the
societal
ideal
of
PUA.
Applying
visual
landscape
valuation
tech-
niques
in
Mediterranean
case
studies,
Kaplan
et
al.
(2006)
and
Arriaza
et
al.
(2004)
found
that
rather
heterogeneous
and
complex
642 I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648
agricultural
land
use
and
cropping
patterns
with
small
farms
and
a
high
degree
of
unaltered
nature
contributes
to
the
amenity
value
of
the
agricultural
countryside.
Also
Matsuoka
and
Kaplan
(2008)
recognised,
in
their
review
of
people’s
needs
in
the
urban
land-
scape,
that
questioned
individuals
greatly
prefer
urban
landscapes
that
are
dominated
by
naturalistic
features
and
elements.
Particu-
larly
organic
farming
is
highly
appreciated
by
urban
residents,
as
argued
by
Brink
(2003).
Surveys
among
German
and
Italian
urban
visitors
of
peri-urban
agricultural
landscapes
revealed
that
mea-
sures
of
landscape
management,
such
as
hedges
and
tree
rows,
afforestation
and
path
networks,
were
all
positively
acknowledged
(Rode
and
von
Haaren,
2005),
whereas
the
implementation
of
environmental
protection
in
terms
of
soil
conservation
and
main-
tenance
of
biodiversity
was
much
less
valued
in
another
case
study
(Torquati
et
al.,
2008).
Although
there
is
generally
a
high
appreciation
of
farmland
in
the
countryside
around
towns,
the
visual
aspects
of
the
agricultural
countryside
are
prioritised.
Its
ecological
value
is
less
recognised
among
the
public.
The
urban
population
prefers
landscape
ameni-
ties
derived
from
a
heterogeneous
and
small-scale
farm
structure
punctuated
with
natural
elements.
Although
its
perception
has
been
transformed
lately,
agriculture
continually
represents
a
major
part
of
the
cultural
landscape
in
urbanised
areas.
However,
there
is
an
acceptance
of
agriculture
as
an
integral
land
use
actor
in
the
peri-urban
area.
For
instance,
Bills
and
Gross
(2005)
found
a
high
willingness
among
stakeholders
in
the
agricultural
surroundings
of
London
to
preserve
crop
and
livestock
agriculture
as
an
element
in
the
productive
use
of
landscape,
and
thus
maintain
landscape
diversity.
Similarly,
in
the
Brussels
metropolitan
region,
more
than
half
of
the
population
support
the
protection
of
agricultural
land
use
in
the
peri-urban
fringe
(Boulanger
et
al.,
2004).
Leisure
and
recreation
With
increasing
leisure
time,
urban
dwellers
use
their
surround-
ing
countryside
for
a
multitude
of
activities.
Outdoor
recreation
has
become
important
for
health
and
quality
of
life
in
an
urbanised
environment
(Bell
et
al.,
2007).
It
contributes
to
the
reconnection
of
urban
population
to
“the
real-world
qualities
and
thus
to
their
own
humane
essence”
as
Pedroli
et
al.
(2007:
434)
put
it.
In
their
review
on
health
effects
of
visible
landscapes,
Velarde
et
al.
(2007)
con-
clude
that
natural
landscapes
generally
have
more
positive
health
effects
than
urbanised
ones.
Recreational
activities
require
easy
access
for
the
potential
user.
Hence,
Antrop
(2004)
argued
that
due
to
their
absence
in
urban
centres,
in
peri-urban
surround-
ings
and
open
spaces,
agricultural
areas
gain
importance
as
leisure
areas.
Similarly,
de
Vries
et
al.
(2003)
pointed
out
that
the
role
of
agricultural
areas
for
recreation
and
public
health
is
particularly
relevant
in
highly
urbanised
regions.
Even
if
agricultural
produc-
tion
represents
the
dominating
land
use
in
the
peri-urban
area,
it
still
provides
a
“breathing
space”
for
the
city
nearby
(Bryant
and
Johnston,
1992).
In
their
case
study
in
Northeast
England,
Sharpley
and
Vass
(2006)
confirmed
that
a
demand
for
touristic
attraction
existed,
as
assessed
by
a
high
number
of
day
visits
in
rural
areas
near
urban
agglomerations.
A
survey
on
urban
dwellers
in
the
Brussels
region
however
has
shown
that
only
a
minority
of
24%
take
advan-
tage
of
recreation-oriented
diversification
measures
(Boulanger
et
al.,
2004).
More
commonly,
visitors
from
nearby
urban
areas
use
the
peri-urban
landscape
in
an
informal
way
by
enjoying
open
space
activities.
As
Agger
(2001)
argues,
agriculture
particularly
enables
activities,
such
as
walking
and
hunting,
although
these
are
not
directly
provided
for
on-farm.
A
strong
argumentation
provided
in
the
literature
at
hand
is
that
peri-urban
farmland
possesses
recre-
ational
values,
which
are
appreciated
by
urban
dwellers.
Recreation
and
leisure
opportunities
that
contribute
to
the
quality
of
life
are
gaining
importance.
As
inner
cores
of
urban
regions
reach
their
lim-
itations
in
complying
with
the
increasing
demand
in
green
urban
areas,
the
open
spaces
around
cities,
including
the
farmland,
pro-
vide
valuable
potentials
to
deliver
these
services
and
functions.
Regional
food
supply
Despite
the
recent
orientation
away
from
traditional
agricul-
ture,
food
production
remains
an
important
function
of
PUA.
It
has
been
observed
that
consumers
increasingly
prefer
regional
pro-
duction,
particularly
for
high
quality
and
natural
products
such
as
vegetable
or
ornamental
crops
(Gilg
and
Battershill,
1998).
Depend-
ing
on
consumer
groups
and
distance
to
the
city,
a
relevant
urban
demand
has
been
identified
in
empirical
studies
(van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.,
2005).
Boulanger
et
al.
(2004)
found
that
between
14%
of
the
inner
city
dwellers
of
Brussels
and
59%
of
the
residents
in
the
peri-urban
surrounding
have
at
least
once
undertaken
some
kind
of
direct
purchase
of
regionally
produced
food,
such
as
from
farmers’
markets
or
farm
gate
purchases.
Investigating
rural
areas
in
various
metropolitan
regions,
Buciega
et
al.
(2009)
associate
these
reinforced
urban–rural
relationships
with
increasing
inter-
est
of
urban
consumers
in
regional
agriculture.
Similarly,
Renting
et
al.
(2003)
argue
that
short
supply
chains
and
direct
interac-
tion
of
actors
involved
in
production,
processing
and
distribution
also
play
a
significant
role
in
the
rural
development
and
diversifi-
cation
process
through
synergy
effects
with
agri-tourism,
natural
and
landscape
management.
The
locational
necessity
of
agricul-
tural
production,
namely
in
its
proximity
to
the
central
city
as
described
in
the
classical
model
by
Von
Thünen
(1826),
is
expe-
riencing
a
renaissance
with
a
focus
on
specialised
and
high-value
products.
Multifunctional
farming
activities
Landscape
management
and
agri-environmental
production
Through
its
complex
interlinkages
with
landscape,
agriculture
plays
an
important
role
in
the
production
of
rural
public
goods
through
landscape
management.
In
Europe,
farmers
are
encour-
aged
under
agri-environmental
schemes
(AES)
to
adopt
landscape
management
practices
and
environmentally
friendly
farming
pro-
cedures
that
comply
with
Good
Agricultural
and
Environmental
Condition
standards.
Programmatic
priority
setting
is
left
to
the
member
countries
and
differs
considerably
(Daniel
and
Perraud,
2009).
In
general,
AES
compensate
farmers
for
the
deliverance
of
public
goods
related
to
landscape
and
biodiversity.
Farming
prac-
tices
that
promote
visual
amenities,
biodiversity,
soil
and
water
protection,
such
as
organic
farming
or
extensive
grassland
man-
agement
are
supported
(Cooper
et
al.,
2009).
From
a
peri-urban
perspective,
AES
have
been
studied
and
discussed,
focussing
on
the
preference
of
measure
adoption,
the
extent
of
implementa-
tion
and
the
relationships
to
farming
structure.
van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.
(2005)
found
in
the
Brussels
urban
fringe
that
landscape
man-
agement
practices
are
commonly
implemented,
although
farmers’
participation
rates
are
higher
as
their
farms’
distance
to
the
city
increases.
In
their
case
study,
roughly
23%
of
farms
are
involved
in
some
agri-environmental
measures,
whereas
more
than
60%
par-
ticipate
in
landscape
measures,
such
as
planting
hedges
and
tree
rows.
The
authors
associate
the
results
with
land
suitability
and
availability
differences.
AES
in
the
different
countries
often
aim
at
broad
reach
and
coverage
of
farmland
(Cooper
et
al.,
2009).
Exten-
sive
pasture
areas,
field
margins
or
abandoned
land,
as
well
as
areas
suitable
for
landscape
measures
are
more
common
in
remote
rural
areas.
Eligibility
criteria,
such
as
private
ownership,
minimum
farm
I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648 643
size
and
contract
duration
of
the
particular
measure
present
other
constraining
conditions
for
AES
in
PUA.
Direct
economic
benefits
are
not
a
major
driver
for
adoption
of
AES
in
the
PUA.
Compensation
payments
remain
marginal
when
compared
to
income
from
food
production.
However,
in
the
Green
Heart
area
inside
the
Dutch
Randstad
metropolitan
region
for
example,
19%
of
dairy
farms
are
involved
in
nature
management
measures,
which
is
a
significantly
higher
number
than
in
the
rest
of
the
county
(9%)
as
assessed
by
Luttik
and
van
der
Ploeg
(2004).
Comparing
municipalities
across
Switzerland,
Tobias
et
al.
(2005)
also
found
significantly
higher
rates
for
participation
in
ecological
compensation
measures
among
farms
near
urban
agglomerations.
Depending
on
the
measure
–
hedgerow,
greenery
or
pond
improve-
ment
–up
to
23%
of
landowners
in
peri-urban
Copenhagen
are
involved
in
landscape
management
activities
(Busck
et
al.,
2006).
Similar
to
the
Dutch
case,
the
authors
determined
that
landown-
ers
consider
income-related
motivation
to
be
less
important
than
nature
conservation
and
provision
of
recreational
opportunities,
such
as
hunting
areas.
The
institutional
framework
of
local
and
regional
policies
has
been
put
forward
as
an
important
factor
to
encouragement
farmers
to
participate
in
environmental
pro-
grammes
or
other
forms
of
diversification
(Vandermeulen
et
al.,
2006).
They
conclude
that
municipal
engagement
in
promotion
and
support
for
agri-environmental
or
landscape
measures
influ-
ences
farm
behaviour.
Others
suggest
that
the
dominating
farm
type
affects
participation
rates
in
environmental
and
landscape
measures.
Part-time
(Tobias
et
al.,
2005),
lifestyle-oriented
(Busck
et
al.,
2006),
or
innovative
and
adaptive
farmers
(van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.,
2005)
tend
to
be
more
active
in
extensive
farming
and
land-
scape
management
practices.
Traditional
farmers
seem
to
follow
a
rather
conservative
strategy
that
avoids
engagement
in
envi-
ronmentally
oriented
practices
(van
Huylenbroeck
et
al.,
2005).
However,
knowledge
gaps
e.g.
among
holdings
that
only
gener-
ate
a
lower
share
of
income
from
agriculture,
have
been
identified
as
general
barriers
for
adoption
of
AES
(Præstholm
et
al.,
2006).
Organic
farming
represents
another
approach
to
environmental
oriented
farming,
which
plays
a
significant
role
in
PUA.
Ilbery
et
al.
(1999)
found
organic
production
concentrated
in
urban
agglomera-
tions
in
the
UK,
whereas
in
Switzerland
it
remained
a
phenomenon
of
the
rural
area
(Tobias
et
al.,
2005).
Especially
in
the
case
of
mountainous
areas,
the
entry
threshold
to
transform
production
from
traditional
to
organic
farming
is
comparably
low,
as
manage-
ment
practices
require
only
little
changes.
There,
organic
farming
is
carried
out
as
extensive
production,
particularly
in
livestock
farm-
ing.
The
authors
concluded
that
such
advantageous
framework
conditions
take
less
effect
in
urbanised
areas.
Prevailing
natural
conditions
additionally
influence
the
occurrence
of
organic
farm-
ing.
Tobias
et
al.
(2005)
and
Piorr
et
al.
(2006)
have
shown
that
it
represents
a
common
farming
scheme
in
areas
of
low
soil
fertility.
Although
landscape
management
and
organic
farming
have
been
subject
of
research
in
peri-urban
areas,
the
analysed
literature
above
provides
only
little
and
inconsistent
evidence
that
farmers
in
peri-urban
locations
are
more
encouraged
to
participate
in
envi-
ronmental
and
landscape
management
practices
than
elsewhere.
Both
are
not
a
particular
property
of
PUA,
but
rather
are
influenced
by
region.
Natural
conditions,
farm
size
and
structure
have
been
identified
as
influencing
factors
for
participation.
The
availability
and
suitability
of
the
farmland
for
extensive
production
can
be
seen
as
main
obstacles.
It
is
noteworthy
that
agri-environmental
payments
are
granted
on
the
conditionality
of
a
minimum
farm
size
and
land
ownership
conditions.
Farmland
is
excluded
if
more
than
25%
belongs
to
public
authorities.
Also,
behavioural
differ-
ences
related
to
farm
sizes
and
farm
types
need
to
be
taken
into
consideration.
Large
holdings,
which
are
rather
absent
in
PUA,
possess
the
necessary
farmland
capacities
to
carry
out
extensive
production
schemes.
Knowledge
gaps
and
administrative
transac-
tion
costs
often
hinder
participation
for
small
holders.
There
are
numerous
obstacles,
indicating
that
AES
are
not
tailored
for
hold-
ings
prevalent
in
PUA,
and
instead
tend
to
be
part
of
development
and
economic
viability
of
remote
rural
areas.
What
should
be
seen
as
particularly
critical,
when
viewed
in
light
of
the
urban
preference
for
an
amenity-rich
farmland,
is
that
PUA
is
characterised
by
an
underproduction
of
environmental
values
and
landscape
elements.
Lifestyle
farming
Lifestyle
farming,
among
which
hobby
farming
is
a
well-known
type,
emerged
as
a
result
of
newcomers
of
urban
origin
who
pur-
chased
farms
and
discovered
the
peri-urban
agricultural
area
as
a
leisure
space.
The
process
brings
about
socio-economic
changes
among
farm-holders
and
farm
structures,
i.e.
through
a
withdrawal
of
crop
and
livestock
production
as
an
economic
basis
for
agri-
culture.
While
farmers
are
either
retired
or
employed
elsewhere
off-farm,
economic
production
is
rarely
maintained
and
strate-
gic
decisions
neglect
economic
aspects.
They
are
also
limited
in
durability
and
stability.
A
longitudinal
study
over
two
decades
in
the
peri-urban
area
of
Copenhagen
focussed
on
socio-economic
and
agricultural
land
use
transitions,
confirming
phenomena
such
as
part-time,
hobby
and
retirement
farming
(Præstholm
and
Kristensen,
2007;
Busck
et
al.,
2008).
It
showed
that
full-time
farm-
ing
decreased
considerably
from
26%
to
8%
between
1984
and
2003,
whereas
other
farming
styles
grew
according,
transforming
agri-
cultural
land
from
a
production
asset
to
a
consumption
good
as
Primdahl
(1999)
concludes.
In
contrast,
Verspecht
et
al.
(2005)
found
that
in
the
Brussels
region,
almost
68%
of
the
farmers
are
still
considered
as
full-time
farmers.
However
leisure
and
recre-
ational
farming
already
represent
important
elements
of
farming
activity
in
peri-urban
areas.
Perceived
as
a
recreational
activity,
production
outputs
and
income
generation
remain
marginal.
It
has
been
shown
that
lifestyle
farmers
tend
to
participate
more
in
agri-
environmental
measures
than
average
farmers
(Præstholm
et
al.,
2006).
Although
it
does
not
represent
a
much
diversified
type,
recreational
farming
contributes
to
farm-diversity
on
a
regional
level
to
which
the
provision
and
attraction
of
additional
environ-
mental
and
recreational
functions
of
landscape
are
associated.
Recreation-oriented
diversification
Farm-based
tourism
in
terms
of
accommodation
and
recre-
ational
services
has
been
recognised
as
a
major
diversification
and
farm
survival
strategy
that
contributes
to
rural
re-vitalisation
and
development
in
both
rural
and
peri-urban
areas.
By
provid-
ing
economic
benefits
through
on-farm
activities,
or
by
making
use
of
redundant
buildings,
it
helps
to
keep
farm
land
in
opera-
tion
(Che,
2007).
Using
the
example
of
corn
labyrinths
in
German
PUA,
Lohrberg
(2001)
highlights
the
role
of
innovative
diversi-
fication
to
agri-tourism.
Although
most
of
the
research
at
hand
was
conducted
within
a
rural
context,
some
empirical
evidence
from
peri-urban
areas
confirms
that
a
large
share
of
all
diversifi-
cation
measures
is
related
to
tourism
(Ilbery,
1987;
Sharpley
and
Vass,
2006).
For
example
Jongeneel
et
al.
(2008)
found
that
among
other
factors,
the
location
in
the
densely
urbanised
part
of
the
Netherlands
has
a
significant
influence
on
participation
in
activities
related
to
tourism.
However,
farm-based
tourism
does
not
repre-
sent
an
intrinsic
characteristic
of
PUA.
In
general,
its
prevalence
is
limited
to
more
rural
areas.
It
is
more
geographically
biased,
since
it
requires
the
availability
of
natural
amenities,
i.e.
mountains,
forests
or
water
areas.
The
diversification
into
farm-tourism
and
other
recreational
activities
represents
a
suitable
and
common
opportu-
nity
to
make
use
of
synergy
effects
within
agri-environmental
and
644 I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648
landscape
management
measures.
Portraying
prototypical
Dutch
farms,
Swagemakers
and
Wiskerke
(2004)
could
show
how
farms
benefit
from
financial
subsidies
for
agri-environmental
measures,
in
that,
once
rural
amenities
and
environmental
quality
have
been
improved,
farm
accommodation
and
direct
marketing
activities
were
facilitated.
Horse-keeping
represents
another
example
for
a
major
farm
diversification
activity
in
peri-urban
areas.
Empirical
case
stud-
ies
from
Scotland,
Canada
and
Sweden
reveal
high
increases
in
stocking-rate
gradients
in
urbanised
or
urban–rural
regions
(Quetier
and
Gordon,
2003;
Elgaker
and
Wilton,
2008).
Horse-
related
landscape
transitions
referred
to
as
“horsification”,
which
are
characterised
by
changing
grazing
practices
or
the
dispersion
of
equine
services
and
bridleways,
are
rather
controversially
dis-
cussed.
For
example,
some
authors
focus
on
the
negative
impacts
from
the
accommodation
facilities
and
the
neighbourhood
con-
flicts
with
residents
(Ravenscroft
and
Long,
1994;
Elgaker
and
Wilton,
2008).
For
the
equine
business,
local
planners
and
offi-
cials
increasingly
recognise
these
issues,
and
have
highlighted
the
need
for
integration
within
a
wider
discussion
of
rural
develop-
ment
and
its
impacts
on
landscape
(Bills
and
Gross,
2005).
Other
authors
like
Bailey
et
al.
(2000)
have
demonstrated
that
due
to
the
large
and
increasing
demand
from
urban
areas,
the
provision
of
equine
services
represents
a
relevant
income
source
for
peri-
urban
farmers
and
a
serious
land
use
alternative
to
conventional
commodity
production.
Elgaker
and
Wilton
(2008)
also
highlight
the
particular
multifunctional
character
of
horse-keeping,
since
it
provides
jointness
and
synergy
effects
with
other
economic
and
socio-cultural
aspects,
such
as
employment
or
recreational
sup-
ply.
Increasing
recognition
of
PUA
as
a
leisure
and
recreational
space
creates
demand-conditions
for
public
goods,
i.e.
amenity
landscapes
as
well
as
for
marketable
agricultural
commodities.
In
summary,
recreation-oriented
diversification
opportunities
con-
tribute
to
the
economic
development
process
of
the
countryside
near
urban
centres.
Social
farming
Encompassing
ideas
such
as
farming
for
health,
green
care
or
care
farming,
social
farming
(SF)
represents
another
example
of
multifunctional
PUA.
The
main
idea
behind
the
concept
of
social
farming
is
the
integration
of
social
and
health
care
services
into
the
agricultural
activity.
The
social
responsibility
of
agriculture
is
strengthened
through
the
provision
of
different
kinds
of
educa-
tional,
social
and
caring
functions,
as
Di
Iacovo
(2003)
defines
it.
Therefore,
production
processes
are
redesigned
to
include
activities
like
rehabilitation,
therapy
and
education
for
people
with
physical
and
mental
disabilities,
the
socially
disadvantaged,
children
and
seniors
via
their
participation
in
farm-work
activities
(van
Elsen,
2010).
Although
it
is
not
supported
by
spatial
distribution
figures,
it
has
been
argued
by
Siebert
et
al.
(2009)
that
social
farming
under-
takes
valuable
social
functions,
particularly
in
the
proximity
to
urban
agglomerations
with
their
associated
density
of
disadvan-
taged
groups.
In
contrast,
where
remoteness
represents
an
inherent
part
of
the
therapeutical
concept,
SF
is
not
exclusively
a
property
of
PUA
(Di
Iacovo
and
O’Connor,
2009).
The
first
initiatives
were
established
in
the
1960s,
although
the
extent
of
the
phenomenon
has
seen
a
significant
increase
relatively
recently.
It
now
belongs
to
the
fastest
growing
means
of
multifunctional
agriculture
in
Europe
(Hassink
et
al.,
2007).
Short
supply
chains
and
direct
marketing
In
the
1970s,
farmers
did
not
consider
the
marketing
and
sales
benefits
of
being
located
in
the
urban
proximity
(Rettig,
1976).
Improved
accessibility
to
local
markets,
the
establishment
of
alternative
or
short
supply
chains
and
community
supported
agriculture
has
been
reported
more
recently
in
peri-urban
farming
(Aubry
et
al.,
2008;
Jarosz,
2008).
The
importance
of
social
con-
tacts
between
producers
and
consumers,
motivation
differences
among
farmers
to
participate,
and
the
role
of
different
modes
of
distribution
have
all
been
identified
as
influencing
factors
for
direct
marketing
(Holloway
et
al.,
2007).
This
proximity
encourages
peri-
urban
farmers
to
identify
market
niches,
innovate
and
adapt
to
new
demands,
as
Le
Grand
and
van
Meekeren
(2008)
could
show
based
on
their
Dutch
case
study.
Gallent
(2006)
reinterpret
this
as
a
potential
locational
advantage,
as
the
environmental
awareness
of
consumers
regarding
agricultural
production
increases.
Other
commentators
remain
doubtful
however,
arguing
that
urban
prox-
imity
offers
only
a
limited
development
potential
for
the
marketing
of
local
products
due
to
the
globalised
food
market
(Lohrberg,
2001;
Hildmann
and
Casper,
2004;
Jarosz,
2008).
Depending
on
the
specific
product
type,
less
than
20%
of
the
yields
are
marketed
regionally,
with
vegetables
more
prevalent
than
cereals
(Hildmann
and
Casper,
2004).
Concentration
of
direct
marketing
on
a
par-
ticular
consumer
segment
(characterised
by
highly
affluent
and
educated
individuals)
is
seen
as
a
critical
limitation
that
prevents
direct
marketing
from
being
a
true
alternative
to
anonymous
mass-
production
(Lohrberg,
2001).
However,
Wilson
(2007)
argues
that
locally
embedded
production
and
short
supply
chains
reduces
dependency
on
world
markets,
and
contributes
to
a
strong
mul-
tifunctionality
of
agriculture,
particularly
in
the
peri-urban
area.
Multifunctional
development
of
peri-urban
agriculture
Agriculture
in
peri-urban
areas
is
under
tremendous
pres-
sure.
Market
liberalisation
and
earning
squeeze
for
arable
and
livestock
production,
socio-economic
transitions,
and
a
land-
market
situation
characterised
by
high
land
prices
and
decoupling
ownership–producer-relationships
are
all
factors
that
have
influ-
enced
the
debate
as
to
whether
agriculture
has
a
chance
of
survival
at
the
fringes
of
urban
agglomeration
(van
der
Falk
et
al.,
2009).
By
focusing
on
peri-urban
areas
across
Europe,
this
literature
review
has
attempted
to
draw
attention
to
the
opportunities
and
per-
spectives
that
the
multifunctional
development
paradigm
offers
in
regards
to
adapting
and
modernising
PUA.
Lifestyle
changes,
increasing
leisure
time,
a
‘quality
of
life’
ori-
entation
and
growing
environmental
and
climate
change
concerns
have
all
contributed
to
urban
society’s
increasing
interest
in
having
agriculture
at
its
doorstep.
Along
with
its
role
in
preserving
biodi-
versity,
as
well
as
delivering
fresh
air,
drinking
water
and
regional
food,
farming
in
peri-urban
areas
is
recognised
as
an
integral
part
of
the
cultural
landscape,
which
provides
environmental
ameni-
ties,
accessible
green
open
spaces
and
recreational
services.
But
as
a
pleasant
living
environment,
it
also
attracts
new
and
affluent
neighbours
who
purchase
small
holdings,
which
in
turn
drives
up
housing
development
and
land
prices.
Despite,
a
further
erosion
of
the
productive
capacity,
by
responding
to
this
multitude
of
urban
demands
by
adapting
farm
strategies,
PUA
has
improved
its
eco-
nomic
viability.
Farmers
in
peri-urban
area
often
find
direct
ways
for
directly
marketing
their
own
production
while
diversifying
on-
farm
activities,
such
as
farm
accommodation
or
horse-keeping.
More
recently,
services
with
a
focus
on
educational
and
health
care
represent
another
growing
field
of
peri-urban
farming
activity.
In
contradiction
to
the
high
societal
demands
for
an
aesthetical
and
amenity-rich
countryside
around
urban
areas,
landscape
manage-
ment
and
agri-environmental
measures
are
no
more
common
than
anywhere
else
in
the
rural
areas.
Potential
synergy
effects
between
landscape
management
practices
and
other
diversification
mea-
sures
remain
underdeveloped.
However,
driven
by
a
more
lifestyle
I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648 645
and
environmental
focus
and
less
exclusively
an
economical
one,
urban-oriented
adaptive
and
lifestyle
farming
types,
which
are
both
prevalent
in
PUA,
possess
a
high
affinity
to
diversify
activities
beyond
conventional
crop
and
livestock
production.
Multifunctionality
embraces
numerous
development
issues
intrinsic
to
the
agricultural
countryside
in
and
around
towns
and
cities.
In
the
face
of
ongoing
urban
growth,
particularly
dynamic
in
peri-urban
areas,
land
resources
for
agricultural
activities
are
limited
and
shrinking.
At
the
same
time,
there
is
an
increase
in
competing
land
use
activities
and
interests
in
the
remaining
open
spaces,
such
as
between
recreation,
nature
protection
and
intensified
agriculture
(Rode
and
von
Haaren,
2005;
Rogge
et
al.,
2008).
Making
use
of
synergy
effects
and
conflict
mitigation,
mul-
tifunctional
land
use
approaches
enable
efficient
provision
of
these
functions
and
values.
Nevertheless,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
proliferation
of
cultural
landscape
or
environmental
ameni-
ties
requires
agricultural
activity,
at
least
to
some
extent.
Through
the
provision
of
marketable
or
otherwise
compensated
production
of
goods
and
services
on
the
same
piece
of
land,
multifunctional-
ity
strengthens
the
economic
foundation
of
PUA,
preventing
land
abandonment.
It
enables
farming
as
an
economically
reasonable
and
competitive
alternative
to
urban
development.
In
this
sense,
the
encouragement
of
multifunctional
PUA
represents
a
comple-
mentary
element
within
a
double
strategy
to
safeguard
valuable
open
spaces
as
well
as
to
limit
and
manage
urban
growth
in
peri-
urban
areas.
Policy
and
planning
for
a
multifunctional
peri-urban
agriculture
Reconnecting
urban–rural
relationships
Many
peri-urban
areas
are
far
too
often
represented
as
fragmented
administrative
and
decision-making
entities
with
frontlines
of
separation,
competition
and
conflict
between
the
urban
and
rural
spheres.
Existing
functional
interrelationships
are
neglected,
and
common
perceptions
of
the
values
and
functions
of
PUA
are
left
underdeveloped.
A
policy
arena
covering
the
area
of
the
central
city
and
the
peri-urban
surrounding
on
the
basis
of
functional
interrelationships
of
rural
and
urban
compartments
has
therefore
been
requested.
The
European
Spatial
Development
Per-
spective
(European
Commission,
1999)
highlighted
the
necessity
to
integrate
the
surrounding
countryside
in
the
spatial
develop-
ment
strategies
of
urban
areas
to
improve
the
efficiency
of
land
use
planning.
Vejre
et
al.
(2007a)
and
Overbeek
(2009)
argue
that
a
dialogue
that
includes
urban
and
rural
stakeholders
and
land
use
actors
is
needed
to
evaluate
and
discuss
common
interests
and
perceptions,
including
what
PUA
should
provide
urban
society.
As
Vejre
et
al.
(2007a)
point
out,
when
implemented
within
a
com-
mon
policy
and
planning
agenda,
this
could
lead
to
an
improved
socially
optimal
mix
of
PUA’s
functions
and
services
for
the
urban
society.
An
enhanced
understanding
of
the
role
of
urban
consumers
is
necessary
–
one
that
takes
consumers’
preferences
for
values
and
functions
into
consideration.
Along
with
innovative
produc-
ers,
informed
and
interested
consumers
foster
the
exploitation
of
the
multifunctional
potentials
of
the
peri-urban
countryside
more
efficiently.
To
link
the
provision
of
functions
and
services
of
PUA
with
society
and
potential
consumers,
it
is
necessary
to
reinforce
urban–rural
linkages.
Zoning,
agricultural
preservation
and
urban
containment
As
a
main
requirement
of
a
multifunctional
development
of
agriculture
and
countryside,
the
preservation
of
farmland
along
with
open
spaces
in
the
peri-urban
area
is
carried
out
in
many
European
countries
through
urban
containment
and
growth
man-
agement
policies.
Combined
with
financial
incentives,
zoning
and
urban
growth
boundaries
represent
the
main
planning
instru-
ments,
such
as
the
Green
Belt
in
the
UK
(Munton,
1983;
Gant
et
al.,
2011),
the
Copenhagen
“Fingerplan”
(see
Vejre
et
al.,
2007b)
or
the
Green
Heart
within
the
Randstad
metropolitan
region
and
buffer
zones
in
the
Netherlands
(see
Koomen
et
al.,
2008).
The
main
idea
of
these
concepts
is
to
geographically
define
zones,
adja-
cent
to
urban
areas
(where
urban
development
is
prohibited
or
limited)
to
prevent
encroachment
of
urban
sprawl
into
the
peri-
urban
open
spaces.
Adopted
in
the
different
countries
between
the
1930s
and
1960s,
these
zoning
schemes
have
become
rela-
tively
important
and
successful
in
limiting
urban
growth
in
the
designated
areas:
developments
has
been
postponed
(Gant
et
al.,
2011),
general
urbanisation
rates
were
reduced
(Koomen
et
al.,
2008)
and
structural
requirements
for
open-space
development
have
been
retained
(Vejre
et
al.,
2007b).
Additionally,
territorial
separation
allows
for
the
coexistence
of
conflicting
land
uses
within
the
peri-urban
area,
either
production
intensive
or
leisure
and
environmentally
oriented
(Daniel
and
Perraud,
2009).
However,
the
actual
impact
of
these
zoning
measures
on
land
preservation
is
a
moot
point.
Not
limiting
urbanisation
potential
in
general,
restrictions
within
the
open
space
zones
only
redistribute
devel-
opment
pressure
to
areas
adjacent
to
them.
As
Robinson
(2004)
argues,
containment
policies
put
additional
pressure
on
the
sub-
urban
neighbourhoods
and
brownfield
redevelopment
inside
the
Green
Belt,
and
encourage
urban
leapfrogging
outside
of
it.
Fur-
thermore,
changing
growth
boundaries,
local
calls
for
restriction
easements,
and
uncoordinated
municipal
planning
and
develop-
ment
permissions
(which
have
been
observed
in
various
regional
settings)
have
all
raised
doubts
over
the
zoning
measures’
preser-
vation
ability
(Vejre
et
al.,
2007b;
Koomen
et
al.,
2008;
Gant
et
al.,
2011).
The
criticism
applies
even
more
for
the
multifunctional
devel-
opment
of
farming
in
the
peri-urban
area.
Open
space
preservation
comes
under
the
purview
of
natural
areas
rather
than
farmland.
Although
natural
areas
enjoy
high
valuation
by
the
public
from
an
environmental
and
aesthetic
perspective,
farming
is
only
given
a
marginal
reason
to
survive
in
the
peri-urban
area
(Koomen
et
al.,
2008).
More
societal
acknowledgement
is
required
for
the
func-
tions
and
values
agriculture
can
provide
the
urban
public,
such
as
local
food
and
comparably
cost-efficient
provision
of
landscape
fea-
tures.
Kerselaers
et
al.
(2011)
have
called
for
a
clear
vision
as
to
how
and
where
agricultural
land
under
pressure
should
be
preserved.
To
this
end,
they
have
developed
a
decision-support
mechanism
that
not
only
includes
agricultural
production
criteria,
but
also
cov-
ers
the
provision
of
the
multiple
social
and
ecological
functions
of
agriculture.
There
is
strong
evidence
from
various
peri-urban
case
studies
that
public
planning
is
not
capable
of
addressing
the
small-scale
functional
transformations
beyond
physical
land
cover
changes.
Typically,
zoning
legislations
are
undermined
through
the
spread
of
non-agricultural
land
uses
on
farms,
or
the
switch
from
full-time
farming
to
the
consumption-oriented
use
of
hobby
farmers
and
residents
(Vejre
et
al.,
2007b;
Bomans
et
al.,
2009).
In
contrast
to
planning
methods,
which
prescribe
durable
land
use,
the
regulation
of
a
peri-urban
post-productive
and
multifunctional
agriculture
requires
a
greater
flexibility
to
respond
to
the
dynamic
transitions
and
the
mixture
of
land
uses.
Scholars
such
as
Shoard
(2002)
as
well
as
Gallent
(2006)
have
criticised
the
adoption
of
preservation
planning
like
the
Green
Belt
in
the
urban
fringe
as
a
defensive
preservation
approach,
which
rather
reinforces
the
urban–rural
divide
in
planning
while
lacking
a
positive
and
visionary
development
agenda.
Gant
et
al.
(2011)
have
formulated
the
need
for
a
proactive
approach
with
646 I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648
a
specific
peri-urban
agenda.
However,
it
can
be
agreed
that
it
is
necessary
to
actively
control
and
supervise
the
transformation
of
the
peri-urban
agriculture,
its
diversification
process
and
the
tar-
geted
provision
of
environmental
services
to
meet
urban
demands.
Gallent
et
al.
(2006)
and
Rode
et
al.
(2006)
argue
for
the
possibilities
of
consensus-oriented
concepts
of
commonly
shared,
multipurpose
land,
which
enable
multifunctional
development
in
a
closer
sense
by
spatial
and
temporal
integration
of
multiple
activities
and
inter-
mediate
agricultural
land
use
approaches.
Heading
in
the
same
direction,
Leinfelder
(2009)
proposed
an
adaptation
of
the
tradi-
tional
zoning
practice
in
the
case
of
open
space
planning.
Instead
of
a
geographical
definition
of
a
future
land
use,
he
suggests
a
“strate-
gic
zoning”
approach,
which
describes
purposes
and
contextual
conditions.
This
appears
particularly
promising,
as
it
provides
a
planning
opportunity
to
formulate
and
support
the
required
co-
existence
of
the
same
entity’s
multiple
purposes.
Rural
development
policy
The
spatial
conditions
in
peri-urban
areas
for
agricultural
land
use
differ
substantially
from
peripheral
rural
ones.
However,
the
agricultural
policy
and
support
systems
in
Europe
are
still
rather
oriented
towards
a
continuous
rural
area.
van
Berkel
and
Verburg
(2011)
argue
that
this
uniformity
throughout
the
EU
to
promote
environmental
and
land
management
incentives,
as
well
as
single
farm
payments,
does
not
reflect
the
diversity
of
the
rural
country-
side
in
relation
to
their
development
trajectories
and
framework
conditions.
This
particularly
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
a
multifunctional
and
post-productive
development
perspective
of
PUA.
To
comply
with
the
specific
local
peri-urban
framework
conditions,
agriculture
and
rural
development
schemes
require
pronounced
regional
targeting.
The
consultation
process
for
the
reconfiguration
of
the
Common
Agricultural
Policy
has
highlighted
that
PUA
requires
specific
attention
(European
Commission,
2010).
To
strengthen
PUA
against
farm-structural
changes
and
urban
pres-
sure,
support
schemes
need
to
be
tailored
to
small
and
active
farmers
who
focus
on
peri-urban-specific
farm
diversification
and
agri-environmental
measures.
Changes
to
eligibility
criteria
are
necessary,
such
as
minimum
farm
sizes
and
long
contract
dura-
tions
for
participation
in
AES,
which
inhibit
any
flexible
response
to
changed
land
use
conditions.
In
addition,
low
entry
levels
of
AES
(easily
adoptable
due
to
low
requirements)
encourage
rather
extensive
measures,
such
as
pasture
management,
which
is
bet-
ter
suited
to
more
remote
rural
areas.
Focusing
on
local
conditions
encourages
efficiency
in
the
demand-oriented
provision
of
pub-
lic
goods
and
services.
Territorial
instruments
such
as
the
LEADER
initiative
or
the
Less
Favoured
Area
scheme
provide
interesting
approaches,
as
they
support
local
actors,
rural
innovation
and
the
inherent
agricultural
development
opportunities
on
a
limited
geo-
graphical
scope.
Conclusion
Although
peri-urban
areas
are
exposed
to
urban
pressures,
socio-economic
and
land
use
changes
which
all
challenge
the
economic
basis
of
the
farm’s
survival,
this
literature
review
has
shown
that
the
multifunctional
development
paradigm
provides
an
approach
that
strengthens
and
modernises
peri-urban
agri-
culture.
There
is
a
reasonable
demand
among
the
urban
public
for
multiple
functions
and
values
from
farming.
Environmental
and
landscape
amenities,
which
directly
contribute
to
the
regional
quality
of
life,
are
particularly
highly
valued.
Beyond
that,
peri-
urban
agriculture
is
increasingly
acknowledged
for
its
deliverance
of
local
food
as
well
as
recreational,
educational
and
other
social
services.
After
decades
of
adaptation,
peri-urban
farmers
have
innovatively
responded
to
the
pressure
and
opportunities
attached
to
their
geographical
adjacency
to
urban
agglomerations.
Peri-
urban
farming
is
now
characterised
by
a
heterogeneous
pattern
of
holdings
with
intensive
and
specialised
production,
high
par-
ticipation
in
diversification,
and
low-intensive
hobby
and
lifestyle
oriented
farms.
However,
preservation
and
multifunctional
devel-
opment
of
agriculture
in
the
peri-urban
area
requires
a
broad
range
of
policy
and
planning
measures.
Urban
containment
and
zoning
measures
(such
as
green
belts)
provide
necessary
prereq-
uisites
for
the
open-space
preservation
in
general.
Nevertheless,
planning
instruments
have
to
be
adapted
to
the
requirements
of
multifunctional
agriculture.
The
peri-urban
area
needs
to
be
recog-
nised
as
an
individual
policy
arena
to
overcome
the
urban–rural
divide
and
strengthen
urban–rural
relationships.
Agricultural
poli-
cies
and
financial
incentives
should
take
into
account
a
peri-rural
area’s
difference
to
the
rural
countryside,
and
target
development
guidance
at
the
situation
within
the
border
of
urban
and
rural
zones.
Acknowledgements
This
work
has
been
carried
out
within
the
FP6
Integrated
Project
PLUREL
–
Peri-urban
Land
Use
Relationships,
funded
by
the
European
Commission,
Directorate-General
Research,
Contract
No.
36921.
The
author
thanks
Stephan
Pauleit
from
the
Center
of
Life
and
Food
Sciences
Weihenstephan,
Technical
University
Munich
and
Annette
Piorr
of
the
Leibniz
Center
for
Agricultural
Landscape
Research
as
well
as
three
unknown
reviewers
for
helpful
sugges-
tions
and
discussions.
References
Agger,
P.,
2001.
Access
to
the
post-productivist
landscape:
the
case
of
Denmark.
In:
Conference
Proceedings
“Public
Access
to
Natural,
Agricultural
Forest
Areas”
,
Clemont-Ferrant,
France,
September
24–26.
Allaert,
G.,
De
Meulder,
B.,
Huylenbroeck,
G.,
Van
Hecke,
E.,
Meert,
H.,
2006.
Preconditions
for
Sustainable
Land
Use
by
Agriculture
in
Urbanising
Net-
work
Society.
Scientific
Support
Plan
for
Sustainable
Development
Policy.
Belgian
Science
Policy,
Brussels,
Downloaded
from:
http://www.belspo.be/
belspo/home/publ/rappCPagr
en.stm
(April
2010).
Antrop,
M.,
2004.
Landscape
change
and
the
urbanization
process
in
Europe.
Land-
scape
and
Urban
Planning
67,
9–26.
Arriaza,
M.,
Ca˜
nas-Ortega,
J.F.,
Ca˜
nas-Madue˜
noa,
J.A.,
Ruiz-Aviles,
P.,
2004.
Assess-
ing
the
visual
quality
of
rural
landscapes.
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
69,
115–125.
Aubry,
C.,
Kebir,
L.,
Pasquier,
C.,
Traversac,
J.B.,
Petit,
C.,
2008.
Transitions
in
peri-urban
agriculture:
how
short
supply
chains
evolutions
question
research.
Examples
and
emerging
researches
in
the
Ile
de
France.
In:
Conference
Proceed-
ings
“Transitions
Towards
Sustainable
Agriculture,
Food
Chains
and
Peri-Urban
Areas”
,
Wageningen,
The
Netherlands,
October
26–29.
Bailey,
A.,
Williams,
N.,
Palmer,
M.,
Geering,
R.,
2000.
The
farmer
as
service
provider:
the
demand
for
agricultural
commodities
and
equine
services.
Agricultural
Sys-
tems
66,
191–204.
Bell,
S.,
Tyrväinen,
L.,
Sievänen,
T.,
Pröbstl,
U.,
Simpson,
M.,
2007.
Outdoor
Recreation
and
Nature
Tourism:
A
EUROPEAN
PERSPECTIVE.
Living
Reviews
in
Landscape
1,
Downloaded
from:
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2007-2
(April
2010).
Bergstrom,
J.C.,
2005.
Postproductivism
and
changing
rural
land
use
values
and
pref-
erences.
In:
Goetz,
S.J.,
Shortle,
J.S.,
Bergstrom,
J.C.
(Eds.),
Land
Use
Problems
and
Conflicts.
Routledge,
London,
pp.
64–76.
Bills,
N.,
Gross,
D.,
2005.
Sustaining
multifunctional
agricultural
landscapes:
com-
paring
stakeholder
perspectives
in
New
York
(US)
and
England
(UK).
Land
Use
Policy
22,
313–321.
Bomans,
K.,
Steenberghen,
T.,
Dewaelheyns,
V.,
Leinfelder,
H.,
Gulinck,
H.,
2009.
Underrated
transformations
in
the
open
space
–
the
case
of
an
urbanized
and
multifunctional
area.
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
94,
196–205.
Boulanger,
A.,
Meert,
H.,
Van
Hecke,
E.,
2004.
The
societal
demand
for
public
goods
in
peri-urban
areas:
a
case
from
the
Brussels
urban
region.
In:
Conference
Pro-
ceedings
“90th
EAAE
Seminar
Multifunctional
Agriculture,
Policies
Markets:
Understanding
the
Critical
Linkage”
,
Rennes,
France,
October
28–29.
Bouraoui,
M.,
2005.
Agri-urban
development
from
a
land
use
planning
perspective:
the
Saclay
Plateau
(France)
and
the
Sijoumi
Plain
(Tunisia).
In:
Mougeot,
L.J.A.
(Ed.),
Agropolis:
The
social,
Political
and
Environmental
Dimensions
of
Urban
Agriculture.
Earthscan,
London,
pp.
203–238.
I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648 647
Brandt,
J.,
Vejre,
H.,
2004.
Multifunctional
landscapes
–
motives,
concepts
and
per-
spectives.
In:
Brandt,
J.,
Vejre,
H.
(Eds.),
Multifunctional
Landscapes,
Volume
I
–
Theory,
Values
and
History.
WIT
Press,
Southampton,
pp.
3–31.
Brink,
A.,
2003.
Welche
Rolle
spielt
der
ökologische
Landbau
für
eine
Großstadt.
In:
Rahmann,
G.,
Nieberg,
H.
(Eds.),
Ressortforschung
für
den
ökologischen
Landbau.
Bundesforschungsanstalt
für
Landwirtschaft,
Braunschweig,
pp.
80–83.
Bryant,
C.R.,
Johnston,
T.R.R.,
1992.
Agriculture
in
the
City’s
Countryside.
Belhaven
Press,
London.
Buciega,
A.,
Pitarch,
M.D.,
Esparcia,
J.,
2009.
The
context
of
rural–urban
relationships
in
Finland,
France,
Hungary,
The
Netherlands
and
Spain.
Journal
of
Environmen-
tal
Policy
and
Planning
11,
9–27.
Buijs,
A.E.,
Pedroli,
B.,
Luginbuhl,
Y.,
2006.
From
hiking
through
farmland
to
farming
in
a
leisure
landscape:
changing
social
perceptions
of
the
European
landscape.
Landscape
Ecology
21,
375–389.
Busck,
A.G.,
Pilgaard
Kristensen,
S.,
Praestholm,
S.,
Primdahl,
J.,
2008.
Porous
land-
scapes
–
the
case
of
Greater
Copenhagen.
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
7,
145–156.
Busck,
A.G.,
Pilgaard
Kristensen,
S.,
Praestholm,
S.,
Reenberg,
A.,
Primdahl,
J.,
2006.
Land
system
changes
in
the
context
of
urbanisation:
examples
from
the
peri-urban
area
of
Greater
Copenhagen.
Geografisk
Tidsskrift
106,
21–
34.
Catherine
Bickmore
Associates,
2003.
The
State
and
Potential
of
Agriculture
in
the
Urban
Fringe.
The
Countryside
Agency,
London.
Che,
D.,
2007.
Agritourism
and
its
potential
contribution
to
the
agricultural
economy.
In:
CAB
Reviews:
Perspectives
in
Agriculture,
Veterinary
Science,
Nutrition
and
Natural
Resources
2,
No.
063.
Cooper,
T.,
Hart,
K.,
Baldock,
D.,
2009.
The
Provision
of
Public
Goods
Through
Agri-
culture
in
the
European
Union.
Institute
for
European
Environmental
Policy,
London.
Daniel,
F.J.,
Perraud,
D.,
2009.
The
multifunctionality
of
agriculture
and
contrac-
tual
policies.
A
comparative
analysis
of
France
and
the
Netherlands.
Journal
of
Environmental
Management
90,
S132–S138.
Davoudi,
S.,
Stead,
D.,
2007.
Urban–rural-relationships
–an
introduction
and
brief
history.
Building
and
Environment
28,
269–277.
de
Vries,
S.,
Verheij,
R.A.,
Groenewegen,
P.P.,
Spreeuwenberg,
P.,
2003.
Natural
environments
–
healthy
environments?
An
exploratory
analysis
of
the
relation-
ship
between
greenspace
and
health.
Environment
and
Planning
A
35,
1717–
1731.
Di
Iacovo,
F.,
2003.
New
trends
in
the
relationship
between
farmers
and
local
com-
munities
in
Tuscany.
In:
Van
Huylenbroeck,
G.,
Durand,
G.
(Eds.),
Multifunctional
Agriculture:
A
New
Paradigm
for
European
Agriculture
and
Rural
Development.
Ashgate,
Aldershot,
pp.
101–125.
Di
Iacovo,
F.,
O’Connor,
D.,
2009.
Supporting
policies
for
social
farming
in
Europe:
progressing
multifunctionality
in
responsive
rural
areas.
In:
Agenzia
Regionale
per
lo
Sviluppo
e
l’Innovazione
nel
settore
Agricolo-forestale,
Florence.
EEA,
2006.
Urban
Sprawl
in
Europe
– The
ignored
challenge.
Report
10/2006.
Euro-
pean
Environmental
Agency,
Copenhagen.
European
Commission,
1999.
European
Spatial
Development
Perspective.
Towards
Balanced
and
Sustainable
Development
of
the
Territory
of
the
European
Union.
European
Commission,
Potsdam.
European
Commission,
2010.
The
Common
Agricultural
Policy
after
2013:
Public
Debate
Summary
Report.
European
Commission,
Brussels.
Fleury,
A.,
2002.
Agriculture
as
an
urban
infrastructure:
a
new
social
contract?
The
sustainable
city
II:
urban
regeneration
and
sustainability.
In:
Proceedings
2nd
International
Conference
on
Urban
Regeneration
Sustainability
,.
WIT
Press,
Southampton.
Freibauer,
A.,
Rounsevell,
M.D.A.,
Smith,
P.,
Verhagen,
J.,
2004.
Carbon
sequestration
in
the
agricultural
soils
of
Europe.
Geoderma
122,
1–23.
Gallent,
N.,
2006.
The
rural–urban
fringe:
a
new
priority
for
planning
policy?
Plan-
ning
Practice
and
Research
21,
383–393.
Gallent,
N.,
Anderson,
J.,
Bianconi,
M.,
2006.
Planning
on
the
Edge:
The
Context
for
Planning
at
the
Rural–Urban
Fringe.
Routledge,
London.
Gant,
R.L.,
Robinson,
G.M.,
Fazal,
S.,
2011.
Land
use
change
in
the
‘edgelands’:
policies
and
pressures
in
London’s
rural–urban
fringe.
Land
Use
Policy
28,
266–279.
Gilg,
A.,
Battershill,
M.,
1998.
Quality
farm
food
in
Europe:
a
possible
alternative
to
the
industrialised
food
market
and
to
current
agri-environmental
policies:
lessons
from
France.
Food
Policy
23,
25–40.
Gulinck,
H.,
2004.
Neo-rurality
and
multifunctional
landscapes.
In:
Brand,
J.,
Vejre,
H.
(Eds.),
Multifunctional
Landscapes
–
Volume
I
Theory,
Values
and
History.
WIP
Press,
Southampton,
pp.
63–73.
Haase,
D.,
Nuissl,
H.,
2007.
Does
urban
sprawl
drive
changes
in
the
water
balance
and
policy?
The
case
of
Leipzig
(Germany)
1870–2003.
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
80,
1–13.
Hall,
C.,
McVittie,
A.,
Moran,
D.,
2004.
What
does
the
public
want
from
agriculture
and
the
countryside?
A
review
of
evidence
and
methods.
Journal
of
Rural
Studies
20,
211–225.
Hassink,
J.,
Zwartbol,
C.,
Agricola,
H.J.,
Elings,
M.,
Thissen,
J.T.N.M.,
2007.
Current
status
and
potential
of
care
farms
in
the
Netherlands.
NJAS
Wageningen
Journal
of
Life
Sciences
55,
21–36.
Hildmann,
C.,
Casper,
M.,
2004.
Funktionale
Schnittstellen
zwischen
Stadt
und
Umland?
Das
Beispiel
der
Nahrungsmittelversorgung
von
Magdeburg.
Hallesches
Jahrbuch
für
Geowissenschaften
26,
25–36.
Holloway,
L.,
Kneafsey,
M.,
Venn,
L.,
Cox,
R.,
Dowler,
E.,
Tuomainen,
H.,
2007.
Possible
food
economies:
a
methodological
framework
for
exploring
food
production–consumption
relationships.
Sociologia
Ruralis
47,
1–19.
Hutchinson,
J.J.,
Campbell,
C.A.,
Desjardins,
R.L.,
2007.
Some
perspectives
on
carbon
sequestration
in
agriculture.
Agricultural
and
Forest
Meteorology
142,
288–302.
Ilbery,
B.,
Holloway,
L.,
Arber,
R.,
1999.
The
Geography
of
Organic
Farming
in
England
and
Wales
in
the
1990s.
Tijdschrift
voor
Economische
en
Sociale
Geografie
90,
285–295.
Ilbery,
B.,
1987.
The
development
of
farm
diversification
in
the
UK:
evidence
from
Birmingham’s
urban
fringe.
Journal
of
the
Royal
Agricultural
Society
of
England
148,
21–35.
Jarosz,
L.,
2008.
The
city
in
the
country:
growing
alternative
food
networks
in
Metropolitan
areas.
Journal
of
Rural
Studies
24,
231–244.
Jongeneel,
R.A.,
Polman,
N.B.P.,
Slangen,
L.H.G.,
2008.
Why
are
Dutch
farmers
going
multifunctional?
Land
Use
Policy
25,
81–94.
Kaplan,
A.,
Taskin,
T.,
Onenc,
A.,
2006.
Assessing
the
visual
quality
of
rural
and
urban-fringed
landscapes
surrounding
livestock
farms.
Biosystems
Engineering
95,
437–448.
Kenyon,
W.,
Hill,
G.,
Shannon,
P.,
2008.
Scoping
the
role
of
agriculture
in
sustainable
flood
management.
Land
Use
Policy
25,
351–360.
Kerselaers,
E.,
Rogge,
E.,
Dessein,
J.,
Lauwers,
L.,
Van
Huylenbroeck,
G.,
2011.
Priori-
tising
land
to
be
preserved
for
agriculture:
a
context-specific
value
tree.
Land
Use
Policy
28,
219–226.
Koomen,
E.,
Dekkers,
J.,
van
Dijk,
T.,
2008.
Open-space
preservation
in
the
Netherlands:
planning,
practice
and
prospects.
Land
Use
Policy
25,
361–377.
Lamptey,
B.L.,
Barron,
E.J.,
Pollard,
D.,
2005.
Impacts
of
agriculture
and
urbanization
on
the
climate
of
the
Northeastern
United
States.
Global
and
Planetary
Change
49,
203–221.
Le
Grand,
L.,
van
Meekeren,
M.,
2008.
Urban–rural
relations:
Dutch
experiences
of
the
leader
+
network
and
rural
innovation
in
areas
under
strong
urban
influ-
ences.
In:
Rurality
Near
the
City.
Leinfelder,
H.,
2009.
Formalisation
of
“Open
Space
as
Public
Space”
in
zoning:
the
Belgian
experience.
In:
van
der
Falk,
A.,
van
Dijk,
T.
(Eds.),
Regional
Planning
for
Open
Space.
Routledge,
London,
pp.
223–247.
Lohrberg,
F.,
2001.
Stadtnahe
Landwirtschaft
in
der
Stadt-
und
Freiraumplanung,
Dissertation
downloaded
from:
http://elib.uni-
stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2001/908/
(April
2010).
Luttik,
J.,
van
der
Ploeg,
B.,
2004.
Functions
of
agriculture
in
urban
society
in
the
Netherlands.
In:
Brouwer,
F.
(Ed.),
Sustaining
Agriculture
and
the
Rural
Econ-
omy:
Governance,
Policy
and
Multifunctionality.
Edward
Elgar,
Cheltenham,
pp.
204–222.
Marsden,
T.,
1999.
Rural
futures:
the
consumption
countryside
and
its
regulation.
Sociologia
Ruralis
39,
501–526.
Matsuoka,
R.H.,
Kaplan,
R.,
2008.
People
needs
in
the
urban
landscape:
analysis
of
landscape
and
urban
planning
contributions.
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
84,
7–19.
Meert,
H.,
Van
Huylenbroeck,
G.,
Vernimmen,
T.,
Bourgeois,
M.,
Van
Hecke,
E.,
2005.
Farm
household
survival
strategies
and
diversification
on
marginal
farms.
Jour-
nal
of
Rural
Studies
21,
81–97.
Munton,
R.,
1983.
London’s
Green
Belt:
Containment
in
Practice.
George
Allen
&
Unwin,
Hemel
Hempstead.
Munton,
R.,
2009.
Rural
land
ownership
in
the
United
Kingdom:
changing
patterns
and
future
possibilities
for
land
use.
Land
Use
Policy
26,
S54–S61.
Overbeek,
G.,
2009.
Opportunities
for
rural–urban
relationships
to
enhance
the
rural
landscape.
Journal
of
Environmental
Policy
and
Planning
11,
61–68.
Pedroli,
G.B.M.,
Van
Elsen,
T.,
van
Mansvelt,
J.D.,
2007.
Values
of
rural
landscapes
in
Europe:
inspiration
or
by-product?
NJAS
Wageningen
Journal
of
Life
Sciences
54,
431–447.
Piorr,
A.,
Müller,
K.,
2009.
Rural
Landscapes
and
Agricultural
policies
in
Europe.
Springer,
Berlin.
Piorr,
A.,
Uthes,
S.,
Waarts,
Y.,
Sattler,
C.,
Happe,
K.,
Müller,
K.,
2006.
Making
the
multifunctionality
concepts
operational
for
impact
assessment.
In:
Meyer,
B.C.
(Ed.),
Sustainable
Land
Use
in
Intensively
Used
Agricultural
Regions.
Alterra,
Wageningen,
pp.
47–54.
Poppe,
K.J.,
Vrolijk,
H.C.J.,
Bommel,
K.H.M.,
van
Veen,
H.B.,
2005.
Observations
on
farm
structure
in
Europe.
In:
Proceedings
of
“Congress
of
the
IAAE”
,
Brisbane,
Australia,
August
15,
p.
2005.
Præstholm,
S.,
Kristensen,
S.P.,
2007.
Farmers
as
initiators
and
farms
as
attractors
for
non-agricultural
economic
activities
in
peri-urban
areas
in
Denmark.
Geografisk
Tidsskrift
107,
13–27.
Præstholm,
S.,
Reenberg,
A.,
Kristensen,
S.P.,
2006.
Afforestation
of
European
land-
scapes:
how
do
different
farmer
types
respond
to
EU
agri-environmental
schemes?
GeoJournal
67,
71–84.
Primdahl,
J.,
1999.
Agricultural
landscapes
as
places
of
production
and
for
living
in:
owner’s
versus
producer’s
decision
making
and
the
implications
for
planning.
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
46,
143–150.
Quetier,
F.F.,
Gordon,
I.J.,
2003.
‘Horsiculture’:
how
important
a
land
use
change
in
Scotland?
Scottish
Geographical
Journal
119,
153–158.
Qviström,
M.,
2008.
A
waste
of
time?
On
spatial
planning
and
‘wastelands’
at
the
city
edge
of
Malmö
(Sweden).
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
7,
157–169.
Ravenscroft,
N.,
Long,
H.A.R.,
1994.
Horses
in
the
countryside:
conflict
or
co-
operation.
Journal
of
the
Royal
Agricultural
Society
of
England
155,
79–86.
Renting,
H.,
Marsden,
T.K.,
Banks,
J.,
2003.
Understanding
alternative
food
networks:
exploring
the
role
of
short
food
supply
chains
in
rural
development.
Environ-
ment
and
Planning
A
35,
393–411.
Rettig,
S.,
1976.
An
investigation
into
the
problem
of
urban
fringe
agriculture
in
a
green
belt
situation.
Journal
of
Environmental
Planning
and
Management
19,
50–74.
648 I.
Zasada
/
Land
Use
Policy
28 (2011) 639–
648
Robinson,
G.M.,
2004.
Geographies
of
Agriculture:
Globalisation,
Restructuring
and
Sustainability.
Pearson
Education
Limited,
Harlow.
Rode,
M.,
von
Haaren,
C.,
2005.
Multifunktionale
Landnutzung
am
Stadtrand.
Bun-
desamt
für
Naturschutz.
Bonn-Bad
Godesberg,
pp.
188.
Rode,
M.,
Brink,
A.,
von
Haaren,
Ch.,
Tessin,
W.,
2006.
Naturschutzorientierte
Entwicklung
im
suburbanen
Bereich
am
Beispiel
Hannover-Kronsberg.
Natur
und
Landschaft
81
(3),
146–151.
Rogge,
E.,
Nevens,
F.,
Gulinck,
H.,
2008.
Reducing
the
visual
impact
of
‘greenhouse
parks’
in
rural
landscapes.
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
87,
76–83.
Sharpley,
R.,
Vass,
A.,
2006.
Tourism,
farming
and
diversification:
an
attitudinal
study.
Tourism
Management
27,
1040–1052.
Shoard,
M.,
2002.
Edgelands.
In:
Jenkins,
J.
(Ed.),
Remarking
the
Landscape:
The
Changing
Face
of
Britain.
Profile
Books,
London,
pp.
117–146.
Siebert,
R.,
Dosch,
A.,
Volgmann,
A.,
2009.
Arbeit
und
Einkommen
im
ländlichen
Raum:
Chancen
durch
Diversifizierung.
Ministerium
für
Infrastruktur
und
Land-
wirtschaft
des
Landes
Brandenburg,
Potsdam,
pp.
41.
Swagemakers,
P.,
Wiskerke,
J.S.C.,
2004.
Integrating
nature
conservation
and
landscape
management
in
farming
systems
in
the
Friesian
Woodlands
(The
Netherlands).
In:
Tress,
G.,
Tress,
B.,
Fry,
G.,
Opdam,
P.
(Eds.),
Proceedings
of
the
Frontis
Workshop
From
Landscape
Research
to
Landscape
Planning:
Aspects
of
Integration,
Education
and
Application,
6-6-2004.
Thomas,
F.,
1996.
Stadt,
Land,
Landwirtschaft.
Verbindungen
und
Verhältnisse.
In:
TAURUS-Institut
(Ed.),
Regionen
im
Aufbruch.
Beiträge
und
Beispiele
zur
eigen-
ständigen
und
nachhaltigen
Regionalentwicklung.
TAURUS-Institut,
Trier,
pp.
135–146.
Thomas,
I.,
Frankhauser,
P.,
Biemacki,
C.,
2008.
The
morphology
of
built-up
land-
scapes
in
Wallonia
(Belgium):
a
classification
using
fractal
indices.
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
84,
99–115.
Tobias,
S.,
Nüesch,
A.,
Nebel,
R.,
Guilmain,
A.,
2005.
Suburbane
Landwirtschaft
oder
Landschaftsmanagement?
Agrarforschung
12,
306–311.
Torquati,
B.,
Giacché,
G.,
Taglioni,
C.,
Musotti,
F.,
2008.
The
Effects
of
CAP
Reform
on
the
Peri-urban
Agricultural
Area
in
the
Plain
of
the
City
of
Assisi
(Central
Italy).
In:
Proceedings
of
EAAE
Seminar
“The
CAP
after
the
Fischler
Reform:
National
Implementations,
Impact
Assessment
and
the
Agenda
for
Future
Reforms”
,
Viterbo,
Italy,
November
20–21.
van
Berkel,
D.B.,
Verburg,
P.H.,
2011.
Sensitising
rural
policy:
assessing
spatial
vari-
ation
in
rural
development
options
for
Europe.
Land
Use
Policy
28,
447–459.
van
der
Falk,
A.,
van
Dijk,
T.,
Altes,
W.K.,
van
den
Brink,
A.,
2009.
Planning
open
spaces:
balancing
markets,
state
and
communities.
In:
van
der
Falk,
A.,
van
Dijk,
T.
(Eds.),
Regional
Planning
for
Open
Space.
Routlegde,
London,
pp.
301–323.
van
der
Ploeg,
J.,
Long,
A.,
Banks,
J.,
2002.
Rural
development:
the
state
of
the
art.
In:
van
der
Ploeg,
J.,
Long,
A.,
Banks,
J.
(Eds.),
Living
Countrysides.
Rural
Development
Processes
in
Europe:
The
State
of
the
Art.
Elsevier,
Doetinchen,
pp.
8–17.
van
Elsen,
T.,
2010.
Zwischen
Marktnische
und
Paradigmenwechsel
der
Land-
bewirtschaftung.
In:
AgrarBündnis,
e.V.
(Ed.),
Kritischer
Agrarbericht
2010.
AgrarBündnis
e.V,
Konstanz,
pp.
104–108.
van
Huylenbroeck,
G.,
van
Hecke,
E.,
Meert,
H.,
Vandermeulen,
V.,
Verspecht,
A.,
Vernimmen,
T.,
Boulanger,
A.,
Luyten,
S.,
2005.
Scientific
support
plan
for
a
sustainable
development
policy
(SPSD
II).
In:
Development
Strategies
for
a
Mul-
tifunctional
Agriculture
in
Peri-Urban
Areas.
Belgian
Science
Policy,
Brussels.
van
Huylenbroeck,
G.,
Vandermeulen,
V.,
Mettepenningen,
E.,
Verspecht,
A.,
2007.
Multifunctionality
of
Agriculture:
A
Review
of
Definitions,
Evidence
and
Instruments.
Living
Reviews
in
Landscape
Research
1,
Downloaded
from:
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2007-3
(April
2010).
Vandermeulen,
V.,
Verspecht,
A.,
Huylenbroeck,
G.,
Meert,
H.,
Boulanger,
A.,
van
Hecke,
E.,
2006.
The
importance
of
the
institutional
environment
on
multifunc-
tional
farming
systems
in
the
peri-urban
area
of
Brussels.
Land
Use
Policy
23,
486–501.
Vejre,
H.,
Abildtrup,
J.,
Andersen,
E.,
Andersen,
P.,
Brandt,
J.,
Busck,
A.,
Dalgaard,
T.,
Hasler,
B.,
Huusom,
H.,
Kristensen,
L.,
Kristensen,
S.,
Præstholm,
S.,
2007a.
Multifunctional
agriculture
and
multifunctional
landscapes
and
land
use
as
an
interface.
In:
Mander,
Ü.,
Wiggering,
H.,
Helming,
K.
(Eds.),
Multifunctional
Land
Use
– Meeting
Future
Demands
for
Landscape
Goods
and
Services.
Springer,
Berlin,
pp.
93–104.
Vejre,
H.,
Primdahl,
J.,
Brandt,
J.,
2007b.
The
Copenhagen
finger
plan:
keeping
a
green
space
structure
by
a
simple
planning
metaphor.
In:
Pedroli,
B.,
van
Doorn,
A.,
de
Blust,
G.,
Paracchini,
M.L.,
Wascher,
D.,
Bunce,
F.
(Eds.),
Europe’s
Living
Land-
scapes:
Essays
on
Exploring
our
Identity
in
the
Countryside.
KNNV
Publishing,
Zeist,
pp.
311–328.
Velarde,
M.D.,
Fry,
G.,
Tveit,
M.,
2007.
Health
effects
of
viewing
landscapes:
land-
scape
types
in
environmental
psychology.
Urban
Forestry
&
Urban
Greening
6,
199–212.
Verspecht,
A.,
Vandermeulen,
V.,
Van
Huylenbroeck,
G.,
2005.
Multifunctional
Agriculture
in
Urbanized
Regions:
Characteristics
of
Farmers
in
the
Fringe
of
Brussels.
Ghent
University,
Ghent.
Von
Thünen,
J.H.,
1966
(1826).
The
Isolated
State.
Pergamon,
Oxford.
Weber,
G.,
Seher,
W.,
2006.
Raumtypenspezifische
Chancen
für
die
Landwirtschaft.
DISP
166,
46–57.
Wheater,
H.,
Evans,
E.,
2009.
Land
use,
water
management
and
future
flood
risk.
Land
Use
Policy
26,
S251–S264.
Wiggering,
H.,
Müller,
K.,
Werner,
A.,
Helming,
K.,
2003.
The
concept
of
multifunc-
tionality
in
sustainable
land
development.
In:
Helming,
K.,
Wiggering,
H.
(Eds.),
Sustainable
Development
of
Multifunctional
Landscapes.
Springer,
Berlin,
pp.
3–18.
Wilson,
G.,
2007.
Multifunctional
Agriculture:
A
Transition
Theory
Perspective.
CABI
International,
Wallingford.
Zasada,
I.,
Alves,
S.,
Müller,
F.C.,
Piorr,
A.,
Berges,
R.,
Bell,
S.,
2010.
International
retirement
migration
in
the
Alicante
region,
Spain:
process,
spatial
pattern
and
environmental
impacts.
Journal
of
Environmental
Planning
and
Management
53,
125–141.
Paper II
Zasada, I., Loibl, W., Köstl, M. and Piorr, A. (in press). Agriculture
under urban influence: A spatial analysis of farming systems and land-use
in European Rural-Urban-Regions. European Countryside.
1
European Countryside
Agriculture under urban influence: A spatial analysis of farming systems and
land-use in European Rural-Urban-Regions
Zasada, Ingo
1
; Loibl, Wolfgang
2
; Köstl, Mario
2
; Piorr, Annette
1
1
Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg,
Germany
2
AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Donau-City-Straße 1, 1220 Vienna, Austria
*Corresponding author
Tel +49-3343282-152
Fax +49-3343282-308
E-mail-address: ingo.zasada@zalf.de
Postal address:
Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)
Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
2
Abstract (English)
Peri-urban agriculture in metropolitan regions is exposed to severe urbanisation pressures
related to land and labour availability, thus limiting farming activities. Nevertheless, peri-urban
agriculture reveals specific characteristics that contribute to the local food supply and the management of
a multifunctional countryside near towns. This paper seeks to investigate agricultural land-use and
farming-system characteristics in peri-urban areas within Rural-Urban Regions (RUR) across the EU27.
The RUR model, which includes an allocation of urban, peri-urban and rural areas, is developed and
applied in spatial and statistical analyses to identify relationships between urbanisation and agriculture.
The results indicate that metropolitan agriculture compensates shrinking land bases by increasing the
intensity of the labour and turnover generated, and is furthermore specialised at developing horticultural
produce that is oriented towards urban consumer markets.
Abstract (German)
Stadtnahe Landwirtschaft in Metropolräumen ist im Hinblick auf zunehmend begrenzter
Anbauflächen- und Arbeitskraftverfügbarkeit sowie Nachbarschaftskonflikten und rechtlicher
Beschränkungen schwierigen Rahmenbedingungen ausgesetzt. Dennoch wird deren Wert für die lokale
Nahrungsmittelversorgung und die Bewirtschaftung multifunktionaler Landschaften zunehmend
anerkannt. Hier werden Ergebnisse räumlicher und statistischer Analysen regionalisierter Agrardaten
vorgestellt, die basierend auf der Abgrenzung von Stadt-Umland-Regionen und deren urbanen, peri-
urbanen und ländlichen Teilräumen, Qualitäten stadtnaher Landwirtschaft identifiziert. Dabei zeigt
sich, dass die begrenzten Flächenpotenziale durch höhere Erlöse bedingt durch Intensivierung und
Spezialisierung auf Gartenbau kompensiert werden, die vor allem auch eine besondere Rolle städtischer
Märkte nahelegt.
Keywords (English)
Peri-urban, horticulture, competiveness, specialisation, urban-rural relationships, metropolitan regions,
land consumption
Keywords (deutsch)
Stadtnahe Landwirtschaft, Gartenbau, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Spezialisierung, Stadt-Umland-
Beziehungen, Metropolregionen, Flächenverbrauch
3
1 Introduction
1.1 Agriculture in peri-urban areas
Historically, cities and urban agglomerations depend on the food supply from the agriculture
produced in their hinterlands, while cities provided important markets for agricultural goods due to their
concentration of people. According to Thunensian logic of land-use distribution, the adjacency to the
urban market is particularly important for the cultivation of fresh and easily perishable products with
high transportation cost, which is expressed by the society’s high willingness-to-pay within these areas
(Hall, 1966). Due to wide-reaching innovations in rail, road and shipping transportation modes, as well
as advances in storage technologies, these traditional urban-rural relationships have been eroded and
replaced by inter-regional or even global flows and exchange. With increasing environmental concerns,
changing recreational and lifestyle interests, as well as a burgeoning consumer awareness for regional
and quality food production (Wandel & Bugge, 1997), agriculture today represents an important land-
use actor in the hinterlands of urban agglomerations, since it provides multiple goods and services
demanded by the urban society (Zasada, 2011).
However, the framework conditions for agriculture in densely populated and urbanised regions
differ substantially from that of the remote rural countryside’s. There is a comprehensive understanding
that farming in urbanised regions takes place in an environment characterised by specific pressures and
opportunities tied to the urban area (Bryant and Johnston, 1992; Piorr et al., 2011). First and foremost,
the physical conversion of non-sealed surfaces into built-up areas, such as into settlements and modes of
infrastructure, occurs almost exclusively at the expense of farmland, and therefore culminates in the
further erosion of the productive capacity of metropolitan agriculture, whereby productive land and
fertile soils are lost as the number of farms decrease (EEA, 2006). Peri-urban farms have to compete with
urban land-use interests on land markets where rents are increasing, along with shortages of arable land
and fragmented ownership rights (Robinson, 2004; Munton, 2009).
In response, it has been argued that farms in the urban fringe and beyond have demonstrated a
particular adaptive and innovative capacity to cope with the given framework conditions (Beauchesne &
Bryant, 1999; Andersson et al., 2009). Regional and national case studies in metropolitan areas have
shown a more frequent participation in pluriactivity and lifestyle farming in these areas including part-
time, hobby or retirement farmers, along with agri-environmental schemes and landscape management
(Tobias et al., 2005; Busck et al., 2008). Particularly in the case of horticulture, comparative location
advantages, higher adaptability and urban market orientation have all been observed in various
metropolitan areas (Péron & Geoffriau, 2007; Cantliffe & Vansickle, 2008; Zasada et al., 2011). Broad
cross-regional comparative analyses of urbanisation’s influence on farming is lacking. This is despite the
comprehensive empirical evidence already available at a regional level concerning the diversity of the
4
agricultural sector at the urban-rural fringe, specifically measured in terms of farm sizes, ownership
rates, levels of turnover and revenue, occupation type and the specialisation of horticulture as defined by
classical land use models. Beyond regional case studies, no large-scale assessments are currently
available that would permit comprehensive evidence of peri-urban agriculture’s characteristics.
1.2 Main objective, research design and methodology
The main objective of this paper is to investigate the specifics of farming in urbanised
geographical settings compared to rural equivalents spread across European regions. It shall be argued
that the existence of a specific peri-urban agricultural land-use pattern comes about as a result of specific
individual farm structures. This argument is based on previous research findings (Zasada, 2011; Piorr et
al., 2011). Small-scale farm structures, widespread land tenures as well as part-time and retirement
farming shall be examined in connection with a higher revenue generation, in some cases, a
concentration and specialisation on horticulture, and a cultivation of high-value produce. This paper
aims to contribute to the empirical evidence of the relationship between farming and urbanisation by
applying statistical analysis of European data on agricultural performance and farm structures at a
regional level.
The analytical approach combines two main elements – (i) the classification of Rural-Urban
Regions (RUR) and the delineation of urban, peri-urban and rural areas, as well as the (ii) statistical
analysis of the farming systems used in response to the prevalent urbanisation carried out at the spatial
level of administrative NUTS units. The analytical framework presented in figure 1 outlines the
procedure and the main methodological steps – (1) urban-rural classification of regions, (2) spatial
delineation of urban, peri-urban and rural areas within the regions, (3) identification of the main factors
characterising farm systems, as well as uni- and bivariate statistics including (4) rank size comparisons
and (5) correlation analysis to determine the characteristics and distinctiveness of metropolitan and peri-
urban agriculture. Section three presents both the applied methodology and the results related to the
spatial classification of urbanisation characteristics. In section four, the influence of urbanisation on
farming systems in Europe is explored. A discussion of the results is carried out in section five, while
section six contains the final conclusions.
5
Figure 1. Analytical
Framework.
2 Spatial determination of urbanisation
Within this paper, urban influence on agriculture and horticulture is perceived in a twofold
manner; firstly by establishing whether the region in question belongs to a functional urban area of a
city; and, secondly, by examining the topological perspective of urbanisation in terms of actual land use.
As a common market for intra-regional land, labour, housing and trade, functional urban areas (FUA)
also shape the hinterland catchment areas of urban agglomerations, which in turn also represent an
important consumer market for regional agriculture (Hall & Hay, 1980; OECD, 2002). Urbanisation of
rural areas also therefore refers to the intensity of the spatial interaction between urban settlements and
the nearby farmland, as well as the conflicts and opportunities it brings about for peri-urban agriculture
(Bryant & Johnston, 1992; Robinson, 2004; Gant et al., 2011).
For the implementation of both notions of urbanisation within a spatial modelling process, two
different approaches are applied. As a first step, a European typology of RUR regions spatially combines
NUTS3 units to common regions, which, in a second step, are further delineated into urban, peri-urban
and rural areas as defined by urban land use, proximity to urban centres and population density. The
6
typology shall encourage the exploration of the farming structure, intensity and farm produce in the peri-
urban as an effect of urban and peri-urban region characteristics as well as population distribution
pattern, demanding agricultural production in the centres’ vicinity in different ways.
2.1 European typology of Rural-Urban Regions
Various European approaches exist to describe urban influence on neighbouring rural areas, as
well as to spatially delineate regional functional urban areas (OECD, 2002; ESPON, 2005;
EUROSTAT, 2010). These approaches are based on the classification of individual NUTS3 regions or
even smaller entities. Within this paper, a more comprehensive analysis of farming systems was carried
out using Rural-Urban Regions (RUR) based on a typology which was originally developed between
2007 and 2010 within the European research project PLUREL dealing with peri-urban land use
relationships and sustainable urban development (Loibl et al., 2008 Piorr et al., 2011, Pauleit et al.,
2013). The RUR classification was also based on NUTS3 aggregates as these represent the smallest
spatial unit, where broad-range European-wide statistical data can be obtained. A RUR region was
defined by its morphological characteristics and its intraregional relations, reflecting the influence
spheres within the region. The regional classification originally did not only consider the extent of
functional relationships of urban centres with their surroundings – the commuter catchment areas – but
also distinguishes between mono-centric, poly-centric RURs and RURs with no reasonable centre und
further divides the RURs into urban, peri-urban and rural sub-regions. For the current investigation,
however, particularly the city size ranges and the urban population numbers to be supplied by peri-urban
agriculture as well as the RUR‘s, peri-urban sub-regions are of interest.
The development of the RUR typology and the division into sub-regions were thus depending
on data sets with a European-wide scope, namely the CORINE land-cover data set (CLC2000) of the
European Environment Agency (EEA) and population numbers of urban centres (GISCO STEU points)
and of the NUTS3 regions for the year 2000 by EUROSTAT which correspond with the land cover data
from 2000. CLC2000 represents a 100x100m raster data set with 44 land cover classes, which allows
quite accurate delineation results for the European wide scale. The European-wide delimitation of RURs
finally required a number of working steps. At first, continuous city and settlement area were identified
by uniting adjacent or closely neighbouring densely built up areas to “settlement morphological zones”
(SMZ), using land cover data CLC2000, class 11 (settlement area). Adjacent or closely neighbouring
settlement area patches representing parts of one settlement were merged into a continuous SMZ (Loibl
et al., 2008; Zasada et al., 2013).
Second, applying the geographical positions of approximately 4,900 settlement points, derived
from the GISCO STEU point database for cities larger than 10,000 inhabitants (in Germany and the
Netherlands larger than 20,000) allowed to spatially link population numbers to urban areas building
7
one SMZ. At the time the RUR classification was carried out (2008), no population figures for local
administrative units (LAU) could be made available for entire Europe, so the STEU points in
combination with population numbers obtained from the World Gazetteer database served as
workaround for allocating inhabitants to core cities. As a third step, SMZs exceeding 50,000 inhabitants
(if existing) have been defined as major urban centres of the particular NUTS3 region. These centres
served here as the urban nuclei for identifying urban functional catchments as basis for RUR region
delimitation.
In a third step, the functional catchment areas of these urban nuclei were estimated. Their
extents should be identified by data describing regional interrelations like commuting-, food supply-, or
recreation relations. As such European-wide data were not available to identify these relationships,
assumptions are made and proxy data applied to estimate the functional outreach. As the urban
population can be assumed as trigger for urban-rural relationships, it could be applied as proxy variable
to describe the functional area coverage. This extent was also considered a decisive factor for
determining the size of the urban market for agricultural goods and services. The influence radius of the
city’s population extent was thus geometrically expressed by drawing a circle around the core cities,
where the radius was determined by a logarithmic expression of the population number. This approach
was tested with available commuting data in Austria which allowed identifying the commuting
catchments in detail and turned out as appropriate approach describing a proper functional relationship
extent.
As final step, those NUTS3 regions which share a common functional area were merged to
common RUR regions. The urban nuclei with the largest population size have been considered as centre
of the common RUR, the remaining nuclei within such a RUR were identified as sub-centres. The
plausibility of this approach has been checked on the basis of further examinations of functional
relationships of large cities in a sample of countries. Finally about 1,300 NUTS3 regions within Europe
were clustered into 898 RUR regions, with metropolitan, mono-centric and poly-centric and rural
characteristics. For the current work the poly-centricity issue is not important as only the urban
population numbers to be supplied by peri-urban agriculture are of interest and not the distribution into
one or a several urban centres. Thus the RURs are here classified as Metropolitan regions, Regions with
large urban centres, Regions with medium-sized urban centres, Regions with small urban centres and Rural regions
(cf. Figure 2).
8
Figure 2. Clustering of NUTS3 entities to Rural Urban Regions.
(i) Metropolitan RURs (n=67) encompass one or more metropolitan cites of a minimum 500,000
inhabitants and more than one million inhabitants in the entire RUR. The average total population size
is 2.7 million with a population density of 502 inhabitants per km². The share of urban area (artificial
surface) amounts to 9.5%. Included in this regional class are several European capital regions such as
London, Paris, Madrid or Berlin, but also poly-centric urban agglomerations such as the Dutch
Randstad, Manchester-Liverpool or the Silesian and the Rhine-Ruhr region. (ii) RURs with large urban
centres (n=112) contain one large core city of at least 200,000 inhabitants, without sub-centres or several
9
medium-size core cities with 200,000 inhabitants or more. The average population size here is 857,000
with a 6.8% artificial surface share. Typical examples are the Swedish Skåne, the Czech South Moravian
or the Spanish Alicante region. (iii) RURs with medium-sized centres (n=230) contain one or more urban
centres of less than 200,000 inhabitants. The average population size of the region reaches 410,000 with
a population density across the whole region of 142 inhabitants per km². This type of region
encompasses the Polish Opole or Slupski regions, the Belgian Hasselt and the Hungarian Veszprem.
RURs with small urban centres (n=120) represent regions with smaller urban centres with at least 50,000
inhabitants. On average, 409,000 inhabitants live in this region where urban area covers 4.7% of the total
area. East Anglia, Almeria and Cagliari are among those regions. (iv) Rural Regions (n=370) lack
medium-size urban centres, but contain dispersed small settlements within a rural area. These regions
are populated by an average of 157,000 inhabitants with an average density of 84.5 inhabitants per km².
It is by far the most frequent region type covering many small rural regions all over EU27 with
exceptions of the new member states, like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, which lacks
this type of region.
2.2 Continuous delimitation of urban, peri-urban and rural areas
Taking the criticism of relatively coarse delineation methodologies at NUTS3 level for analytic
purposes (Perlin, 2010) into consideration and gaining understanding of the specific role of urban and
peri-urban areas in agriculture and rural development, a continuous delimitation approach was
developed. EU27-wide the individual RUR regions are resolved into urban, peri-urban and rural areas of
either high or low population density. Therefore the delimitation procedure made use of further
geospatial data including a 100x100m raster map for population density (Gallego, 2010), municipality
boundaries, LUCAS (Land use/cover area frame survey) data, the European settlement point database
and CLC2000. The approach focuses on population concentration in certain land-cover classes by
applying a logistic regression model. The delineation was conducted stepwise, in that map algebra
functions were applied to establish Boolean decision rules within the GIS-routines to thereby extract the
urban, peri-urban and rural areas with either high and low population density. Table 1 gives an overview
of the urban, peri-urban and rural sub-regions and their delineation criteria.
10
Table 1. Urban, peri-urban and rural areas and delineation criteria.
Sub-regions Delineation criteria
Urban, high density area (U_1) CLC Class 111 (continuous settlement area) within U_2
Urban, low density area (U_2) CLC 1 (artificial area) without CLC 13 (mining area) and
population >20,000
Peri-urban, high density area (PU_1) Population density >75 inhabitants per km² or population
>10,000 and within PU_2
Peri-urban, low density area (PU_2) Population density >40 inhabitants per km² and max. 300 m
from urban area
Rural, high density area (R_1) Population density >10 inhabitants per km²
Rural, low density area (R_2) Population density >0 inhabitants per km²
Urban high density areas are determined by CLC2000 class 111 (“continuous settlement area”)
which generally describes inner-city areas. Population numbers are not considered as criteria here since
high-density urban cores are not necessarily populated by inhabitants, as they mainly host commercial
and administrative functions. Urban low density areas require the presence of CLC land-cover class 1
(“artificial surfaces”), excluding mining areas, to include true urban land cover and population numbers
above 20,000 inhabitants in the respective settlement areas.
Peri-urban low density areas require adjacent location (within a maximum distance of 300 meters)
to the CLC class 1 (artificial surface, excluding mining area). The distance criteria ensures spatial
connection to urban core regions and avoids exclusion of areas distinguished from urban areas as a
result of rivers or small open space corridors. Additionally, the population density in peri-urban low
density areas must exceed 40 inhabitants per km². Peri-urban high density areas are either defined by a
minimum population density of 75 inhabitants per km², or by the land-cover class 11 (settlement area)
and a settlement population of above 10,000 inhabitants inside the low density regions.
Rural areas are those without larger urban settlements and low population density. Rural high
density areas require at least a population density of 10 inhabitants per km². Rural low density areas
include all the remaining inhabited areas. The comparable low population density thresholds were used
for classification to make them applicable for the entire municipal entities often consisting of
uninhabited areas. Table 1 gives an overview of all classes and their criteria. Figure 3 shows a detailed
extract of the sub-regional delineation for the area between London, Paris and the Rhine-Ruhr region,
an area with particularly extensive peri-urban areas. (see Loibl et al., 2008, Zasada et al., 2013).
11
Figure 3. Delineation of the Rural-Urban Regions into urban, peri-urban, rural areas (detail from the
EU27 map: Southern parts of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, North-eastern France). Source:
PLUREL project (Loibl et al, 2008, Zasada et al., 2013)
3 Analysis of agriculture in the context of urbanisation
European agricultural data from the EUROSTAT regional database was used for the analysis of
the spatial distribution of agricultural land use and farm structure characteristics and performance
indicators, related to those determinants which were identified most relevant in the peri-urban according
to a profound literature review (see chapter 1.1 and Zasada 2011). Such are farm types and farming
specialisation (e.g. specialised horticulture and the cultivation of high-value produce), as well as
economic performance and farm size, land ownership, labour force and age structure. For those
determinants different variables, and in case of classified databases distinct classes, were selected and the
absolute values of selected variables were aggregated according to the NUTS3 clustering of RUR
12
regions. To obtain spatial and temporal compliance with the RUR database, a spatial resolution of
NUTS3 and the census year 2000 was chosen.
3.1 Factor analysis of European farming systems
In total 23 variables characterising agriculture under urban influence were selected for the statistical
analysis. A particular prevalence of small farm sizes in urban proximity was the assumption leading to
the selection of distinct area related farm sizes (absolute values in ha and relative share of farm size
classes per NUTS3). Analogous, average gross margin in European Standard Unit (ESU) per ha utilised
agricultural area (UAA) and share of highly productive farms (min. 100 ESU) were chosen as economic
performance variables, assuming comparable advantages in the peri-urban. In order to analyse farm type
and farm specialisation, the share of holdings with permanent grassland, with arable production and
with different forms of horticultural specialisation were considered. In order to avoid bias due to
different area sizes, only the ratio of holdings and not of UAA per NUTS3 was considered. Finally farm
ownership, labour force, part-time farming and age structure were selected. Regarding farm ownership
particularly the groups of younger and elderly farmers were examined, as proximity to cities could be a
trigger to run a farm, full time or part-time. To prevent semantic redundancies through inter-
correlations, to reduce the number of variables and to identify the main factors describing the regional
farming system, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted, applying orthogonal Varimax
rotation with Kaiser normalisation to maximise the factor differences.
Only 538 of the 898 regions have been included in the statistical analysis as a result of missing
variable values for some German, Polish and Danish regions where either some of the variables show no
data, or administrative regions have been regrouped which does not allow a comparison along a
timeline. Finally seven factors have been extracted out of 23 variables (cf. Tab. 2).
The factor 1 “economic sizes” encompasses variables describing the physical and economic size
of the farm holdings. It explains 31.67% of the total variance of all variables. The variables “share of
holdings with min. 50 ha UAA” (0.79) and “share of holdings with max. 2 ESU” (-0.79) account for the
highest factor loadings, followed by “share of holdings with max. 5 ha UAA” (-0.77), as well as
“average size of holdings” (0.71) and “share of holdings with min 100 ESU” (0.54). Furthermore, the
factor includes “share of holders with 100% working time in agriculture” (0.54). Consequently, the
factor can be termed as “economic size”.
The factor 2 “grassland and livestock production” explains 12% of the total variance by
combining positively correlated variables representing grazing livestock production (0.83) and the
presence of permanent grassland (0.83). It is further characterised by the absence of permanent crops (-
0.67) and farm holders, with less than 25% of working time spent in agriculture (-0.66), indicating full-
time farming.
13
Factor 3 “horticulture” explains 10.7% of the total variance and is determined by the variables
for high-value crop produce and specialised horticulture. The highest loading, however, has the variable
“average standard gross margin” (0.87). Other variables included in this factor are “share of holdings
with flowers and ornamental plants” (0.81) and “share of horticulture-specialist holdings” (0.84).
The following factors explain between 10 and 5% of the total variance and each is loaded by
only 2 variables. The high numbers of factors with reasonable shares of explained variance depict the
complex structure of the agricultural sector with little or no dependencies between the variables Factor 4
“land ownership situation” is loaded by the variables “share of area owned” (-0.92) and “share of area
rented” (0.91). Factor 5 “arable production” is determined by the variables “share of holdings with
arable production” (0.90) and “share of crop-specialist holdings” (0.77). Factor 6 “family labour force”
and factor 7 “age structure” refer again more to farm household characteristics. Factor 6 is composed by
“share of family labour force” (0.79), “labour force per holding” in average working units (AWU) (-
0.75) as well as the share of female farm holders (0.53), while factor 7 is represented by the absence of
young farmers (-0.91) and a higher “share of holders who are 65 years and older” (0.67).
14
Table 2. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of European regional farming system variables.
Factors
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
N = 538
Economic
size
Grassland
livestock
production
Horti-
culture
Land
Ownership
Situation
Arable
production
Family
labour
force
Age
structure
Eigenvalue
31.67 12.46 10.73 8.58 7.15 5.37 4.41
Share of holdings with min. 50ha UAA in % 0.79
Share of holdings max. 2 ESU in % -0.79
Share of holdings with max. 5ha UAA in % -0.77
Average size of holdings in ha 0.71
Share of holdings min. 100 ESU in % 0.54
Share of holders, with working time in agriculture 100% in % 0.54
Share of holdings with vegetables, melons and strawberries in
%
-0.46
Share of grazing livestock specialist holdings in % 0.83
Share of holdings with permanent grassland in % 0.83
Share of permanent crops specialist holdings in % -0.67
Share of holders with working time in agriculture max. 25%
in %
-0.66
Average Standard Gross Margin in ESU per ha UAA 0.87
Share of horticulture specialist holdings in % 0.84
Share of holdings with flowers and ornamental plants in % 0.81
Share of area owned in % -0.92
Share of area rented in % 0.91
Share of holdings with arable production in % 0.90
Share of field crops specialist holdings 0.77
Share family labour force in % 0.79
Labour force per holding in AWU -0.75
Share of female holders in % 0.53
Share of holders who are max. 35 years in % -0.91
Share of holders who are min. 65 years in % 0.67
15
3.2 Cross-regional comparison of farming systems
Since census data have been used, the variable value distribution is characterised by large
standard deviations, based on many cases with very small figures and strong variance between minimum
and maximum values in relationship to the mean value. A considerable number of outliers among
regions were found due to a large diversity of farming systems and regional concentrations in Europe,
with the Dutch and Spanish vegetable production clusters as only one striking example. However, they
were not excluded from the analysis, as they are meaningful for the representation of the spatial
manifestation of regional specialisations and specific farm structures, which are assumed to be the result
of urban influence.
With the factors of regional farming systems at hand, differences and similarities between the
region types were investigated with particular attention given to the characteristics of metropolitan
regions. A comparison of mean values of each factor was carried out based on the identified regional
classes, aiming at the identification of structural differences between the different region types regarding
the agricultural characteristics. Normal value distribution and homogeneity of variances within the
classes as requirements for an analysis of variance (ANOVA) could not be confirmed by conducting
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene testing. Therefore, testing of the medium rank sizes within the RUR
types was applied by using the Kruskal-Wallis test procedure, as a non-parametric alternative to
ANOVA (cf. Tab. 3).
Table 3. Medium rank size of factor score by Rural-Urban-Region type.
Rural-Urban Region Type
Chi²
(Sig.)
Metro-
politan
Regions
Urbanised
Region
with large
centre
Urbanised
Region with
medium-size
centre
Rural
Region with
small centre
Rural
Region
without
centre
Factor 1
(Economic Size)
2.70
(.609) 245.50 262.05 264.23 262.77 282.03
Factor 2
(Grazing Livestock)
11.24
(.024) 200.89 264.20 267.02 256.37 289.54
Factor 3
(Horticulture)
21.00
(.000) 358.58 304.68 269.17 232.61 257.91
Factor 4
(Ownership Situation)
7.73
(.102) 294.83 279.02 272.33 293.45 249.14
Factor 5
(Arable Production)
3.56
(.469) 254.61 242.89 283.77 266.12 272.06
Factor 6
(Family Labour Force)
10.10
(.039) 252.78 257.71 258.30 240.16 294.86
Factor 7
(Age structure)
3.87
(.424) 283.75 289.80 270.59 282.60 254.96
16
Among the seven factors, variances of factor scores of “grazing livestock” (factor 2),
“horticulture” (factor 3) and “labour force” (factor 6) were found significantly explained by the RUR
classification indicated by significance level and chi-square values (see Table 3).
Despite its missing significance, the analysis of the class differences of the rank size reveals, that
particularly metropolitan regions are characterised by low factor scores (rank size 245.50) for economic
size (factor 1), which indicates a majority of small farms with little turnover in the vicinity of the
metropolitan areas. In contrast large farm sizes where land is the most important production resource
are domain of the rural area regions. The factor scores for “ownership” show an uneven distribution
across the different region types with low rank size values in rural regions (249.19) and high ones in
metropolitan regions (294.83), indicating a pronounced land tenure in the latter regions. However, these
findings need to be carefully interpreted.
The rank size comparison of the factor 2 “grassland and livestock production” shows an
increasing tendency from metropolitan regions (200.89) to rural regions without centre (289.54).
Whereas a 22.8% share of grazing livestock specialist holdings was observed in metropolitan regions,
that value rises to 33.9% and 28.8% in rural regions with and without small centres. This is different for
factor 3 (“horticulture”), where metropolitan regions are significantly characterised by a high medium
rank size (358.58) and very low values for the rural regions, whether with (232.61) or without urban
centres (257.91). This implies both concentrations of specialised horticultural farms as well as higher
average standard gross margins per ha UAA in metropolitan and urbanised regions indicating most
efficient and intensive agricultural land use within small plots. Compared to rural regions with small
urban settlements – and less demand - (1.6%), the share of horticultural specialists is three time higher in
metropolitan areas (6.4%). Also the standard gross margin per hectare in metropolitan (1.4) and
urbanised areas (1.5) exceeds the other regions types (each with 1.0) by about 50%. The rank size
comparisons for “arable farming” (factor 5) and “age structure” (factor 7) do not show any distinct
pattern across the regional classes. In terms of labour force characteristics (factor six) especially rural
regions reveals low rank sizes, indicating that family labour orientation is more pronounced there.
3.3 Influence of region type on horticultural production
As suggested in the literature and indicated through the previous variance analysis, horticulture
and the cultivation of high-value produce such as vegetables and flowers represents an agricultural
activity and specialisation that is most pronounced in metropolitan regions and peri-urban areas. The
distribution of variable values representing horticulture is analysed using the RUR typology as well as
the peri-urbanisation indicators. Descriptive statistics have been applied to address the role of the region
types. The influence of peri-urbanisation is investigated using correlation analysis with regional shares of
peri-urban areas.
17
A large variance of variable values exists across the European regions in general and among
regions of the same type due to the skewness of the value distribution. Nevertheless, the results presented
in table 4 reveal strong differences of mean values between the region types, particularly between
metropolitan regions and the other region types. The average revenue generation per hectare UAA
exceeds the other region types by nearly 50%, while horticultural specialisation and the cultivation area
of flowers and ornamental plants is exceeded by about 100%. Although only minor variations exist
between other region types, ascending values are observed from rural regions to regions with large urban
centres. Unlike the other variables, the distribution of holdings with vegetables, melons and strawberries
shows only marginal differences between the region types. Only low mean shares in rural regions are
noticeable. However, concerning the maximum values, no distinct pattern of regional influence is found.
High concentrations of horticultural production cannot be explained by examining the region type.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for horticultural farming in Rural-Urban Regions.
Rural-Urban-Region Type
Metropolitan
Regions
Urbanised
Region
with large
centre(s)
Urbanised
Region
with
medium-
size
centre
(s)
Rural
Region
with small
centre(s)
Rural
Region
without
centre(s)
total
Average Standard Gross Margin
in ESU per ha UAA
Mean 1.39 1.46 1.04 1.06 1.01 1.11
Maximum 10.77 7.66 9.91 7.68 5.62 10.77
Std. Deviation 1.65 1.54 1.10 1.26 0.85 1.17
Share of specialist holdings with horticulture in %
Mean 6.39 3.76 2.46 2.36 1.61 2.56
Maximum 47.12 44.27 52.93 49.62 40.55 52.93
Std. Deviation 8.52 6.37 4.97 5.73 3.28 5.23
Share of holdings with flowers and ornamental plants in %
Mean 2.72 2.29 1.12 1.42 1.23 1.47
Maximum 35.42 26.34 11.35 50.49 37.81 50.49
Std. Deviation 5.40 4.63 1.66 5.32 3.82 3.94
Share of holdings with vegetables, melons and strawberries in %
Mean 16.97 12.64 13.52 12.34 8.93 11.70
Maximum 88.60 88.85 82.09 60.86 86.81 92.09
Std. Deviation 16.54 13.75 17.11 12.86 12.54 14.57
18
Generally speaking, metropolitan regions are noticeably characterised by the frequent
cultivation of high-value produce and by horticulture. Exemplary cases of those metropolitan regions
that are characterised by a high share of horticultural holdings are Rotterdam (47.1 %), Lisbon (22.3 %),
Barcelona (12.6 %) and Genoa (7.9 %). Regional concentrations are also noticed beyond the influence of
the region type. Fruit and vegetable production is most common in the Baltic countries of Lithuania and
Latvia, as well as in the Spanish “fruit bowl” located in the south-east of the country. Cultivation of
flowers and ornamental plants is concentrated in large parts of the Netherlands, Slovenia and the
French-Italian Mediterranean area. Substantial variations in terms of farm structure characteristics, such
as the - farm labour characteristics or farm sizes, exist between those EU member states that joined
before 2002 and those that joined after the 2002 accession round, as well as between northern and
southern Europe. Many eastern and southern European regions, especially in Poland, Bulgaria,
Romania and Greece, are characterised by small farm sizes and a high share of family labour.
Furthermore, physical conditions and regional farming traditions affect regional farming systems.
3.4 Peri-urban areas, horticulture and high-value crop production
The spatial model of delineated urban, peri-urban and rural areas within RUR regions was
applied to investigate the influence of peri-urbanisation on the regional distribution of specialised
horticulture and high-value production. The results of the correlation analysis between the peri-
urbanisation and horticulture indicators are presented in table 5, suggesting a prevalence of horticulture
in regions with higher shares of peri-urban areas. The extent of peri-urban areas with high population
densities accounts for a strong influence on the revenue intensity per area of agriculture. The positive
correlation can also be found between high-density peri-urban areas and the prevalence of horticultural
specialists in areas where flower and ornamental plants are cultivated. In contrast, vegetable and fruit
production shows no correlation or even a negative correlation to low density peri-urban areas.
19
Table 5. Pearson correlation between peri-urbanisation and horticulture & high-value farming
Peri-urbanisation Indicator
Share of peri-urban
high density area in
%
Share of peri-
urban low density
area in %
Average Standard Gross Margin in ESU per ha UAA 0.632** 0.324**
Share of horticulture specialist holding in % 0.285** 0.059
Share of holdings with flowers and ornamental plants in % 0.345** 0.139**
Share of holdings with vegetables, melons and strawberries in
%
0.079 -0.105*
*
Correlation is significant at 0.05 level, **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)
A comparison of 10% percentiles (deciles) grouping of indicator values sheds a different light on
the relationship between peri-urbanisation and horticulture/high-value production. The mean values for
average standard gross margin per ha (aSGM) between regions with the lowest (decile 1) and highest
share (decile 10) range from 0.74 to 3.1 (Fig. 4a). Seventeen Dutch and Belgian regions belong to the 20
regions of the 10
th
decile led by Noord Limburg with an aSGM of 9.9. Regions with the lowest shares of
peri-urban area, particularly regions in Eastern Germany, Scotland as well as in parts of Portugal and
Spain, are all characterised by low aSGM. But differences even occur between regions with varying
degrees of peri-urbanisation within countries such as in France and Italy. A similar picture occurs for the
variables of horticultural specialisation (Fig. 4b) and the cultivation of flowers (Fig. 4c). The value
distribution for the cultivation of vegetables (Fig. 4d) near urban agglomerations is very much influenced
by additional factors beyond the location. Due to traditional small scale farming structures, many
Lithuanian, Latvian, Bulgarian and Polish regions (also rural) are among the regions with the largest
share of vegetable producers. Furthermore, the cultivation of vegetables is very much concentrated in
certain specialised climate conditions and favoured regions in the Mediterranean such as south-eastern
Spain, Malta or southern Italy. However, these concentrations do not represent a specific domain of
agriculture near urban agglomerations.
20
Figure 4
a. Average Share of Standard Gross
Margin
in
ESU per ha AA in regions with different shares of peri-
urban area.
Figure
4
b. Share of
horticulture
s
pecialist
holdings (in
%) in regions with different shares of peri-urban area.
Figure 4c. Share of holdings with flowers and
ornamental plants (in %) in regions with different
share
s
of peri
-
urban area.
Figure 4d. Share of holdings with vegetables, melons
and strawberries (in %) in regions with different shares
of peri
-
urban area.
4 Discussion
With the Rural-Urban-Region model, a typology of European regions has been developed to
delineate urban agglomerations to their hinterlands – rural areas under urban influence. In contrast to
the OECD (2002), EUROSTAT (2010) and ESPON (2005) approaches, the region typology goes
beyond the objective to classify NUTS3 regions, but clusters them spatially into larger common entities
(RUR). The application of the typology allows a comprehensive perspective on the behaviour of
21
functionally inter-related areas. It has been argued that due to urban pressures and opportunities on
farming, and due to the responding adjustments, substantial differences exist between modes of
agriculture in metropolitan and remote rural areas (Gant et al., 2011; Robinson, 2004). The application
of the RUR typology provides an analytical model to study the farming conditions in areas under urban
influence. The additional spatial delineation of urban, peri-urban and rural areas gives further
information about the (urban) land-use pattern and the population distribution within the RUR regions.
Areas are identified that either belong to the urban cores, near-urban or more remote rural areas.
The RUR typology represents a straightforward approach to spatially delineate regional entities
with functional urban-rural-relationships, as it makes use of a common model algorithm. As the RUR
regions are composed of NUTS3 regions, the typology allows easy application for large-scale regional
assessments in the form of European databases, such as EUROSTAT, which can be loss-free and used
without additional downscaling procedures. However, the classification possesses two main limitations
– sensitivity regarding the size of the NUTS3 regions and the variability of the spatial tailoring over time.
In the case of large NUTS3 regions, the RUR algorithm is less capable of delineating influence spheres
as RUR regions need to consist of entire NUTS3 regions. Further, in countries with rather small NUTS3
regions, like Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, RUR regions tend to be smaller in size and more
rural in nature as the regional population size is correspondingly smaller. The second shortcoming
occurs through the reconfiguration of administrative units in many countries, like Poland, the Czech
Republic or Denmark. The delimitation and classification procedure provides the opportunity to update
the RUR typology. As the for the analysis carried out for this paper the situation of the year 2000 was of
interest, also the regional administrative borders of that year was considered.
In the context of this paper, the RUR typology as well as the model of sub-regional delineation
has been applied to shape an analysis of urban influence on European agriculture. Despite the focus on
urban and metropolitan framework conditions, it is well acknowledged that a multitude of influencing
factors inside and outside agriculture exist that contribute to the formation and change of regional
farming systems. These encompass the regional climate, natural and landscape conditions, socio-
economic situations and development outside agriculture (Renetzeder et al., 2008), or the prevalence of
specific farm businesses, farm households and attitudes of farm holders (van der Ploeg, 2003; Jongeneel
et al., 2008). As urban-related effects are often less pronounced, further multivariate analyses are not
feasible due to a lack of significance. Nevertheless, the European-wide cross-regional analysis enabled
some observations of the characteristics of agriculture under urban influence.
In the existing literature empirical examinations of farming systems in the context of
urbanisation is limited, individually focussing on certain farm activities or structural differences of farm
households and businesses. To enable an exploratory approach to identify aspects, which possess urban-
rural relevance a comprehensive approach, including a multitude of variables has been chosen. Within
the rank size comparison between the different RUR types, at least three factors account for a significant
22
explanatory value for the value distribution of the regional farming systems. It can be argued that,
despite the influence of other regional parameter, the fact whether a region can be characterised as
metropolitan, urbanised or rural has an important effect on the regional agriculture. Looking at the
specific factors, which are particularly sensitive for urbanisation – Grassland production and grazing
livestock, horticulture, labour force and land ownership to a minor extent, previous assumptions have
been substantiated.
Among those, the clear urban-rural slope regarding the concentration of horticultural
production might be the most powerful evidence to be drawn from this analysis. The high degree of
horticultural specialisation and amount of revenues per ha in metropolitan and urbanised regions
support these findings (table 4). Despite a high number of outliers, significant correlation between the
share of peri-urban areas and the concentration of horticulture in the region was revealed, supporting
previous empirical findings (Oliver, 2000; Péron & Geoffriau, 2007). However, peri-urban areas are first
of all observed in countries and regions such as the Netherlands, Belgium or western Germany, which
are characterised by a traditionally competitive and specialised farming sector (Cantliffe & Vansickle,
2008). Accompanied by indications for the absence of extensive grassland production and grazing
animals as well as low degree of family labour force, it completes a picture of a rather intensified and
economically competitive agricultural production in metropolitan and urbanised regions. So does the
agricultural labour force in urbanised regions depend much less on the members of the farm household.
The average labour force per holding is higher in metropolitan regions, which suggests higher labour
intensity and the professionalisation of agriculture.
However, farmers in metropolitan regions tend to rent the land they cultivate more than their
colleagues in rural regions. Peri-urban agriculture can be therefore considered as more vulnerable when
viewed from the long-term perspective of land availability and competition especially under conditions
where urban land use is experiencing continual growth, which is often accompanied by a complex
pattern of ownership and property rights as well as land speculation, rising land prices or short-term
rental contracts (Munton, 2009). Regarding further assumptions, there is little evidence of pronounced
small-scale and part-time farming close to urban agglomerations when the focus is placed solely on pre-
2002 member states. No indication of the frequent phenomenon of retirement farming in metropolitan
regions was found in the data, since aging share did not significantly differ between the RUR types.
Thus research findings from other regional cases (Busck et al., 2008; Tobias et al., 2005) could not be
confirmed.
5 Conclusion
Despite the large differences of agricultural systems among European regions, the chosen
approach to classify Rural-Urban-Regions and to delineate urban, peri-urban and rural land use has
23
proven suitable to investigate how urbanisation influences farming. Agriculture in urbanised regions,
and more specifically in peri-urban areas, differs from farming in (remote) rural areas. Characterised by
specialised horticultural, and to some extent grassland and livestock production, regular arable farming
is less frequent in metropolitan areas. In return, farms generate more revenue per ha area, but are also
more labour intensive and dependent on rented land.
These specifics of the agricultural systems and framework conditions in urban and peri-urban
areas, including the particular pressures, opportunities and respective development potentials, should be
taken into consideration for municipal and regional planning and regulation systems as well as the
European agricultural and rural development policy. Farming in urban environments is increasingly
constrained and marginalised. Its role must not be underestimated, as it is highly specialised, adaptive
and competitive. Peri-urban agriculture is in demand to generate regional and local food supply, as well
as to provide goods and services beyond food production such as management of cultural landscapes,
leisure and recreational opportunities and other ecosystem services. There are valid reasons to control
urbanisation and preserve farming. Reflecting the differences of other remote rural conditions, peri-
urban farming also requires a specific targeting for agricultural and rural development programming.
Attention has to be paid to the specific characteristics and urban framework conditions under
consideration. There is a large variance of farming systems and their framework conditions in
metropolitan regions across Europe. The comprehensive study only gives indications for general
tendencies. More regional in-depth investigations are necessary to learn about the mechanism and
dynamics of farming in peri-urban areas, their individual constraints, and the opportunities for a
sustainable rural development in peri-urban areas.
6 Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out within the EU FP6 and FP7 Research Projects PLUREL – Peri-urban
Land Use Relationships (Contract No. 36921) and SPARD – Spatial Analysis of Rural Development
(Contract No. 244944), funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General Research. The
authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions and discussions.
7 References
Andersson, K., Eklund, E., & Lehtola, M. (2009). Farmers, businessmen or green entrepreneurs?
Producers of new rural goods and services in rural areas under urban pressure. Journal of Environmental
Policy and Planning, 11(1), 29-43. DOI: 10.1080/15239080902774960
24
Beauchesne, A. & Bryant, C. (1999). Agriculture and Innovation in the Urban Fringe: The Case of
Organic Farming in Quebec, Canada. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 90(3), 320-
328. DOI:10.1111/1467-9663.00073.
Bryant, C. R. & Johnston, T. R. R. (1992). Agriculture in the city's countryside. London: Belhaven
Press.
Busck, A. G., Pilgaard Kristensen, S., Praestholm, S. & Primdahl, J. (2008). Porous landscapes – The
case of Greater Copenhagen. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7, 145-156.
DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.05.002.
Cantliffe D. J. & Vansickle, J. J. (2003). Competitiveness of the Spanish and Dutch Greenhouse
Industries With the Florida Fresh Vegetable Industry. Series of the Horticultural Science Department.
University of Florida. Last accessed on November 17, 2011 from:
[http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV28400.pdf]
EEA (2011). Corine Land Cover 1990 and 2006. The European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial
Information. Last accessed on November 17 from [http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data]
EEA (2006). Urban Sprawl in Europe – The ignored challenge. Copenhagen: European Environment
Agency.
ESPON (2005). ESPON Project 1.1.1. – Potentials for Polycentric Development in Europe.
Luxembourg: ESPON.
EUROSTAT (2010). A revised urban-rural typology. In: EUROSTAT (ed.): Regional Yearbook 2010.
Luxembourg: EUROSTAT, 240-253.
EUROSTAT (2011). Regional Statistics Database. Last accessed on November 17, 2011
[http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/]
Gallego, F. J. (2010). A population density grid of the European Union. Population and Environment,
31, 460-473. DOI: 10.1007/s11111-010-0108-y.
Gant, R. L., Robinson, G. M., & Fazal, S. (2011). Land-use change in the 'edgelands': Policies and
pressures in London's rural-urban fringe. Land Use Policy, 28, 266-279.
DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.007.
Hall, P. (ed.) (1966). Von Thunen's Isolated State: An English Edition of Der Isolierte Staat. (transl. by
Carla M. Wartenberg). Oxford: Pergamon.
25
Hall, P. & Hay, D. (1980). Growth Centres in the European Urban System. London: Heinemann
Educational Publishers.
Jongeneel, R. A., Polman, N. B. P. & Slangen, L. H. G. (2008). Why are Dutch farmers going
multifunctional? Land Use Policy, 25, 81-94. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.001.
Loibl, W., Köstl, M., Steinnocher, K. (2008). Quantitative classification of European major urban
regions – Theoretical background and typology. PLUREL Deliverable Report 2.1.3. Last accessed June
5, 2012 [http://www.plurel.net/images/D213.pdf]
Munton, R. (2009). Rural land ownership in the United Kingdom: Changing patterns and future
possibilities for land use. Land Use Policy, 26S, S54-S61. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.012.
OECD (2002). Redefining Territories: The Functional Regions. Paris: OECD.
Oliver, R. (ed.) (2000). Urban fringe agriculture: report of the APO Seminar on Urban Fringe
Agriculture. Tokyo, Japan, May 17-14, 2000.
Perlin, R. (2010). Theoretical Approaches of Methods to delimitate rural and urban areas. European
Countryside, 2(4), 182-200. DOI: 10.2478/v10091-010-0013-5.
Péron, J. Y. & Geoffriau, E. (2007). Characteristics and Sustainable Development of Peri-Urban
Vegetable Production in Europe. In: International Horticultural Congress - International Symposium on
Horticultural Plants in Urban and Peri-Urban Life, August 13-19, 2006, Seoul, South Korea, 159-170.
Pauleit,S., Bell,S., Aalbers, C., Nilsson,K. (eds) (2013). Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for
land use change in Europe. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Piorr, A., Ravetz, J., & Tosics, I. (eds.) (2011). Peri-urbanisation in Europe: Towards a European Policy
to Sustain Urban-Rural Futures. A Synthesis Report. Frederiksberg: University of Copenhagen /
Academic Books Life Sciences.
Renetzeder, C., van Eupen, M., Mücher, S., & Wrbka, T. (2008). A Spatial Regional Reference
Framework for Sustainability Assessment in Europe. In: K. Helming, M. Pérez-Soba, & P. Tabbush,
(eds.). Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. Berlin: Springer, 249-268.
Robinson, G. M. (2004). Geographies of agriculture: globalisation, restructuring and sustainability.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Tobias, S., Nuesch, A., Nebel, R., Guilmain, A., 2005, Suburbane Landwirtschaft oder
Landschaftsmanagement? Agrarforschung, 12(7), 306-311.
26
van der Ploeg, J. D. (2003). The Virtual Farmer: past, present and future of the Dutch peasantry. Assen,
The Netherlands: Royal van Gorcum.
Wandel, M. & Bugge, A. (1997). Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food quality. Food
Quality and Preference, 8, 19-26. DOI:10.1016/S0950-3293(96)00004-3.
World Gazetteer Population Database. Last accessed on June 5, 2012 [http://www.world-
gazetteer.com/]
Zasada, I., 2011, Multifunctional peri-urban areas – A Review of societal demands and agricultural
provision of goods and services. Land Use Policy, 28(4), 639-648.
DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008
Zasada, I., Fertner, C., Piorr, A., and Nielsen, T. A. S. (2011). Peri-urbanisation and Multifunctional
Agriculture around Copenhagen, Denmark. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 111,
59-72.
Zasada,I.; Loibl, W.; Berges, R., Steinnocher, K; Köstl, M.; Piorr, A.; Werner, A. (2013) Rural-Urban-
Regions – A spatial approach to represent urban-rural relationships in Europe in: Pauleit,S., Bell,S.,
Aalbers, C., Nilsson,K. (eds) Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Paper III
Zasada, I., Fertner, C., Piorr, A. and Nielsen, T.A.S. (2011). Peri-
urbanisation and multifunctional adaptation of agriculture around
Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift–Danish Journal of Geography 111(1): 59-
72.
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1) 59
D
A
N
I
S
H
J
O
U
R
N
A
L
O
F
G
E
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y
2
0
1
1
Peri-urbanisation and multifunctional adaptation of
agriculture around Copenhagen
Abstract
Peri-urbanisation, as a process of the physical expansion of settle-
ment areas but also socio-economic transformation, has been re-
cognised as a major spatial development beyond the urban fringes.
Agriculture, the main land use actor in the hinterlands of many urban
areas is increasingly affected by urban encroachment, responds
with adaptation strategies and farming activities to cope with the
peri-urban framework conditions. Adaptation pathways encompass
specialisation into horticulture as well as enhanced environmental
and lifestyle orientation of farming – typical elements of multifunc-
tional agriculture. However, due to the heterogeneity of the peri-
urbanisation processes also differences in farming transition are
expected. Based on a differentiation into displaced-urbanisation,
ex-urbanisation, anti-urbanisation and hidden-urbanisation as
main types of peri-urbanisation, variances of farming responses
are elaborated for municipal entities in the Copenhagen region in
Denmark using statistical census data. Under consideration of loca-
tion determinants, regression models have been applied to analyse
the inter-relationship between different peri-urbanisation processes
and multifunctional farming activities. Findings confirm that the dif-
ferentiation of peri-urban processes is meaningful for the explanation
of spatial distribution of farm adaptation strategies, particularly
in the case of leisure and environmental oriented farm practices.
Key words
Rural in-migration, urban-rural-relationship, post-productivism,
spatial variation, regression model, farm strategy.
Ingo Zasada (Corresponding author)
Annette Piorr
Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Müncheberg,
Germany
E-mail: ingo.zasada@zalf.de
Christian Fertner
Thomas Sick Nielsen
Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, University of
Copenhagen, Denmark
Geografisk Tidsskrift
Danish Journal of Geography 111(1): 59-72, 2011
Ingo Zasada, Christian Fertner, Annette Piorr & Thomas Sick Nielsen
Introduction
The integration of rural areas surrounding cities into urban
regions represents a common spatial development phenom-
enon in Europe in the recent decades. Physical conver-
sion of open space – in particular agricultural land – for
urban purposes and socio-cultural transitions in rural areas
through adoption of urban life styles or in-migration of
urban dwellers, leads to the establishment of a peri-urban
space, and sets different forms of urban and rural living and
working into close contact. However, it has been argued
that, although under pressure and often marginalised, agri-
culture has responded to the peri-urban framework condi-
tions by introducing post-productive, consumption-oriented
adaptation of farming activities.
In-migration and socio-cultural changes represent
relevant drivers for the development of agriculture in
peri-urban areas around Copenhagen region (Primdahl,
1999; Busck et al., 2006; Præstholm & Kristensen, 2007).
Although a distinct cause-effect relation might not exist,
a mutual influence of peri-urbanisation and agriculture
has been observed. The central research objective of this
paper is to explore the relationship between the heteroge-
neous types of peri-urbanisation processes (ex-, displaced-,
anti- and hidden-urbanisation) and effects on agricultural
activity. More specifically, it aims at analysing the spa-
tial co-existence of peri-urbanisation types and the extent
of multifunctional farm adaptation, such as small-scale,
high-value farming systems, the farmers’ participation in
landscape management and agri-environmental measures
as well as the recreational and lifestyle orientation in peri-
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1)60
urban areas. From this objective, two main research ques-
tions have been derived:
(1) Do ex-, displaced-, anti- and hidden-urbanisation
contribute to differentiate processes of peri-urbanisation in
the municipalities around Copenhagen? To which extent
do location determinants, such as distance to the urban
centre, urban form or natural amenities influence the spatial
distribution of these processes?
(2) Does the spatial distribution of different peri-ur-
banisation processes explain the variances in the extent of
multifunctional farming, consisting of (a) specialisation in
high-value cropping pattern, (b) participation in agri-envi-
ronmental practices and (c) diversification in recreational
services and lifestyle-oriented farming?
Peri-urbanisation
Neglected for a long time, the notion of peri-urban area
has been introduced to describe the heterogeneous pattern
of settlement pattern at the urban-rural interface, replacing
the former model of an urban-rural dichotomy (Errington,
1994). From a European perspective peri-urban areas are
often understood as mixed areas under urban influence but
with a rural morphology (Caruso, 2001). The Council of
Europe once defined the peri-urban sphere as a transition
area moving from strictly rural to urban (CEMAT, 2007).
On the other hand, it is far from ephemeral, but instead
forms new kinds of permanent landscape (Antrop, 2000).
Changes in peri-urban space are often results of a high pres-
sure towards urban development (Bertrand, 2007). But this
development is not necessarily limited to physical urban
development. It is also characterised by the emergence of
urban lifestyles in rural areas like hobby farming and second
homes (Caruso, 2001; Briquel & Collicard, 2005). Such
transformations which take place outside the urban cores
can be summarised by the term peri-urbanisation. However,
with this very broad definition, peri-urbanisation overlaps
and coincides with many other phenomena and dynamics
elaborated and described by researchers in the last decades.
Besides commercial and infrastructure development, the
internal migration pattern represents a major driver for peri-
urbanisation. Especially the process of counter-urbanisation
is very relevant for the transition of peri-urban areas. Coun-
ter-urbanisation describes a migration from the city to the
countryside and was first observed in the 1960s and 1970s
in the United States and Western Europe. Champion et al.
(1989) emphasised that it is not a unidirectional movement
but a tendency towards de-concentration, resulting from a
complex pattern of flows. Among others, Mitchell (2004)
further elaborated the concept by identification of three
different processes of counter-urbanisation dependent on
different motivations of the migrants.
Several authors (e.g. Spectorsky, 1955; Halfacree &
Boyle, 1998) have defined ex-urbanisation as a process of
in-migration of affluent people into rural settings. Staying
within close commuting distance, they usually keep their
job and daily routines. As a second type, displaced-urban-
isation is characterised by out-migration of people based
on economic necessities, such as affordable housing, job
availability, security and health considerations (Mitchell,
2004). Displaced-urbanisation typically refers to low in-
come groups or young families who cannot afford suitable
housing and living environment in the inner city. Rather
different from the previous, anti-urbanisation represents the
third type of counter-urbanisation. Mitchell (2004) extends
the concept from Halliday & Coombes (1995) who used
the term to describe urban dwellers moving out into the
countryside to escape urban lifestyle. She identified three
sub-variants – self-sufficient lifestyle, relocation to enhance
quality of life and amenity driven retirement migration.
Ex-urbanisation, displaced-urbanisation and anti-ur-
banisation represent migratory movements into peri-urban
areas. Another urbanisation process refers to socio-cultural
changes of the local residents, such as the adoption of urban
life styles by the rural population as described by Antrop
(2004), Primdahl (1999) and lately in an empirical analysis
of another region in Denmark by Madsen et al. (2010). Al-
though acknowledged as important for the transformation
of peri-urban areas, only little physical land use changes
can be observed. That is why scholars refer to it as hidden-
urbanisation. The term was originally introduced by Lewan
(1969) and later by van den Vaart (1991) to describe the
functional change and conversion of farmsteads by new
inhabitants but also the changed behaviour of the local
residents. It includes increasing intra-regional relationships
in terms of work, trade or leisure, even in peripheral sub-
regions, caused by improved accessibility or the change of
local conditions.
Multifunctional farm adaptation in peri-urban
areas
During the recent decades societal transitions in peri-urban
areas towards enhanced environmental consciousness,
urban lifestyles and the rise of an aging and leisure-oriented
society are challenging the predominant mono-functional
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1) 61
production agriculture (Wilson, 2007). Increased standards
of living and available leisure time are reflected by a ten-
dency to buy regional organic food, spend time or even
permanently settle down in the near countryside (Primdahl,
1999). Following the European model of multifunctional
agriculture for the joint production of commodities and
non-commodities (Piorr et al., 2007) or the provision of
multiple social, environmental and economic functions
(Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2007), organic farming and land-
scape management, tourism and hobby farming as well as
diversification into other gainful activities beyond pure
food and fiber production have continuingly gained im-
portance – particularly in peri-urban areas (Zasada, 2011).
Multifunctional farm adaptation in peri-urban areas had
been comprehensively studied, focusing on specific farm
types (Busck et al., 2006; Præstholm et al., 2006), insti-
tutional environment (Vandermeulen et al., 2006) or farm
holders characteristics, such as age, education and attitudes
(Jongeneel et al., 2008). Other scholars have also taken the
question of urban location and density into consideration
(Beauchesne & Bryant, 1999; Van Huylenbroeck et al.,
2005; Tobias et al., 2005). A tendency was observed that
especially peri-urban farmers tend to respond by adapting
activities and improve the individual business situation.
Also new peri-urban residents have been attracted to start
diversification activities, when purchasing farm properties
(Præstholm & Kristensen, 2007). Others have interpreted
the multifunctional impacts of changes in peri-urban agri-
culture both from a territorial as well as from an individual
farm point of view. Van Berkel & Verburg (2010) for in-
stance described the multifunctional potential of European
regions in relationship to the territorial capital as a mix
of agricultural, tourism and off-farm employment. For a
number of European metropolitan regions, they identified
distinctive clustering of multifunctional capacity around
large urban centres due to urban demand for multiple rural
services.
Due to the proximity and access to consumer groups,
peri-urban agriculture is promoted by intensive urban-rural-
relationships. Results from a recent German survey on
structures and trends in organic vegetable production un-
derline the high relevance of direct marketing, as country-
wide a large share of organic horticultural holdings sell to
the consumer directly (Goy & Maack, 2008). For individual
farm holdings, the proximity to urban areas encourages the
identification of market niches, innovation and adaption to
new demands, as Cabus & Vanhaverbeke (2003) point out.
Accordingly, high productivity and specialisation, focus-
ing on horticultural high-value produces, such as fruits,
vegetables or ornamental plants has been observed in North
American (Bryant et al., 1992) and European peri-urban
regions (Péron & Geoffriau, 2007). The implementation of
landscape management or ecological compensation mea-
sures has been also studied in various peri-urban areas, pro-
viding evidence for higher participation rates than in other
rural areas (Busck et al., 2006; Tobias et al., 2005). More
controversy exists on the question of allocation of organic
farming in peri-urban areas. Whereas Beauchesne & Bryant
(1999) and Ilbery et al. (1999) recognised a concentration
of organic producers near urban areas in Canada and the
UK, Tobias et al. (2005) found rather under-representation
in Swiss urban agglomerations, due to the low suitability
of small-scale farm structure.
Within the agricultural transition debate, particularly the
rise of the post-productive paradigm is discussed, where
the agricultural activity itself is even conceived as recre-
ational activity decoupled from any economical farming
motivation (Primdahl, 1999). Agricultural census results
from Denmark have shown a significant increase of phe-
nomena such as part-time, hobby and retirement farm-
ing (Præstholm & Kristensen, 2007; Busck et al., 2008).
Referring to the provision of recreational services, hold-
ing and breeding of horses for leisure purposes has been
recognised as an increasing income source in peri-urban
agriculture (Bailey et al., 2000). Empirical research in the
UK, Canada and Sweden indicates significantly higher
densities of horses and horse-farms in peri-urban fringes of
metropolitan areas compared to other rural areas (Quetier
& Gordon, 2003; Elgaker & Wilton, 2008).
Methodology and database
Study area
The case study region for this analysis encompasses an area
in the east of Denmark of around 9,000 km², including the
islands of Sjaelland – with the Danish capital Copenhagen –
Lolland, Falster, Møn and some minor islands. The regional
population has experienced a considerable growth since the
1990s, accompanied by migration of certain groups such
as families (Aner, 2009) and retirees (Herslund & Fertner,
2010) to the countryside. Most changes in agricultural land
use were observed in areas nearby Copenhagen, the urban
core of the region (Præstholm & Kristensen, 2007; Busck
et al., 2008). A very visible change represents the ongoing
development of summer houses and second homes along
the coast of the region. Many people have moved and still
move in their summer house after retirement in the follow
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1)62
of the change of §41 in the Danish Planning Law in 1991.
The development of new infrastructure expanded the urban
area of Copenhagen in recent decades, establishing one big
commuter zone (Nielsen & Hovgesen, 2005) like many
other monocentric city-regions throughout Europe.
Not only limited to the urban fringes of Copenhagen,
but also occurring all over the region in different forms,
this process accounts for a substantial impact on agriculture
which covers around 70% of the total area. An analysis of
CORINE Land use data (EEA) for the year 1990-2006 il-
lustrates some of the major trends in the region. The area
of artificial surfaces covering settlement, industry and in-
frastructure has expanded by 7.2% region-wide. This has
basically taken place at the expense of arable land, located
close to the urban area and zoned for urban purposes. Forest
area marginally decreased whereas pasture and shrubland
has enlarged by 14.8% and 17.0%. Related to the increasing
valorisation of extensive grassland production, agricultural
land utilised for the production of cereals has been reduced
from 63% to 57%, whereas the area share of horticulture is
rather constant. Due to the intensivation of production, the
farm structure has been subject to tremendous transitions.
Similar to Danish national figures, the average farm size
in the case study area has been nearly doubled from below
30 ha to almost 60 ha between the beginning of the 1980s
and 2004 – at a time before the decoupling of single farm
payments of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was
implemented.
However, according to figures of the Danish statisti-
cal office (Danmarks statistik), in 2003 around 20% of
all farms in the case area diversified into non-agricultural
activities compared to 15% in the whole of Denmark. In
the area nearest to Copenhagen the share is even around
25% and has almost doubled since 1998. The typical non-
agricultural activities are agricultural services (e.g. use
of equipment and machinery). Though, especially direct
marketing, riding schools and further processing has con-
siderably increased over the recent years in the case area.
Kristensen (2001) has observed intensification and spe-
cialisation processes in agriculture in the case study area
leading to a decrease arable farming and an increase of
horticulture already in the 1980s. Throughout the 1980s
and 90s Præstholm & Kristensen (2007) found also farm
extensification in this area, related to a shift towards part-
time and hobby farming.
Data sets and analytical model
The analysis is conducted at the spatial level of munici-
pal entities, as it represents the most detailed level, where
statistical data on both the process of peri-urbanisation as
well as farming structure is available. Socio-economic data
(Danmarks Statistik Statistikbanken; Danmarks Statistik,
Figure 1: Analytical framework.
Peri-urbanisation
Displaced-urbanisation
Ex-urbanisation
Anti-urbanisation
Hidden-urbanisation
Location Determinants
Distance to City
Population Density
Natural Amenities
Soil Quality
Farm adaptation strategies
Environmental Farming
Specialisation High-value crops
Lifestyle and Recreation
Analysis Relationship
Peri-urbanisation &
Farm Adaptation
Correlation
OLS
Regression
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1) 63
1989) of all 95 municipalities (situation before municipal
reform in 2007) in the case study region, excluding the
urban core municipalities of Copenhagen and Frederiks-
berg were included for the time span of 1986 to 2006.
To address the research questions outlined above, the
analytical model for this study integrates the four differ-
ent types of peri-urbanisation as well as location frame-
work conditions, represented by location determinants
as explanatory variables. Through multivariate statistical
analysis both are used to explain the value distribution of
multifunctional farm adaptation measures in the munici-
palities of the case study region. The main component is
a regression analysis of peri-urbanisation and farm adap-
tation variables. Location determinants are integrated in
the regression analysis to control for their influence. As
preliminary step we conducted a correlation analysis of
peri-urbanisation variables and location determinants to
characterise their patterns (Figure 1).
As a first step, one socio-economic proxy variable was
chosen for each type of peri-urbanisation as explanatory
variable in the analytical model (Table 1). The variables
cannot cover the full spectrum of the respective peri-
urbanisation process as described in literature, but the
represent relevant elements of the process. As proxy in-
dicator for ex-urbanisation the in-migration of persons
with an income above average was chosen. Applying the
indicator for a 20-year period, a different threshold for the
period 1986-1996 than for 1996-2006 to account for the
observed increase in the average income over time was
necessary. Displaced-urbanisation is illustrated by in-mi-
gration of children below six years, representing families
with small children. Families are constrained by several
factors in their housing choice – not just economically but
also by the availability of social infrastructure or a safe
and green environment. An alternative would be to look
at the in-migration of persons with under average income.
However, this indicator does less comply with the idea if
displaced-urbanisation as it only focuses on the financial
situation of persons and no other push factors as safety
or environmental concerns. People with the least income
often migrate to very remote, typically small town areas
and are not dependent on certain urban infrastructure like
families but mainly on public transfers. Anti-urbanisation
is represented by the in-migration of persons between
60-69 years. As the normal retirement age in Denmark is
65, these are typically retirees. Finally, to illustrate a facet
of hidden-urbanisation, we calculated the increase (or de-
crease) of residents shifting from a local employment to
commuting to a different municipality during the analysis
period. This should illustrate the change of interrelations
in the case study region in respect to working. Making
use of correlation analysis, the spatial allocation of the
peri-urbanisation processes was studied with the help of
location determinants which explain the heterogeneity of
the case study area in terms of urbanisation and urban
form on the one side as well as bio-physical conditions,
such as soil quality and natural amenities on the other side.
Insights of the relationship with location determinants are
Table 1: Peri-urbanisation processes and proxy indicators used.
Peri-urbanisation process Characteristics Proxy indicator used
Ex-urbanisation Wealthy urbanites moving into the countryside
(Spectorsky, 1955; Mitchell, 2004)
In-migrants with income above average:
Yearly income >200,000 DKK (1986-1996)
resp. >250,000 DKK (1996-2006)
/ relative to total population in 1986
Displaced-urbanisation Migration due to necessity, (employment, liv-
ing costs, housing availability), Young families
(Mitchell, 2004)
In-migrants 0-5 years 1986-2006
/ relative to total population in 1986
Anti-urbanisation Self-sufficient lifestyle, preferring smaller com-
munities, amenity-driven retirement migration
(Robinson, 1990; Halliday & Coombs, 1995;
Mitchell, 2004)
In-migrants 60-69 years 1986-2006
/ relative to total population in 1986
Hidden-urbanisation Non-agricultural activities, conversion of farm-
steds, commuting due to economic reasons
(Lewan, 1969; van den Vaart, 1991)
Change of commuters 1986-2006 minus
change of employees 1986-2006
Data sources: Danmarks Statistik Statistikbanken; Danmarks Statistik (1989)
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1)64
important as they affect both the peri-urbanisation and
farming activities.
Within the second step of the analytical model, a set
of six variables which represent multifunctional farm ad-
aptation was selected – specialisation on high-value pro-
duces, environmental orientation and the focus on leisure
activities. The variables have been derived from statistical
census data (Danmarks Statistik, 2000) and complemented
by regional geo-information data on agricultural land use
(Institut for Jordbrugsproduktion og Miljø; Miljøminis-
teriet) for the situation towards the end of the observed peri-
urbanisation process. Agricultural data on municipality
level is collected by different institutions in Denmark and
not always in the same frequency. Therefore the datasets
used in this analysis originate from the period 1999-2005
to achieve temporal compliance with the peri-urbanisation
processes (Table 2).
To analyse the influence of the different types of peri-
urbanisation on the spatial distribution of the multifunc-
tional farm adaptation, linear ordinary least square (OLS)
regression models have been derived including farming
variables as depending and variables of peri-urbanisation
and location factors as predictor variables. Strength and
direction of the influence of the predictor variable is rep-
resentedbytheestimatedstandardisedcoefficientβ.The
regression model consists of two blocks. In the first block
all four peri-urbanisation variables are included into an
OLS regression model. The location determinants are in-
tegrated within the second block of the model as control
variables. Due to incomprehensive understanding of the
location-farm adaptation-relationship (Pfeifer et al., 2009),
a stepwise regression was applied here as a straightforward
method to reduce the number of variables. The comparison
of the regression models which only include the first block
(peri-urbanisation) and models which include both blocks
(peri-urbanisation and location) enhances the interpretive
extent, as collinearities between the peri-urbanisation and
location determinants can be revealed.
Results
Spatial pattern of peri-urbanisation
The four peri-urbanisation processes were analysed re-
garding their spatial pattern considering the distance to the
centre of Copenhagen, the population density and natural
amenities in the respective municipality (Table 3). The
processes show a diverse spatial pattern in the case area.
The processes of ex- and anti-urbanisation features a
clear correlation with the distance to Copenhagen. Whereas
ex-urbanisation is found close to the city of Copenhagen,
the latter one is rather concentrated in more remote rural
areas. Apart of that, the other two do not show a signifi-
cant correlation with distance to Copenhagen, although an
interpretation of the allocation maps (Figure 2) reveals a
concentration of displaced-urbanisation in many locations
Table 2: Multifunctional farming activities.
Adaptation Strategy Agricultural Activity Indicator
Specialisation on high-value produces Greenhouse production Share of greenhouse area of total UAA 2005
(in %)
Horticultural production Share of horticulture area of total UAA 1999
(in %)
Agri-environmental orientation Organic production scheme Share of organic farming area from total UAA
2003 (in %)
Extensive grassland cultivation Share of grassland from total UAA 2003 (in %)
Lifestyle and recreational farming Density of horse-keeping Number of horses 1999 (per ha UAA)
Part-time and leisure farming Share of holdings < 10 ha 1999 (in %)
UAA = Utilised Agricultural Area
Data sources: Danmarks Statistik (2000); Institut for Jordbrugsproduktion og Miljø; Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen; Miljøministeriet
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1) 65
in medium distance from Copenhagen. Hidden-urbanisation
relates to population density as it is concentrated in some
municipalities close to Copenhagen as well as in small and
medium-sized towns across the region. The bio-physical
location determinants account for only partial correlations
to peri-urbanisation. The share of coastal area in a munici-
pality correlates positively with anti-urbanisation, mainly
representing retirement migration. Displaced-urbanisation
shows a slightly negative relation to coastal area as ex-ur-
banisation and forest area does. Both, water and wetland
areas as well as the allocation of fertile clay-rich soils are not
significantly correlated with any form of peri-urbanisation.
Assessing the spatial interrelationship of the different peri-
urbanisation types reveals a distinctive allocation of each of
the processes, despite some spatial overlapping. Particularly
hidden urbanisation is concentrated in municipalities which
are little subject to other types of peri-urbanisation.
Spatial relationships between peri-urbanisation
and multifunctional farm adaptation
The influence of the four peri-urbanisation processes and
the location determinants are represented by regression
models for each of the six farming variables. The consider-
ation of the corrected R² is meaningful here, as it balances
the improvement effect of the model quality with increasing
complexity of the model and indicated more clearly the sig-
nificance of additional predictor variables. As a general find-
ing, the various models are characterised by partly strong
differences regarding the explanatory power as indicated
by the corrected R² values (Table 4). The model quality
varies substantially between the farm adaptation measures.
Particularly agri-environmental management practices
and diversification into leisure and lifestyle activities are
featured by good model performances, whereas the spatial
distribution of specialised high-value crop cultivation (hor-
ticulture) is only insufficiently explained. The differences of
the explanatory power are even more pronounced between
regression models which include location determinants or
not. There is a significant increase of all model coefficents,
as the spatial framework conditions seem to comprise of a
strong influence on farm adaptation strategies. Especially
for recreation and leisure related farm adaptation – horse-
keeping (corr. R² = 71%) and small-scale farming (corr. R²
= 94%) but also extensive grassland management (corr. R²
= 98%), good model accuracies were accomplished. Partly
the coefficients of the predictor variables differ between the
two models for as mutual collinearities exist. This is e.g.
the case of the distance to Copenhagen and especially ex-
urbanisation, a peri-urbanisation process which commonly
occurs in the proximity of the metropolitan area. For all
regression models, at least one peri-urbanisation process
contributes significantly to the value distribution of the de-
pendent variable.
As indicators for environmental-friendly farming prac-
tices, organic production and the application of extensive
grassland production and has been selected. Figure 3 gives
Table 3: Correlation analysis of spatial distribution of peri-urbanisation and location determinants.
Displaced-
urbanisation
1986-2006
(std. value)
Ex-urbanisa-
tion 1986-2006
(std. value)
Anti-
urbanisation
1986-2006
(std. value)
Hidden-
urbanisation
1986-2006
(std. value)
Distance to Copenhagen in km n.s. -0.696** 0.541** n.s.
Population density 2000 in inh./km² -0.366** n.s. -0.454** 0.282**
Share of coastal area (1 km buffer) in % -0.363* n.s. 0.518** n.s.
Share of forest area in 2000 in % n.s. -0.241* n.s. n.s.
Share of water and wetland area in 2000 in % n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Area share of clay-rich soils in % n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Standardized value of displaced-urbanisation 1986-2006 0.477** n.s. -0.665**
Standardized value of ex-urbanisation 1986-2006 n.s. -0.509**
Standardized value of anti-urbanisation 1986-2006 -0.234*
Standardized value of hidden-urbanisation 1986-2006
*significance level by p<0.1; **significance level by p<0.05; n.s. = not significant
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1)66
an over view of the value distribution of all farming indi-
cators. The general explanatory power of the regression
model for extensive grassland production is much larger
(corr. R² = 98%) than for organic farming (corr. R² = 58%).
The latter one is less sensitive for peri-urban developments
and location framework conditions. If taken isolated, a
considerable positive influence of ex-urbanisation can be
found. When including location determinants this relation-
ship is covered by a strong dependency from population
▲ Figure 2: Spatial distribution of peri-urban
migration processes.
density and displaced (positive) and anti-urbanisation (neg-
ative) account for an enhanced influence. In addition, for
organic farming and grassland cultivation, comprehensive
relationships exist to almost all location determinants with
population density accounting for the strongest positive
relationship. In contrast, soil quality seems to be a less
determining location variable for farm adaptation strategies
in the peri-urban – the share of clay-rich soils shows the
strongest opposing relationship.
► Figure 3: Spatial distribution of farming indicators.
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1) 67
The distribution of horticulture and greenhouse produc-
tion has been used as representatives for farming specialisa-
tion on horticultural produces with high gross margins per
cultivated area, such as vegetables or ornamental plants.
For both variables the value distribution is characterised by
a regional concentration pattern in the south of the region
and the direct urban fringe of Copenhagen in the case of
horticultural production. Otherwise population density rep-
resents a highly influential factor for greenhouse cultivation
and horticulture. Beyond that, none of the peri-urbanisation
processes show positive coefficients indicating a surpris-
ingly low or non-existent spatial relationship. Both regres-
sion models generally account for only limited explanatory
power for the value distribution of the depending variable.
Indicators representing lifestyle and leisure-oriented
farming styles are also characterised by rather strong re-
gional disparities. Farm sizes tend to decline from South
to North of the case study region. Whereas on the islands
of Lolland and Falster, municipalities are characterised by
comparably large-scale farming, low values are revealed
for the North of Sjaelland. In turn, municipalities in this
area feature high stocking rates of horses. The model per-
formances for horse density and small-scale farming indi-
cate comprehensiveness of explanation through peri-urban-
Table 4: OLS Regression models to describe the dependency of farming system differences from peri-urbanisation.
Organic
Farming
2003
(% of total
UAA)
Extensive
Grassland
2003
(% of total
UAA)
Green-
house
Cultivation
2003
(% of total
UAA)
Horti-
culture
1999
(% of total
UAA)
Horse
Density
1999
(per ha
UAA)
Small-scale
Farming
1999
(% hold-
ings <10ha)
Model 1 (Peri-Urbanisation Factors) 1
Peri-ur-
banisation
Displaced-urbanisation 1986-96
Ex-urbanisation 1986-96
Anti-urbanisation 1986-96
Hidden-urbanisation 1986-96
n.s.
0.394**
n.s.
n.s.
-0.294**
0.676**
0.176*
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
-0.198**
n.s.
n.s.
0.258**
n.s.
n.s.
-0.273**
0.640**
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0.440**
-0.371**
n.s.
R² 0.207 0.380 0.085 0.086 0.412 0.434
Corrected R² 0.165 0.347 0.042 0.037 0.381 0.403
F statistics: p-value (sig.) 4.909
(0.001)
11.494
(0.000)
1.993
(0.103)
1.756
(0.147)
13.136
(0.000)
14.355
(0.000)
Model 2 (Peri-urbanisation and Location Factors) 1
Peri-ur-
banisation
Displaced-urbanisation 1986-96
Ex-urbanisation 1986-96
Anti-urbanisation 1986-96
Hidden-urbanisation 1986-96
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
-0.293**
-0.159**
0.208**
0.287**
-0.144**
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
-0.247*
n.s.
0.469**
n.s.
n.s.
-0.138**
0.538**
n.s.
-0.353**
0.186**
-0.185**
-0.116**
-0.476**
Location Factors²
Distance to Copenhagen
Highway Access
Population Density 1996
Coastal Shore Length
Forest Area Share 2000
Water & Wetland Share 2000
Area share of Clay Soils
-0.250**
0.626**
excluded
excluded
excluded
-0.548**
-0.228**
-0.223**
0.796**
0.147**
-0.127**
0.237**
-0.693**
excluded
excluded
0.629**
excluded
excluded
excluded
excluded
0.559**
excluded
0.624**
0.261**
excluded
excluded
excluded
0.451**
excluded
1.085**
excluded
0.137**
0.190**
-0.449**
-0.394**
excluded
0.893**
0.110**
0.086
0.307
-0.501**
R²
Corrected R²
F statistics: p-value (sig.)
0.534
0.488
11.775
(0.000)
0.931
0.920
83.925
(0.000)
0.330
0.291
8.382
(0.000)
0.325
0.259
4.941
(0.000)
0.820
0.797
35.493
(0.000)
0.979
0.976
328.424
(0.000)
UAA = Utilised Agricultural Area
1 standardised Coefficients Beta;
² Location factors in Model 2 have been excluded from the regression model, if f likelihood outside 0.05-0.10
*significance level by p<0.1; **significance level by p<0.05; n.s. = not significant
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1)68
isation pattern and location determinants, although both
variables differ substantially regarding the dependency
from peri-urbanisation. Prevailing ex-urbanisation is posi-
tively related to horse density, but negatively to small-scale
farming. There is a clear indication for a spatial divergence
between hidden-urbanisation and both recreation-related
farming variables. However, the peri-urban influence is
clearly overshadowed by location determinants. Again,
the population density has an enormous influence on farm-
scale and horse density. A positive correlation to water and
wetland location is little surprising amongst the natural
amenities which determine small-scale farming. Also the
absence of small-scale farming in areas rich in soils with
above average share of clay was expected, as such are
traditional locations for competitive large scale farming,
Discussion
Spatial pattern of peri-urbanisation
Peri-urbanisation is only vaguely defined, usually encom-
passing urban transformations which take place outside
the urban cores (Madsen et al., 2010; Piorr et al., 2011).
This paper builds upon the idea to distinguish four peri-
urbanisation processes representing different forms of in-
migration and lifestyle changes of residents. The spatial
pattern of peri-urbanisation is strongly influenced by deter-
minants which characterises the heterogeneity of the case
study area. If taken correlation results into consideration,
it is recognised that particularly variables which describe
economic potential and social integration of the location
within the urban agglomeration are more important than
natural amenities, such in the case of income-driven ex-
urbanisation which takes place close to the city centre, but
without any significant relationship to coastal, water or
forest area extent. The retirement type of anti-urbanisation
intending the purpose of seeking calm and rural environ-
ments occurs mainly in municipalities with low population
densities and distance to the central city prevail. The par-
ticular importance of the coastal location for the retirement
migration confirms previous observations in other regions
(Zasada et al., 2010). The positive correlation between
population density and hidden-urbanisation might be traced
back to the prevalence of this peri-urbanisation type around
regional centres of the case study region. Areas without
significant degree of peri-urbanisation are either located
close to Copenhagen or belong to independent small town
areas and therefore are already part of an urban agglom-
eration. They also represent traditional rural areas, often
in a peripheral location, which only sparsely affected of
peri-urbanisation yet. The strong spatial dependency of the
different peri-urbanisation processes from location determi-
nants make the interpretation of the regression modelling
results more difficult, particularly in terms of comparison
of the model which exclusively refers to peri-urbanisation
as explanatory variables and the one which also integrates
location variables.
Multifunctional farm adaptation
In order to find indication about the influence of peri-ur-
banisation and other location determinants on the spatial
distribution of multifunctional farm adaptation a regres-
sion analysis of selected farm type and farm management
variables was carried out. Despite statistical abstraction
and generalisation at the municipal level, the application
of a peri-urbanisation model which differentiates four dis-
tinct socio-economic development processes has proven
meaningful, as significant results were found. Considerable
influence differences between the explanatory variables
exist regarding significance, strength and even direction
of influence.
In-migration processes of younger milieus and families,
but also educated and affluent residents, represented by
displaced and to a larger extent ex-urbanisation, contribute
to a growing consumer potential and purchasing power
combined with an appreciation for rural life attributes, at-
titudes and products. Therefore it is not surprising that par-
ticularly the provision of goods and services from farming
which are sensitive for local consumer demand – equine
services or regional and fresh products from horticulture
and organic cultivation – can be found in municipalities,
where these kinds of peri-urbanisation take place. This cor-
responds with previous findings which acknowledged the
relevance of direct consumer-producer-relationships, either
for organic vegetable production (Goy & Maack, 2008)
or for horse-keeping (Bailey et al., 2000). These spatial
compliances need to be seen against the background of
the densely populated urban fringe location, as particularly
population density account for a substantial effect within
the regression modelling. However, there is indication that
farm adaptation and diversification processes are fostered.
Accordingly, in-migration into the peri-urban seems not
only to lead to increased population density, but also to
an overproportional concentration of consumers that rep-
resent target groups for farmers with adaptive strategies.
The positive relationship to grassland cultivation remains
somewhat surprising and in contrast to research results
from Van Huylenbroeck et al. (2005), who address land
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1) 69
suitability issues as drivers for extensive farming schemes
in proximity to the city. Research results from Switzerland,
however, have confirmed the prevalence of extensive pro-
duction schemes in urbanised areas, without distinguishing
different types of peri-urbanisation (Tobias et al., 2005).
Retirement migration related anti-urbanisation entails
no significant or even negative relationship to multifunc-
tional farming activities, except from prevailing extensive
grassland management. It can be argued that landscape
management measures contributing to the amenity value of
the landscape, attract this type of amenity-driven retirement
migration. Hidden urbanisation, identified by successive
increase of out-commuters of active population, differs sub-
stantially from other types of peri-urbanisation regarding
the influence on multifunctional farming. Municipalities
which are subject to hidden urbanisation are characterised
by a general under-representation of multifunctional farm-
ing strategies. The absence of further consumer potential
affects particularly local market-sensitive activities, such
as horse-keeping or organic farming. On the other hand
large farm sizes in hidden urbanisation areas are rather
unexpected. Kristensen (1999) provides some reasoning,
as he revealed, that part-time and hobby farmer tend to
rent land to remaining farms, leading to stable farm sizes
despite decrease of full-time farming. Beyond other fac-
tors that trigger structural change, the increasing farm size
might be a result of more land availability due to farmers
quitting farm activities part time or completely in order to
take up employment in town – and becoming part of the
hidden urbanisation community.
Discussing the statistical analysis results on the relation-
ship between peri-urbanisation and farming, the effects of
location determinants are already recognised. The frame-
work conditions not only correlate significantly with the
spatial distribution of peri-urbanisation, they also influence
the farming practices on top of that. It is not surprising
that in areas with fertile clay-rich soils, such in the east
and south of the Sjaelland region extensive grassland and
horse-keeping is less prevalent. But there are even more
generally negative correlations between soil fertility and
multifunctional farming variables. Going multifunctional
is therefore obviously an adaptation strategy for farms in
less advantages site conditions. The same applies for the
effect of natural amenities on the concentration of leisure
oriented farming. Multifunctional farming orientations de-
crease with distance to the regional centre and decreasing
population density. Alongside with soil quality, Pfeifer
et al. (2009) suggest also other farm operational factors.
Institutional framework conditions, such as local and re-
gional policies have been put forward as important fac-
tor to encourage farmers to diversify and participate in
environmental programmes (Vandermeulen et al., 2006).
Not least, the importance of traditional growing regions
for horticulture and greenhouse production, such in some
municipalities of the Copenhagen region has be taken into
consideration for today’s production allocation.
Conclusion
In this paper, the spatial relationship between peri-urban-
isation as an in-migration process of urban dwellers into the
rural hinterland as well as socio-economic changes of local
residents on the one hand and the impact on and response
of farming in the region around Copenhagen on the other
hand was examined. Regarding the first research question,
distinctive spatial differences between the peri-urbanisation
processes – displaced-, ex-, anti- and hidden-urbanisation
were found. The analysis of the socio-economic transitions
in the Copenhagen region revealed that peri-urbanisation
is spatially constituted heterogeneously at a local level and
very much determined by location determinants. Proximity
to Copenhagen as the central city in the region and popula-
tion density has proven relevant for the spatial distribution,
whereas natural amenities play a much less important role.
Regarding the second research question, it was found that
peri-urbanisation around Copenhagen cannot be seen as a
uniform process which influences farm structure and man-
agement practises in the rural countryside. Instead, there
is indication that the spatial representation of the different
peri-urbanisation sub-processes accounts for a substantial
influence on farm adaptation strategies towards multifunc-
tionality. Increasing income levels, changing lifestyles and
age-structure, related to changing consumer demands for
local agricultural goods and services, such as organic food
or leisure services obviously contribute to a multifunctional
transition of farming in specific locations.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to highlight, that farming
in general, but multifunctional adaptation more specifically
are strongly depending of the political framework condi-
tions, like the European agricultural and rural develop-
ment policy. Particularly Rural Development Programmes
set incentives for such adaptations. But they do not yet
sufficiently consider the specific role and potentials of
peri-urban areas and sometimes even exclude them from
eligibility (Piorr et al., 2011). However, the different socio-
economic processes attached to peri-urbanisation trans-
forms framework conditions for farming and thus farming
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1)70
itself. Therefore its preservation for the future regional
development requires carefully targeted policy and support
which takes the specific peri-urban quality of agriculture
into consideration.
Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out within the FP6 Integrated
Project PLUREL – Peri-urban Land Use Relationships,
funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General
Research, Contract No. 36921. The authors would like to
thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions
and discussions.
References
Aner, L.G. (2009): Udflytninger fra København. Børnefami-
liers udflytninger og bostedsvalg i et hverdagslivsper-
spektiv. PhD disseration. Copenhagen, Faculty of Natu-
ral Sciences, University of Copenhagen and Centre for
Strategic Urban Research. [in Danish]
Antrop, M. (2000): Changing patterns in the urbanised
countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology
15(3): 257-270.
Antrop, M. (2004): Landscape change and the urbanisa-
tion process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning
67(1-4): 9-26.
Bailey, A., Williams, N., Palmer, M. & Geering, R. (2000):
The farmer as service provider: the demand for agri-
cultural commodities and equine services. Agricultural
Systems 66(3): 191-204.
Beauchesne, A. & Bryant, C. (1999): Agriculture and Inno-
vation in the Urban Fringe: The Case of Organic Farm-
ing in Quebec, Canada. Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie 90(3): 320-328.
Bertrand, N. (2007): Introduction: ESDP Ideals and the
Inheritance of Rural Planning Failures. Pp. 1-18 in: Ber-
trand, N. & Kreibich, V. (eds.): Europe’s city-regions
competitiveness: Growth regulation and peri-urban land
management. Assen, Royal Van Gorcum.
Briquel, V. & Collicard, J.-J. (2005): Diversity in the Rural
Hinterlands of European Cities. Pp. 19-40 in: Hoggart,
K. (ed.): The City’s Hinterland – Dynamism and Di-
vergence in Europe’s Peri-Urban Territories. Adlershot,
Ashgate.
Bryant, C.R., Deslauriers, P. & Marois, C. (1992): Diver-
sification strategies in agriculture in the rural-urban
fringe. Pp. 95-113 in: Mohammad, N. (ed.): Spatial
Dimensions of Agriculture. New Dehli, Concept Pub-
lishing Company.
Busck, A.G., Pilgaard Kristensen, S., Præstholm, S., Re-
enberg, A. & Primdahl, J. (2006): Land system chang-
es in the context of urbanisation: Examples from the
peri-urban area of Greater Copenhagen. Geografisk
tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 106(2): 21-34.
Busck, A.G., Kristensen, S.P., Præstholm, S. & Primdahl,
J. (2008): Porous landscapes – The case of Greater Co-
penhagen. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7(3):
145-156.
Cabus, P. & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2003): The economics of
rural areas in the proximity of urban networks: evidence
from Flanders. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Geografie 94(2): 230-245.
Caruso, G. (2001): Peri-urbanisation: the situation in Eu-
rope. A bibliographical note and survey of studies in the
Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, Italy
and the Nordic countries. Report prepared for DATAR,
France.
CEMAT (2007): Spatial development glossary. Strasbourg,
Council of Europe.
Champion, A.G., Fielding, A.J. & Keeble, D. (1989): Coun-
terurbanisation in Europe. The Geographical Journal
155: 52-80.
Danmarks statistik (1989): Statistiske efterretninger: Ar-
bejdsmarked. Copenhagen. [in Danish]
Danmarks statistik (2000): Landbrug 1999: statistik om
landbrug, gartneri og skovbrug. Copenhagen. [in Dan-
ish]
Danmarks statistik (2010): Statistikbanken. Available from:
www.dst.dk
Elgaker, H. & Wilton, B. (2008): Horse farms as a factor
for development and innovation in the urbanrural fringe
with examples from Europe and Northern America. For-
est & Landscape Working Papers 27.
Errington, A. (1994): The Peri-urban Fringe – Europe’s
Forgotten Rural-Areas. Journal of Rural Studies 10(4):
367-375.
European Commission (2003): Agriculture and the environ-
ment. Brussels, European Commission.
European Environment Agency (2010): Corine Land Cover
1990 and 2006. The European Topic Centre on Land
Use and Spatial Information. Available from www.eea.
europa.org
Goy, I.A. & Maack, K. (2008): Bundesweite repräsentative
Erhebung und Analyse der verbreiteten Produktions-
und Vermarktungssysteme und Aufbau eines bundes-
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1) 71
weiten Praxis-Forschungs-Netzwerkes im ökologischen
Gartenbau – Situation des ökologischen Gartenbaus in
Deutschland. Hannover, Leibniz Universität Hannover.
[in German]
Halfacree, K. & Boyle, P. (1998): Migration, rurality and
the post-productivist countryside. Pp. 1-20 in: Half-
acree, K. & Boyle, P. (eds.): Migration into rural areas:
theories and issues. Chichester, Wiley.
Halliday, J. & Coombes, M. (1995): In search of counter-
urbanisation: Some evidence from Devon on the rela-
tionship between patterns of migration and motivation.
Journal of Rural Studies 11(4): 433-446.
Herslund, L. & Fertner, C. (2010): Anti-urbanisation as
development chance for rural areas. In-migration and
self-employed business in the countryside around Co-
penhagen. Book of Abstracts, 72, Proceeding of the
Conference ‘Managing the Urban Rural Interface’, Uni-
versity of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19-22
October 2010.
Ilbery, B., Holloway, L. & Arber, R. (1999): The Geogra-
phy of Organic Farming in England and Wales in the
1990s. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geo-
grafie 90(3): 285-295.
Institut for Jordbrugsproduktion og Miljø: DJF geodata.
Det Jordbrugsvidenskabelige Fakultet. Aarhus Univer-
sitet. [in Danish]
Jongeneel, R.A., Polman, N.B.P. & Slangen, L.H.G. (2008):
Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional? Land
Use Policy 25(1):81-94.
Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen: Top10DK (Topographi-
cal map database of Denmark, 1:10000). Available
from: www.kms.dk/English/Maps+and+Topography/
Topographic+Data/Denmark+1-10000/
Kristensen, S.P. (1999): Agricultural land use and landscape
changes in Rostrup, Denmark: processes of intensifica-
tion and extensification. Landscape and Urban Planning
46(1-3): 117-123.
Kristensen, L. (2001): Agricultural change in Denmark
between 1982 and 1989: the appearance of post-produc-
tivism in farming? Geografisk tidsskrift 101(1): 77-86.
Lewan, N. (1969): Hidden Urbanisation in Sweden. Tijd-
schrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 60(3):
193-197.
Madsen, M.F., Kristensen, S.B.P., Fertner, C., Busck, A.G.
& Jørgensen, G. (2010): Urbanisation of rural areas:
A case study form Jutland, Denmark. Geografisk
Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(1): 47-63.
Miljøministeriet: Danmarks Miljøportal (The Danish Na-
ture & Environment Portal). Available from: http://kort.
arealinfo.dk
Mitchell, C.J.A. (2004): Making sense of counterurbanisa-
tion. Journal of Rural Studies 20(1): 15-34.
Nielsen, T.A.S. & Hovgesen, H.H. (2005): Urban fields
in the making: New evidence from a Danish context.
Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
96(5): 515-528.
Péron, J.Y. & Geoffriau, E. (2007): Characteristics and Sus-
tainable Development of Peri-Urban Vegetable Produc-
tion in Europe. ISHS Acta Horticulturae, International
Symposium on Horticultural Plants in Urban and Peri-
Urban Life: 159-170.
Pfeifer, C., Jongeneel, R.A., Sonneveld, M.P.W. & Stoorvo-
gel, J.J. (2009): Landscape properties as drivers for farm
diversification: A Dutch case study. Land Use Policy
26(4): 1106-1115.
Piorr, A., Müller, K., Happe, K. & Uthes, S. (2007): Agri-
cultural management issues of implementing multifunc-
tionality: commodity and non-commodity production in
the approach of the MEA-Scope project. Pp. 167-181
in: Mander, Ü., Wiggering, H. & Helming, K. (eds.):
Multifunctional Land Use: Meeting Future Demands
for Landscape Goods and Services. Berlin, Springer.
Piorr, A., Ravetz, J. & Tosics, I. (2011): Peri-urbanisation
in Europe: Towards a European Policy to Sustain Urban-
Rural Futures. A Synthesis Report. Frederiksberg, Uni-
versity of Copenhagen, Academic Books Life Sciences.
Primdahl, J. (1999): Agricultural landscapes as places of
production and for living in: owner’s versus produc-
er’s decision making and the implications for planning.
Landscape and Urban Planning 46(1-3): 143-150.
Præstholm, S. & Kristensen, S.P. (2007): Farmers as initia-
tors and farms as attractors for non-agricultural econom-
ic activities in peri-urban areas in Denmark. Geografisk
Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 107(2): 13-27.
Præstholm, S., Reenberg, A. & Kristensen, S.P. (2006):
Afforestation of European landscapes: How do dif-
ferent farmer types respond to EU agri-environmental
schemes? GeoJournal 67(1): 71-84.
Quetier, F.F. & Gordon, I.J. (2003): ‘Horsiculture’: How
important a land use change in Scotland? Scottish Geo-
graphical Journal 119: 153-158.
Robinson, G.M. (1990): Conflict and change in the coun-
tryside. Rural society, economy and planning in the
developed world. London, Belhaven Press.
Spectorsky, A.C. (1955): The exurbanites. Philadelphia,
Lippincott.
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(1)72
Tobias, S., Nuesch, A., Nebel, R. & Guilmain, A. (2005):
Suburbane Landwirtschaft oder Landschaftsmanage-
ment? Agrarforschung 12(7): 306-311. [in German]
Van Berkel, D.B. & Verburg, P.H. (2010): Sensitising rural
policy: Assessing spatial variation in rural development
options for Europe. Land Use Policy 28(3): 447-459.
Van den Vaart, J.H.P. (1991): Conversion of farmsteads:
Hidden urbanisation or a changing rural system? in: van
Oort G.M.R.A., van den Berg, L.M., Groenendijk, J.G.
& Kempers, H.H.M. (eds.): Limits to Rural Land Use:
Proceedings of an International Conference Organised
by the Commission on Changing Rural Systems of the
International Geographical Union, Amsterdam, Nether-
lands, 21-25 August 1990.
Van Huylenbroeck, G., Van Hecke, E., Meert, H., Vander-
meulen, V., Verspecht, A., Vernimmen, T., Boulanger,
A. & Luyten, S. (2005): Development strategies for a
multifunctional agriculture in peri-urban areas – Sum-
mary. Brussels, Belgian Science Policy.
Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vandermeulen, V., Mettepennin-
gen, E. & Verspecht, A. (2007): Multifunctionality of
Agriculture: A Review of Definitions, Evidence and
Instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research
1(3): 1-38.
Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A., Huylenbroeck, G., Meert,
H., Boulanger, A. & v. Hecke, E. (2006): The impor-
tance of the institutional environment on multifunctional
farming systems in the peri-urban area of Brussels. Land
Use Policy 23(4): 486-501.
Wilson, G. (2007): Multifunctional agriculture: a transition
theory perspective. Wallingford, CABI International.
Zasada, I., Alves, S., Müller, F. C., Piorr, A., Berges, R.
& Bell, S. (2010): International retirement migration
in the Alicante region, Spain: process, spatial pattern
and environmental impacts. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 53(1): 125-141.
Zasada, I. (2011): Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture
– A Review of societal demands and the provision of
goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28(4):
639-648.
Paper IV
Zasada, I., Berges, R., Hilgendorf, J. and Piorr, A. (in press). Horse-
keeping and the peri-urban development in the Berlin Metropolitan
Region. Journal of Land Use Science.
Journal of Land Use Science
iFirst, 2011, 1–16
Horsekeeping and the peri-urban development in the Berlin
Metropolitan Region
Ingo Zasadaa*, Regine Bergesa, Julia Hilgendorfband Annette Piorra
aLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Institute of Socio-Economics, Müncheberg,
Germany; bUniversity of Potsdam, Institute of Earth and Environmental Science, Potsdam, Germany
(Received 21 June 2011; final version received 28 September 2011)
This article examines the increasing phenomenon of horsekeeping on farms in the
Berlin urban fringe. Responding to a growing demand, the equine services became a
relevant farming activity in peri-urban agriculture. Although very common in other
metropolitan regions, there is only little empirical knowledge on the structure and
dimension of the horsekeeping activity. This article assesses farmers’ perspectives on
the agricultural environment and the contribution to peri-urban development. Potentials
and approaches to support diversifying transition of agriculture, environmental protec-
tion, maintenance of cultural landscape and nature and the recreational capacity of the
peri-urban landscape are explored. The analysis is based on data derived from a ques-
tionnaire survey among 59 horsekeeping farms in the case study area. Results confirm
that the particular peri-urban conditions with its strengths and weaknesses are acknowl-
edged by diversification activities taken by farms. The strategies taken resulted in four
different horsekeeping farm types, varying in aims and intensification.
Keywords: peri-urban area; farm type; diversification; specialisation; multifunctional;
landscape
Introduction
Agriculture and rural economy at the fringes of cities and metropolitan areas are undergo-
ing major transformations. Driven by increasing leisure time, consumerism and purchasing
power, the countryside surrounding urban areas has been discovered by an affluent urban
society as place for living and to spend time for leisure and recreation. At the same
time, peri-urban farming has been subject to urban pressures, conflicts and also devel-
opment opportunities. As the interface between urban settlements and rural hinterlands,
peri-urban areas are characterised by complex and fragmented landscape and land use pat-
tern, which undergoes a rapid housing development basically on the expense of farmland
(Piorr, Ravetz, and Tosics 2011). Affected by the economics of the urban land market, agri-
cultural areas nearby are comparably scarce and costly (e.g. Cavailhes and Wavresky 2003;
Munton 2009). Farm operations are limited by frequent regulatory restrictions, whereas
conflicts occur with residential neighbours. Subsequently, farmers have carried out strate-
gies to adapt and diversify activities to comply with these location challenges and the
‘new’ post- or non-productive demands (Heimlich and Barnard 1997; Ilbery, Healey, and
Higginbottom 1997; Zasada 2011).
*Corresponding author. Email: ingo.zasada@zalf.de
ISSN 1747-423X print/ISSN 1747-4248 online
© 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2011.628706
http://www.tandfonline.com
2I. Zasada et al.
Breeding and holding of horses represents a frequent example of these diversification
activities in Germany and Europe likewise. Especially, the role of keeping and riding of
horses as a leisure activity became more important for agriculture and economic develop-
ment of rural areas as it requires as broad range of services, such as feeding, stables and
equipment as well as training and health care causing substantial income and employment
effects (SLU 2001; Liljenstolpe 2009). Liljenstolpe (2009) has estimated the purchasing
costs of horses in Western Europe between 4000 and 7000 Euro and monthly stabling cost
of between 250 and 700 Euro, generating an employment effect of one full-time job per
three to seven horses in Germany.
However, there is only little empirical information on the spatial distribution and con-
centration, but a number of studies (e.g. Elgåker and Wilton 2008; Zasada, Fertner, Piorr,
and Nielsen 2011) suggest that horsekeeping for leisure purposes is a frequent and increas-
ing phenomenon in peri-urban areas, as it strongly depends on the urban demand, as Bailey,
Williams, Palmer, and Geering (2000) argue. Although the provision of equine services has
been typically carried out as sideline activity (e.g. Schaller 1995), it is also shown that a
large diversity of horsekeeping farms exists, for example, regular farms, hobby farmers or
professional large-scale holdings, which provide different on-farm equine services such as
riding schools, horse accommodation, therapeutic riding, fodder production or horse breed-
ing (Planck 2000). Liljenstolpe (2009, p.5) has highlighted the importance of horsekeeping
as economic factor in terms of the large expenses in the equine sector, the total sales and
the three to four full-time employees per horse in Germany. Based on the information of
German representatives, during the last years the estimated number of horses countrywide
remains stable around 1.1 million animals requiring 5.8% of the entire agricultural area for
grazing and fodder production. Along with the United Kingdom, Germany accounts for
the largest European horse population, despite medium densities per capita and per hectare
agricultural areas as compared to European average (Liljenstolpe 2009).
Contribution of horsekeeping to a sustainable peri-urban development
Responding to ecological, economic and societal demands and requirements, the model
of sustainable rural development has been put forward as an acknowledged agricultural
approach (van der Ploeg and Roep 2003). Apart from diversifying farm activities,
horsekeeping promotes different functions of a landscape. It fosters the economic output,
while contributing to the landscapes’ cultural values and impacting positively on the
environment. The economic importance of the equine industry for agriculture is confirmed
in several European studies (Bailey et al. 2000; Dockered 2000; Planck 2000; SLU 2001;
Neuwirth and Penker 2005; Schöner 2005; Liljenstolpe 2009; Elgåker 2011). On the one
hand, income is derived from leisure and tourism activities and related small enterprise
development (Dockered 2000; Planck 2000). On the other hand, horsekeeping farms
gain from funding for implementation of agri-environmental measures (Liljenstolpe
2009). Schöner (2005) has shown that especially horse accommodation is a growing farm
income source. Thus, horsekeeping generates employment opportunities and provides
perspectives for young farmers as Liljenstolpe (2009) and Dockered (2000) argue. In their
UK study, Bailey et al. (2000) found that horsekeeping also helps to keep less-productive
pastures in utilisation. Horses and horsekeeping are important means for the maintenance
of the cultural landscape and farm life, of which they traditionally have been part of
(Neuwirth and Penker 2005). The attractive landscape and the equine leisure services at
the urban fringe diversify the opportunities for city dwellers for close-by nature sports
and recreation. With regard to nature and environmental protection, horsekeeping is
Journal of Land Use Science 3
valuable for the conservation of endangered horse species (Dockered 2000). Furthermore,
their fodder requirements are highly adapted to the vegetation of extensively managed
grasslands, which are of special value for biodiversity and ecological functions. With
species-appropriate husbandry, horses can even preserve grasslands through grazing
(Seifert, Sperle, Raddatz, and Mast 2005). Otte (1994) has suggested a maximum of
20 animals per group and 1 horse per hectare should not be exceeded.
Synergies and conflicts of horsekeeping
The utilisation of synergies between different activities and functions and the mitigation of
conflicts between them represent an intrinsic strength of the rural development approach.
Elgåker and Wilton (2008) have confirmed several synergy effects with horsekeeping,
particularly concerning rural viability and employment. The EQUUS study (SLU 2001)
acknowledges horsekeeping as an important link between urban and rural lifestyles. As it
keeps pasture land under management, horsekeeping contributes to the preservation of the
cultural landscape and its ecological functions, such as biodiversity or hydrological bal-
ance (Rook and Tallowin 2003; Gibon 2005). The provision of equine service enriches the
opportunities of outdoor recreation, contributing substantially to the quality of life of resi-
dents and visitors. Further, horses are frequently deployed for educational and therapeutical
purposes (SLU 2001). Nevertheless, conflicts arise between different stakeholders, espe-
cially when equine land use dominates the region. In situations of a massive concentration
of horses and horse farms, the development used to be rather negatively connoted as ‘horsi-
culture’ (Ilbery 1991) or ‘horsification’ (Bomans, Steenberghen, Dewaelheyns, Leinfelder,
and Gulinck 2010). They particularly criticise the transformation of the landscape, which
is exclusively oriented to horsekeeping. The spatial accumulation of horse farms and
high stocking rates cause considerable environmental impacts (Elgåker and Wilton 2008).
Overgrazing, horse trampling, habitat fragmentation by fencing and high nutrient input
from manure lead to soil degradation, water pollution and loss of biodiversity, which are
especially issues in protected areas (Newsome, Cole, and Marion 2004; Newsome, Smith,
and Moore 2008). The landscape aesthetics and its cultural value are also affected as Bruns,
Ipsen, and Bohnet (2000) show. The overstocking and its negative consequences even lead
to prejudice against the employment of horses for nature conservation (Rook and Tallowin
2003). Neighbourhood conflicts with residents due to buildings, noise, manure or allergens
are often brought into the discussion by different scholars (Ravenscroft and Long 1994;
SLU 2001; Cazaux, Carels, and Van Gijseghem 2007; Elgåker and Wilton 2008; Bomans
et al. 2010). In peri-urban areas, conflicts arise especially between horse riders and dif-
ferent traffic participants, recreational users and agriculture (Persson 2003). Additionally,
higher car traffic volumes are caused by commuting riders (Neuwirth and Penker 2005;
Elgåker, Pinzke, Lindholm, and Nilsson 2010).
Research objective
Listening to scholars and commentators in workshops and discussion rounds of project
meetings and conferences, many stories are told about the growing agricultural phe-
nomenon of horsekeeping, particularly at urban fringes of metropolitan areas in the
Western world. But when browsing the scientific databases, astonishingly little peer-
reviewed research literature is available. Here and there the expansion of keeping horses
is under debate as a major land use development, particularly in peri-urban area, but argu-
mentation is hardly based on empirical evidence. Therefore, the objective of this article
4I. Zasada et al.
is to contribute some empirical knowledge to the scientific debate. The main aims are to
gain insights into the internal structure of the horse husbandry scene. Further, these results
shall be integrated into the wider context of peri-urban development. Addressing these
aims, three research questions have been raised to be answered through the research results
presented here: (1) Which types of horsekeepers can be differentiated? (2) How is the peri-
urban location evaluated by farmers and how do spatial distances to the urban area and the
farm type influence the evaluation? (3) What is the value of horsekeeping for the peri-urban
development?
Methodology and case study
Case study area
The case study region is located in the German Federal state of Brandenburg and
encompasses the 66 municipalities around Berlin. As delineation, the border of the
so-called sphere of mutual influence (engerer Verflechtungsraum) was used, which had
been normatively defined by the regional planning authorities to control urban growth
(MIL 2002). Together with the capital city of Berlin, this area constitutes the core
area of Berlin-Brandenburg Metropolitan Region. Some major cities such as Potsdam,
Oranienburg, Falkensee and Bernau are located there. It encompasses an area of about
4834 km2, which is about 16.4% of the area of Brandenburg and is populated by
1.035 million inhabitants in 2010, growing annually by about 1% during the last 10 years
(Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg). According to own calculations based on Corine
Land Cover 2000, about 15% of the area is used for settlement and infrastructure with a
majority characterised as suburban.
The 1,327,100 ha agricultural area in Brandenburg consists of 78.1% arable land and
21.5% pastures. Permanent crops play only a marginal role. Of the arable land 53% is used
for cereal production, 23% for forage and 15% for oilseeds (MIL 2010). The agricultural
orientation in the case study area is comparable. The farm structure is still influenced by
its historical, post-socialistic heritage with large farm sizes and the prevalence of juridical
enterprises (Gross 1996). Compared to the German average, a rather large-scale farm struc-
ture with an average 198 ha agricultural area per holding in 2007 was found (MIL 2010).
Particularly, the 11.3% large co-operatives of beyond 500 ha per holding operate on 69% of
the agricultural land. Tenure of land is particularly prevalent with 79.3% of the agriculture
areas. Due to low qualities of soils, consisting mainly of sand and clay as well as exten-
sive wetland and peat bog, farming in the region has to deal with less-favoured conditions.
Hence, approximately 35% of the agricultural area had been subject to financial support.
In Brandenburg, horsekeeping does not look back on a long tradition. Before the fall
of the wall, breeding and holding of horses represented a marginal activity in agricul-
ture. At that time, the productivist and industrial schemes with very large, output-oriented
farm co-operative dominated the agricultural structure. It is little surprising that 84% of
the farms, which participated in our survey, established the horsekeeping activity after
1989. Nowadays, horsekeeping is acknowledged as an important economic factor for the
rural development and tourism of the region (MIL 2008). According to the estimations of
the Brandenburg Ministry for Agriculture (MIL 2008), the number of horses increased to
approximately 34,000 horses in 2007 in the entire federal state of Brandenburg. From an
extrapolation of our survey, we assume that at least 10,000 to 15,000 of them are located
in the case study region. Figure 1 shows the municipalities of origin of all horsekeep-
ers included in the survey as an indication of the general spatial distribution. There is a
concentration of farms close to the city border as well as in proximity to other major cities
Journal of Land Use Science 5
Figure 1. Horse farms around Berlin. Data source: Landesverb and Pferdesport Berlin-
Brandenburg and Verband der Freizeitreiter, own illustration.
in the region. Further, horsekeeping farms are also frequent to the west and southwest
of Berlin, a part of the case study region which is characterised by higher incomes and
employment.
Questionnaire survey
The empirical study is based on a questionnaire survey of horsekeeping farmholders in the
case study area. Farm-specific data are not available from the agricultural authorities due
to data protection reasons. In addition, the coverage of those holdings, whose status are not
considered as legally agricultural, was required, because hobby farmers and specialised
equine service enterprises also hold horses. Therefore, we based our sample on a list of
members of both the regional horse sports association (Landesverband Pferdesport Berlin-
Brandenburg) and the horse riding association (Verband der Freizeitreiter). Together, we
obtained a sample size for the case study of 330 horsekeepers including professional
enterprises as well as hobby farmers. Based on in-depth interviews with experts from the
horse sports association and the Brandenburg Ministry for Agriculture (MIL), we compiled
6I. Zasada et al.
and pre-tested a questionnaire, which includes key themes on socio-economic character-
istics, including age, education, legal status of the holding, type of occupation, income
contribution from horsekeeping and farm management. Further questions addressed the
farmholders’ attitudes on the peri-urban framework conditions, strengths and weaknesses,
opportunities and threats. The questionnaire was sent out by postal mail in May and June
2010, obtaining a final response rate of 18% (N=59). Responses to the questionnaires
were further processed using the statistical software SPSS (version 12.0.1, IBM, Armonk,
New York, USA). Based on the socio-economic indicators of farmholder and farm struc-
ture, four different horsekeeping farm types have been identified by applying two-step
cluster analysis. With the delineation into classes of farms, we applied analysis of frequen-
cies and cross-tabulation with variables on their evaluation of the peri-urban framework
condition and provision of multiple functions and values. Non-parametric testing has been
carried out to measure significance levels.
Results
Types of horsekeeping farms
The cluster analysis of the holdings resulted in a differentiation of four generic types of
farms: the diversified traditional farm,theextensive horse-oriented farm,thehobby farm
and the intensive equine service farm. Table 1 shows an overview of the four different farm
types with its distinctive characteristics, defined by the cluster centroids.
Traditional farms, which have diversified their agricultural activities into horsekeeping
or breeding, represent the most frequent type of holding (34%). This farm type is char-
acterised by an agricultural status, large farm sizes and long tradition in farming. The
prevalence of extensive pasture areas indicates traditional farm activities in grazing animal
husbandry, such as cows and sheep. They are employment intensive with full-time work
orientation. The equine activities clearly represent a diversification measure. Seventy-five
per cent of the holdings had a farming tradition before they diversified their activities into
horsekeeping. Farmholders mainly see horsekeeping as an additional source of income
(75%) and a guarantee for employment until retirement (50%). In this context, it is impor-
tant to note that a majority of 70% of the cases foresee succession problems. Due to their
area potential, these farms typically rear large numbers of horses (average 45, but up to
135). Still, the stocking densities are comparably low as they possess large area of pasture
land. Half of the holdings put less than one horse per hectare. The second farm type, rep-
resenting 29% of all cases, is labelled as extensive horse-oriented farm, which is not found
in the direct urban fringe, but within a distance of 10–20 km. On comparably large pasture
areas, these farms feature medium stocking rates of 1.7 horses per hectare. The main dif-
ference to the previous type is that the large majority (94%) established the farm activity
with a horsekeeping purpose. They look back on a rather long tradition of horsekeeping,
have an agricultural status and own their land. A majority of holdings are run on part-
time (65%) or hobby (29%) basis. Farmholders are aged over average (54 years) and 76%
live on the farm. As the third type, hobby farmers represent the most atypical farm type.
They usually do not aim at income and employment generation, but they are rather leisure
and self-fulfilment oriented. There are only 0.8 full-time work equivalents per holding, land
tenure is very common (56% exclusively tenancy, 22% exclusively ownership) and special-
isations are hardly developed. Therefore, they are not considered officially as agricultural
enterprise. Hobby horsekeepers represent a comparably new phenomenon in the Berlin
peri-urban area (15 years on an average). The intensity of the land use is very low in differ-
ent respects. Numbers (10.4) and densities (1.3 per ha) of horses are under average. Also
Journal of Land Use Science 7
Table 1. Main characteristics of horsekeeping farm types.
Diversified
traditional
farm
Extensive
horse-oriented
farm
Hobby
farm
Intensive
equine service
farm
(N=20; 34%) (N=17; 29%) (N=9; 15%) (N=13; 22%)
Average time of farming
(in years)
35.1 20.4 14.2 16.1
Average time of horsekeeping
(in years)
18.1 20.2 15.4 17.1
Farm existence before
horsekeeping
Mainly yes Mainly no No answer No answer
Average age of farmer (in years) 48.5 54.0 50.1 45.4
Living on farm Partly Mainly yes Partly/no
answer
No/no answer
Succession arranged Mainly no Mainly yes Mainly yes/
no answer
Mainly no/no
answer
Employment in horsekeeping Mainly full
time
Mainly
part-time
Hobby Mainly part-time
Average employment on the
farm (in full-time equivalents)
2.5 1.7 0.8 2.3
Average number of horses 45.2 22.7 10.4 18.7
Average pasture area (in ha) 40.4 18.9 7.7 2.1
Average stocking density
(in horse/ha)
1.4 1.8 1.3 9.2
Legal agricultural status Yes yes no no
Receiver of financial aid for
pasture areas
Partly/all areas Partly/no area No answer No answer
Property situation Ownership/
tenancy
Mainly
ownership
Mainly tenancyMainly tenancy
Distance to Berlin
(0 =Berlin; 1 =0–10 km;
2=10–20 km; 3 =>20 km)
2.2 2.7 2.9 1.8
Data source: Own survey.
hobby farmers are found rather at the outer fringe with a distance of 10–20 km. Similar
to the second farm type, the intensive equine service farm type is characterised by its par-
ticular focus on the horsekeeping activity. But in contrast, it is highly intensive in terms
of employment (2.3 full-time equivalents per holding) and utilisation of very limited farm
land (2.1 ha pasture land; 9.2 horses per ha). The majority of 77% of the cases are located
within the first 10 km from the city border.
Peri-urban location
The results of the survey have shown the tendency that farmers highly value the peri-urban
location of their holdings. There is a general tendency across all types of farms and loca-
tion within the peri-urban area to emphasise the strengths and potentials and underrate the
weaknesses and threats. On the one side, high average values have been observed for ‘good
accessibility’ and ‘proximity to the city’. Both have even been considered as important cri-
teria for the establishment of the horsekeeping activity on the farm. ‘Medium-term land
competition with other non-agricultural land use’, ‘conflicts with neighbouring land use’
and ‘legal restrictions’ on the other side are evaluated less important. We also analysed the
8I. Zasada et al.
dependency of the farmer’s evaluation of the peri-urban framework conditions based on
their location in terms of distance to the city border of Berlin. Therefore, four classes of
distance have been assembled (within Berlin, <10 km, 10–20 km and >20 km). Looking
at the average evaluation within each class, we found an urban–rural slope within the eval-
uation pattern for some variables. The agreement for ‘good transportation situation’ and
‘importance of urban proximity for horsekeeping activity’ drop from 4.2 and 4.7 inside
Berlin to 2.4 and 2.8 in locations beyond 20 km distance. Average values for ‘land com-
petition with non-agricultural land use’ and ‘high land prices’ also decrease with further
distances from 2.7 and 4.2 to 1.3 and 2.4. For most of the variables, the significance level is
low. Only ‘urban proximity important for horsekeeping activity’ (0.01), ‘higher land prices
than in comparable rural areas” (0.00) and “land purchase limitations due to high land
prices’ (0.09) can be distinguished significantly by distance. For other value distributions,
the explanatory power is limited.
We furthermore analysed the dependency of the evaluation of the peri-urban frame-
work conditions based on the affiliation to a horsekeeping farm type. In contrast to the
distance-related analysis, we obtained significant results for a majority of variables, indi-
cating relevant influence (see Table 2). The perspective of diversified traditional farmers
onto the peri-urban location reveals an appreciation of the infrastructure situation in general
(4.6). Seventy-five per cent of the farmholders of this type completely agree that infras-
tructure accessibility is important for the horsekeeping diversification. The actual quality
of infrastructure is assessed as medium (3.2). Concerning deficits, limited area expan-
sion opportunities (4.4) and oversupply with equine service providers (3.9) are highlighted.
In return, conflicts with residential neighbours (2.5) and competition with non-agricultural
land uses (1.9) play a minor role. The extensive horse-oriented farm generally responds less
sensitively regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the peri-urban area. Especially
land competition threat (1.9), level of conflicts with neighbours (2.3), legal restrictions
(2.5) and rental contracts (1.7) are of marginal concern; 56% do not agree that short rental
contracts represent a problem for horsekeeping within the peri-urban area. Hobby farmers
tend to recognise only little advantage of the proximity to urban areas. For all variables,
the values are under average. As they operate farming activities on a non-economically
driven basis, this is particularly the case for the importance of infrastructure accessibility
(3.4) and urban proximity (3.3). Whereas over-average limitations for expansion (4.3) are
seen, high land prices (2.0) and short rental contracts (1.9) represent less-urgent issues.
Farmers who run an intensive equine service farm are most sensitive in evaluating the peri-
urban framework conditions. Ninety-two per cent of all cases agree with the importance of
accessibility, proximity to the city and the related urban demand. They also highly value the
actual situation of infrastructure availability (4.2) and existing demand (4.3). At the same
time, the urban pressure in terms of high land prices (4.1), limited expansion possibility
(4.0) and land competition with non-agricultural land uses (3.3) is well noticed.
Peri-urban development perspectives
As we could see, the horsekeeping farm sector in the case study region is rather hetero-
geneously structured. Hence, one can assume that the particular types of farm holdings
contribute differently to peri-urban development – in terms of multiple functions and val-
ues. Socio-economic development, environment and nature protection, maintenance of the
cultural landscape and education, leisure and tourism represent important elements of the
peri-urban development. Accordingly, the analytical framework of the study outlined in
Journal of Land Use Science 9
Table 2. Peri-urban location from the horsekeeper’s perspective.
Peri-urban
characteristicsa,b
Diversified
traditional
farm
Extensive
horse-oriented
farm
Hobby
farm
Intensive
equine service
farm Total Significancec
Strengths and opportunities
Infrastructure
situation
3.2 3.6 3.4 4.2 3.6 n.s.
Urban demand
situation
3.5 3.6 3.1 4.3 3.6 n.s
Importance of
urban
proximity
4.2 3.7 3.3 4.6 4.0 n.s.
Importance of
accessibility
4.6 4.6 3.4 4.9 4.5 0.04∗∗
Importance of
urban
demand
3.5 3.6 3.1 4.3 3.6 0.00∗∗
Weaknesses and threats
Limited
expansion
4.4 3.0 4.3 4.0 3.9 0.03∗∗
High land
prices
3.6 3.4 2.0 4.1 3.4 0.04∗∗
Competition
non-
agricultural
land use
1.9 1.9 3.3 3.3 2.4 0.00∗∗
Neighbourhood
conflicts
2.5 2.3 2.9 2.8 2.6 n.s.
Legal
restrictions
2.8 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.7 n.s.
Short rental
contracts
2.8 1.7 1.9 3.2 2.4 0.02∗∗
Oversupply
competition
3.9 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.5 0.09∗
Data source: Own survey.
a1=not agree; 2 =less agree; 3 =neutral; 4 =more agree; 5 =fully agree.
bMedium values within classes.
cn.s., no significance; ∗p<0.1; ∗∗p<0.05.
Figure 2 integrates farmers’ behaviours and attitudes towards aspects, such as the eco-
nomic activities and specialisations, employment and income, land management systems,
landscape management measures as well as fodder production and purchase.
Some general results are obtained from the survey. Regarding the economic devel-
opment, we found a high degree of professionalisation and primary income orientation;
horsekeeping as a diversification strategy is obviously underrepresented. Commonly, farms
had been established under a horsekeeping purpose. On an average, 1.5 horses are kept
per hectare and besides marginal exceptions they are kept on pastures. If necessary, the
overwhelming majority makes sure that the purchased fodder is of regional origin (71%)
and has a high share of raw fibre (85%) and herbs (67%). Forty-seven per cent of the
horsekeeping farms implement agri-environmental measures, basically as extensive pas-
ture management. Pesticides are applied by 19% of the farms, 42% apply regularly lime
and 62% use fertilisers. However, broken down to the farm types, we obtained a rather
10 I. Zasada et al.
Economic
development
Environment
and nature
protection
Cultural
landscape
Leisure and
recreation
Sustainable peri-urban development
Horsekeeping farms
Diversified
traditional farm
Extensive
horse-oriented farm Hobby farm Intensive equine
service farm
Figure 2. Analytical framework. Data source: Own illustration.
differentiated picture. Table 3 shows the main activities and behaviour characteristics as
the farm contributes to the development of a peri-urban countryside.
Mainly, already experienced in grazing animals husbandry of other kind, the diversi-
fied traditional farm established horsekeeping as an on-farm diversification activity as an
additional contribution to income generation. They show a clear economic motivation to
make use of the increasing urban demand. They are characterised by a strong ecological
and landscape contribution. Through large average farm sizes and more remote locations,
these farms commonly can apply extensive agri-environmental measures. Together with
the operation in nature protection areas and less-favoured areas, they contribute to the
maintenance of the habitats and cultural landscape. They also keep less-productive farm-
land in operation. On the one hand, they emphasise nature-friendly management methods,
such as late mowing and regional-specific grass composition. On the other hand, the appli-
cation of fertilisers, lime and pesticides is over average. Extensive horse-oriented farms
typically provide a rather large spectrum of services related with horsekeeping, including
horse accommodation and rental as well as farm tourism offerings. Little less common
are social and educational services, such as riding schools and therapies. These enter-
prises are operated as specialised and economic-oriented equine services. Despite that,
the horsekeepers highlight their strong environmental consciousness, but only one out of
four implement agri-environmental measures. A high share of herbs and grasses is seen as
important for their own fodder production. Run only for the leisure purposes of the owner,
hobby farms hardly contribute to employment and income generation of the peri-urban
farming community. Nevertheless, as they frequently cultivate former set aside land, they
play a relevant role in the development of the cultural landscape. With their very exten-
sive farm management approach, including low degrees of fertilising, liming and pesticide
loads, they maintain cultural landscape and protect nature and environment. The perspec-
tives of intensive equine service farms look different. Their marginal farm sizes do not
allow strong spatial impact on the landscape. They neither grow their own fodder, nor do
they apply landscape measure of some kind. According to the farmers’ responses, they
pay least attention to the regional origin of the purchased fodder. These farms’ value for
the peri-urban development derives from their socio-economic importance related to their
Journal of Land Use Science 11
Table 3. Contribution of farm types to the peri-urban development.
Diversified traditional farm
- Horsekeeping as diversification measure∗∗
- Large number of horsekeeping activities and specialisations∗∗
- Common cultivation in nature protection areas (50%)
- Implementation of agri-environmental measures (35%)∗
- Over average application of fertilisers (70%), lime (25%)∗and pesticides (25%)
- Cultivation in least favoured area (60%)∗∗
- Common late mowing (58%)
- Regional-specific grass composition among own production (76%)
Extensive horse-oriented farm
- Large number of horsekeeping activities (65% horse pension, 28% tourism &
horse-rental service)∗∗
- Social and educational services (28% therapy services)∗∗
- Environmental consciousness (77%)
- Implementation of agri-environmental measures (24%)∗
- High share of herbs (71%) and grasses (100%) among own production
- Regional species composition in purchased fodder (71%)
Hobby farm
- Low degree of economic activities∗∗
- Maintenance of land cultivation (>50% on previously set aside area)
- Environmental consciousness (67%)
- Low application of fertilisers (56%), lime (11%)∗and pesticides (11%)
- Seldom building construction (14%)
- No implementation of agri-environmental measures∗
- High share of herbs (87%)∗∗ and raw fibre (100%) in purchased fodder
Intensive equine service farm
- Alternative to housing development (57% expect conversion threat)
- Income and employment oriented∗∗
- Leisure service provider (85% horse pension)∗∗
- Social and educational services (62% therapy services)∗∗
- Over average application of fertilisers (77%), lime (33%)∗and pesticides (11%)
- Located close to the city (77% within a distance of 10 km from the city border)
- No implementation of agri-environmental measures∗
- No own fodder production
- Importance of regional origin of purchased fodder (83%)
Note: ∗p<0.1; ∗∗p<0.05.
Data source: Own survey.
income and employment intensity. Beyond typical horse accommodation business they
offer a multitude of equine services from leisure to education and therapy. Due to a strong
economic motivation and a high degree of specialisation, they can be considered as profes-
sional leisure service provider, rather than a regular agricultural holding. The concentration
of intensive equine service farms close to the city confirms their dependency on consumer
accessibility. They require open farmland and provide a reasonable economic alternative
to housing development.
Discussion
The research findings discussed here are based on a questionnaire survey among
59 horsekeeping farmers in the peri-urban area around Berlin. The small sample size
12 I. Zasada et al.
and response rate require careful interpretation regarding the suitability to allow general
conclusions about the horsekeeping in the case study area and elsewhere. To reveal the
peri-urban specifics, a research extension into a comparable remote rural area would con-
tribute to the identification of characteristic differences. Yet, the following discussion and
conclusions aim at giving answers to the previously formulated research questions.
Horsekeeping farm types
Horsekeeping activities are seen as a continuing trend in the farming communities around
metropolitan areas, leaving open questions regarding the evaluation in terms of impacts
on landscape and sustainable development of the peri-urban fringes. Therefore, it is very
important to highlight that there is not at all such a thing like the horsekeeping farm.
Instead, our empirical survey has indicated that this phenomenon needs to be carefully
differentiated. In accordance with the Swedish results of Planck (2000), we identified in our
case study region around Berlin four distinctive types of horsekeeping farms, characterised
by the socio-economic background of the farmholder, farm size and structure as well as
the extent and intensity of horsekeeping. We found regular, traditional farms, which made
use of the existing pasture land seeking additional source of income, safeguarding farm
survival. Other farms have been established on horsekeeping purpose, but show intensity
differences in horsekeeping. Some of those are even more similar to other leisure facilities
at the urban fringe, such as tennis centres or sports halls. Not least, a relevant share of hobby
farmers, private persons keeping horses, riding clubs and so forth have been found. They
tend to be small in size and less intensive in management as these farms hardly follow
economic objectives. One might easily understand that this diversity plays an important
role for the assessment of impact, regulation and support measures in peri-urban planning
and policy.
Peri-urban location
The farmers’ evaluation of the peri-urban area as an environment to keep horses has shown
that there is a clear tendency to appreciate the advantages of the proximity to and acces-
sibility of the urban area nearby, with its concentration of demand from affluent, leisure
and lifestyle-oriented people. It is expressed by the respondents that these peri-urban
framework conditions represent economically necessary requirements to run horse-related
activities. In return, disadvantages and urban pressures, for example, limited availability
and competition for land or conflict situation, are considered less dramatic. It contrasts
other research results (Ravenscroft and Long 1994; Elgåker and Wilton 2008), which stress
the attachment of horsekeeping with a multitude of neighbourhood conflicts. This contra-
diction might be justified by the low degree of concentration of horsekeeping activities and
farms compared to other regions. Still, it is clearly indicated that with increasing adjacency
to the city, conflicts and operational constraints are seen as more critical, particularly high
land prices and competition with other non-agricultural land uses. The inclusion of the
farm type delineation into the evaluation analysis has proven meaningful. Significant dif-
ferences within the evaluation pattern were observed. The varying perspectives of farmers
on the peri-urban environment can be explained by differences in aims and motivations
of the farm types, which have a major influence on the requirements for their farming
business. Hobby farmers do not follow any economic approach of generating additional
income from the horsekeeping activity. Thus, they are simply not affected by whether or
not horse riders can easily reach their farm, except themselves. In contrast, farms that have
Journal of Land Use Science 13
specialised on horsekeeping as the main occupation respond much more sensitively on the
availability and accessibility of potential urban consumers. Also, conflicts with neighbours
and legal constraints appear much more frequent on intensive equine service farms, caused
by noise, odour and aesthetic insufficiencies of heavily used paddocks and stables as well
as car traffic from visitors.
Contribution to the peri-urban development
Like other agricultural activities, horsekeeping too contributes on different levels to the
rural development – the economic rural development, the protection of nature and environ-
ment, the maintenance of the cultural landscape as well as to the leisure and recreational
capacity. Depending on their activities and management schemes, the different types of
farms deliver different values and functions for the countryside around urban areas.
Horsekeeping in the region is characterised by a high degree of specialisation. Only to
some extent, it also repesents a diversification strategy. As a response to prevalent urban
demand, farms often have been newly established to provide adequate equine service offers.
The most common horse accommodation and rental, riding schools and also therapeu-
tical services are directly aimed at an urban public. Activities like horse pensions have
been recognised earlier as particularly income relevant (Schöner 2005). Employment and
income generation represents another relevant aspect, as the large share of holdings with
main occupation in agriculture and horsekeeping indicates. The research results at hand
have additionally raised another point: horsekeeping might represent an opportunity to
keep less-favoured areas in utilisation. This is especially the case for diversified traditional
and hobby farms. In this sense, the research results of Bailey et al. (2000) are confirmed.
For the less-productive pasture areas, horsekeeping represents an economically reasonable
alternative to cattle husbandry or even the setting aside of farmland.
Regarding the environmental impacts, horsekeeping has to be seen as ambivalent.
On the one hand, it represents a very extensive type of land use due to low livestock unit
densities, more extensive than cattle husbandry or arable land use. The pasture manage-
ment has to correspond to the roughage fodder requirements of horses. It includes a high
share of herbs and low levels of fertilisers and pesticides, which is in conformity with
nature protection objectives. Grasses are mown late, encompass a high diversity of plant
species and have a region-specific composition of grass types. Particularly the large-scale
farms commonly operate in nature protection zones and implement agri-environmental
measures. On the other hand, a concentration of intensive equine service farms has been
recognised at the urban fringe. With their high horse stocking rates, environmental impacts
already connected to horsekeeping (Elgåker and Wilton 2008) need to be assumed. With
average 9.2, but up to 52 horses per hectare, grazing overuse, high pesticide loads and large
manure amounts would not surprise to negatively affect the environment.
Based on the research results, horsekeeping can be seen as type of land use, which
to a large extent contributes to the maintenance of the cultural landscape. Pastures and
horses represent important elements of the open landscape. Pasture land, especially in less-
favoured areas like in this case study area, is kept in operation through horsekeeping.
Particularly, hobby farmers additionally tend to keep redundant farm buildings in use.
Moreover, it was found that more farms participate in landscape management measures
than the average for the whole region of Brandenburg. From an aesthetical perspective, the
evaluation depends more on the degree of concentration. Destroyed turfs, accumulation
of fenced paddocks and density of stables are rather detrimental to the visual landscape
appearance. Therefore, a similar divide of the farm types is necessary for the environmental
14 I. Zasada et al.
impacts – the extensive and hobby farms, on the one side, and the intensive equine special-
ists, on the other side. However, a general positive appraisal that horses (and horsekeeping
farms) play an important role to maintain cultural landscape as Neuwirth and Penker
(2005) as well as Liljenstolpe (2009) concluded can be agreed. However, there is some
controversy, about to which extent the expansion of horsekeeping activities can be consid-
ered as a favourable land use development (see Bomans et al 2010). The differentiation
of types of horsekeeper yields some clarification, as they show how heterogeneously the
horsekeeping community is structured. Whereas the intensive service provider is more
similar to other non-agricultural leisure facilities at the urban fringes, horsekeeping at
diversifying and extensive pasture farms represents an important contribution to a viable
farming community.
Horse riding represents a growing outdoor activity in peri-urban areas. Hence,
horsekeeping farms contribute to the countryside’s capacity to perform recreational activ-
ities. It was found that farm tourism diversification is marginal, which might be justified
by the peri-urban location as the adjacency to the city counteracts the tourism purpose, for
which people seek remoteness and prefer rural areas instead. Regarding the horse riding
itself, Persson (2003) put forward the multitude of conflicts with other recreational activi-
ties, such as cycling and hiking as they often use the same tracks and paths. But according
to the horsekeepers’ perspectives, these conflicts are not common in the case study area.
Conclusion
Answering the first research question, we have revealed that the horsekeeping sector is
very heterogeneously structured. Four characteristic horsekeeping farm types have been
identified in our case study area. They are basically distinguished by motivation and inten-
sity of horsekeeping. This differentiation should carefully be taken into consideration for
impact assessment and policymaking for agriculture and rural development. Responding
to research question two, it is concluded that the peri-urban framework conditions are gen-
erally positively evaluated by farmers. The distance to the city and more significantly the
affiliation to a farm type represent influential factors for the farmers’ attitude. Addressing
the last question, it can be concluded that the entirety of the diverse horsekeeping farms
contributes to some extent to a multifunctional peri-urban development, although many
of them are not very multifunctional themselves. Many are either highly specialised on
one activity, like horse accommodation, or the horsekeeping serves solely the pleasure and
well-being of the farmholder. But in their sum, they have the potential to make a contribu-
tion to environmental protection and the maintenance of the cultural landscape. They also
represent a highly relevant economic activity, ensuring farm survival in an urban stressed
and pressured agricultural environment.
Acknowledgements
This work was carried out within the FP6 Integrated Project PLUREL – Peri-urban Land
Use Relationships, funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General Research, Contract
No. 36921.
References
Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg (State Statistical Institute Berlin-Brandenburg), (2011),
http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/.
Journal of Land Use Science 15
Bailey, A., Williams, N., Palmer, M., and Geering, R. (2000), “The Farmer as Service Provider:
The Demand for Agricultural Commodities and Equine Services,” Agricultural Systems, 66,
191–204.
Bomans, K., Steenberghen, T., Dewaelheyns, V., Leinfelder, H., and Gulinck, H. (2010), “Underrated
Transformations in the Open Space - the Case of an Urbanized and Multifunctional Area,”
Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, 196–205.
Bruns, D., Ipsen, D., and Bohnet, I. (2000), “Landscape Dynamics in Germany,” Landscape and
Urban Planning, 47, 143–158.
Cavailhes, J., and Wavresky, P. (2003), “Urban Influences on Periurban Farmland Prices,” European
Review of Agricultural Economics, 30, 333–357.
Cazaux, G., Carels, K., and Van Gijseghem, D. (2007), Prospects and Challenges for Agricultural
Diversification in a Peri-urban Region (Flanders – Belgium), Brussels: Vlaamse Overheid,
Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij.
Dockered, D. (2000), “Hästen – En Resurs I Dagens Samhälle,” K.Skogs-o.Lantbr.Akad.Tidskr,
134(4), 9–11.
Elgåker, H. (2011), “Horse Keeping in Peri-urban Areas,” Ph.D. dissertation, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.
Elgåker, H., Pinzke, S., Lindholm, G., and Nilsson, C. (2010), “Horse Keeping in Urban and Peri-
urban Areas: New Conditions for Physical Planning in Sweden,” Danish Journal of Geography,
110, 81–98.
Elgåker, H., and Wilton, B. (2008), “Horse farms as a factor for development and innovation in the
urban-rural fringe with examples from Europe and Northern America.” in Proceedings from 10th
Annual Conference,Nordic-Scottish University for Rural and Regional Development, pp. 43–55.
Gibon, A. (2005), “Managing Grassland for Production, the Environment and the Landscape.
Challenges at the Farm and the Landscape Level,” Livestock Production Science, 96, 11–31.
Gross, N. (1996), “Farming in Former East Germany: Past Policies and Future Prospects,” Landscape
and Urban Planning, 35, 25–40.
Heimlich, R.E., and Barnard, C.H. (1997), “Agricultural Adaptation to Urbanization: Farm Types and
Agricultural Sustainability in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” in Rural Sustainability Development in
America, ed. I. Audirac, New York: Wiley and Sons, pp. 283–303.
Ilbery, B.W. (1991), “Farm Diversification as an Adjustment Strategy on the Urban Fringe of the
West Midlands,” Journal of Rural Studies, 7, 207–218.
Ilbery, B.W., Healey, M., and Higginbottom, J. (1997), “On and Off-Farm Business Diversification by
Farm Households in England,” in Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability: A Geographical
Perspective, eds. B. Ilbery, Q. Chiotti and T. Rickard, Wallingford: CAB International,
pp. 135–151.
Liljenstolpe, C. (2009), Horses in Europe, Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
27 pp.
MiL. (2002), Gemeinsamer Landesentwicklungsplan Für Den Engeren Verflechtungsraum
Brandenburg-Berlin, Potsdam: Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umweltschutz und
Raumordnung.
MiL. (2008), Agrarbericht 2008 Des Landes Brandenburg, Potsdam: Ministerium für Ministerium
für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg.
MiL. (2010), Agrarbericht 2010 Des Landes Brandenburg, Potsdam: Ministerium für Ministerium
für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg.
Munton, R. (2009), “Rural Land Ownership in the United Kingdom: Changing Patterns and Future
Possibilities for Land Use,” Land Use Policy, 26, S54–S61.
Neuwirth, J., and Penker, M. (2005), “Regionalökonomische Effekte Der Pferdehaltung Im
Mittleren Wienerwald,” in Jahrbuch Der Österreichischen Gesellschaft Für Agrarökonomie,ed.
K. Pistrich, Wien: Facultas, pp. 191–206.
Newsome, D., Cole, D.N., and Marion, J.L. (2004), “Environmental Impacts Associated with
Recreational Horse-Riding,” in Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism, ed. R. Buckley,
Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 61–82.
Newsome, D., Smith, A., and Moore, S.A. (2008), “Horse Riding in Protected Areas: A Critical
Review and Implications for Research and Management,” Current Issues in Tourism, 11,
144–165.
Otte, U. (1994), “Freizeitreiten - Chance Oder Belastung? Artgerechte Pferdehaltung Als Alternative
Für Landwirte,” Naturschutz Und Landschaftsplanung, 26, 32–35.
16 I. Zasada et al.
Persson, H. (2003), “Planering för tätortsnära ridning – mer än bara ridhu,” Special Meddelande
No.244, Alnarp, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agricultural
Biosystems and Technology, 144 pp.
Piorr, A., Ravetz, J., and Tosics, I. (eds.) (2011), “Peri-urbanisation in Europe: Towards a European
Policy to Sustain Urban-Rural Futures,” A Synthesis Report. Frederiksberg: University of
Copenhagen/Academic Books Life Sciences.
Planck, C. (2000), “Lantbruksföretag Med Hästhållning,” K.Skogs-o.Lantbr.Akad.Tidskr, 134(4),
33–39.
Ravenscroft, N., and Long, H.A.R. (1994), “Horses in the Countryside: Conflict or Co-operation?,”
Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 155, 79–86.
Rook, A.J., and Tallowin, J.R.B. (2003), “Grazing and Pasture Management for Biodiversity Benefit,”
Animal Research, 52, 181–189.
Schaller, A. (1995), Pferdehaltung im ländlichen Raum und ihre Bedeutung für Mensch und Umwelt,
Munich: Technical University Munich.
Schöner, C. (2005), “Pensionspferdehaltung in Großstadtnähe - Eine Chance Für Die
Landwirtschaft? Das Beispiel Der Landkreise Erlangen-Höchstadt Und Forchheim,”
Mitteilungen Der Fränkischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 52, 99–113.
Seifert, C., Sperle, T., Raddatz, J., and Mast, R. (2005), Dokumentation Und Handreichung
Zur Biotoppflege Mit Pferden, Stuttgart: LUBW Landesanstalt für Umwelt, Messungen und
Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg.
SLU (2001), The Horse Industry in the European Union. Final Report, EU Equus (2001), Uppsala,
Sweden: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.
van der Ploeg, J.D., and Roep, D. (2003), “Multifunctionality and Rural Development: The Actual
Situation in Europe,” in Multifunctional Agriculture. a New Paradigm for European Agriculture
and Rural Development, eds. G. Van Huylenbroeck and G. Durand, Aldershot: Ashgate,
pp. 37–53.
Zasada, I. (2011), “Multifunctional Peri-urban Areas – a Review of Societal Demands and
Agricultural Provision of Goods and Services,” Land Use Policy, 28(4), 639–648.
Zasada, I., Fertner, C., Piorr, A., and Nielsen, T.S. (2011), “Peri-urbanisation and Multifunctional
Agriculture around Copenhagen, Denmark,” Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of
Geography, 111(1), 59–72.
Paper V
Zasada, I. (2011). Peri-urban Adaptation Strategies of Horticultural Farms
in the Berlin Metropolitan Area. Cahiers Thématiques 11 ‘Agriculture
métropolitaine /Métropole agricole’: 131-140.
Cahiers thématiques
Architecture et Paysage conception / territoire / histoire
Cet ouvrage a été réalisé avec le concours du ministère de la
Culture et de la Communication, direction de l’architecture et
du patrimoine, sous-direction des formations, des métiers et
de la recherche architecturale et urbaine.
Direction et coordination du numéro :
Jennifer Buyck, Xavier Dousson et Philippe Louguet
Comité scientifique :
Séverine Bridoux-Michel, Jennifer Buyck,
Denis Delbaere, Xavier Dousson, Isabelle Estienne,
Philippe Louguet, Armelle Varcin
Charte graphique : Sébastien Frémont, ENSAPL
Maquette et secrétariat : Isabelle Charlet, LACTH
Traductrice : Susan Leclerc, LYS Translations
Responsables de publication :
Richard Klein, Philippe Louguet et Frank Vermandel
Administration / Édition : École nationale supérieure
d’architecture et de paysage de Lille
2, rue Verte, Quartier de l’Hôtel de Ville
F-59650 Villeneuve d’Ascq
Tél. 03 20 61 95 50 - Fax 03 20 61 95 51
http://www.lille.archi.fr
Imprimerie :
Schaubroeck, Nazareth (Belgique)
Distribution / Diffusion :
Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme
54 Boulevard Raspail Paris Cedex 06
vente en ligne : http://www.lcdpu.fr
ISSN : 1625- 9505
ISBN : 978-2-905865-04-5
© Éditions de l’École nationale supérieure
d’architecture et de paysage de Lille, décembre 2011
La diffusion de l’ensemble des numéros des Cahiers thématiques
est assurée par les Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme
Cahiers thématiques
Architecture et Paysage conception / territoire / histoire
Agriculture métropolitaine /
Métropole agricole
Publication du LAboraroire Conception Territoire Histoire (LACTH)
de l’École nationale supérieure d’architecture et de paysage de Lille
Pôle de recherche et d’Enseignement Supérieur
Université Lille Nord de France
131
Cahiers thématiques N°11
Introduction
Horticulture in Peri-urban Areas
Historically, cities depend heavily on food supplies from the surrounding countryside.
Following the large-scale, spatial de-coupling of production-consumption-chains, there
has recently been a surge in urban preferences for regional high value and fresh pro-
ducts, particularly from horticulture, reflecting higher standards of living, health and
environmental awareness1. Today, on the fringes of numerous Metropolitan areas, you
can find green belts such as the ‘Ceinture verte’ outside Paris or the ‘Huerta’ in Valencia,
which specialise in horticulture and high-value crop production like vegetables, herbs,
fruit and ornamental plants2. The importance of location in agricultural production, as
defined by its distance to a central city (as already described in the classic model by Von
Thünen) 3,is experiencing a renaissance.
However, horticulture in peri-urban areas is faced with specific challenges, characte-
rised by urban pressure and opportunities, which require adapted activities. As urban
growth occurs almost exclusively on farmland, fertile land is lost and the number of
farms decreases. In addition, when urban areas and agriculture are in close contact,
multiple tensions and conflicts arise, such as vandalism, theft and trespassing, as well as
legal restrictions. In peri-urban areas, farming has to compete on the land market with
non-agricultural land uses and higher rents, land speculation4 and complex, fragmented
ownership patterns and property rights, such as short-term contracts5. On the other
hand, urban agglomerations also provide specific development opportunities, particu-
larly for high-value horticultural crop production. With functioning urban-rural-rela-
tionships, accessibility to urban consumers brings with it the comparative advantages of
flexible and innovative adaptation to changing demand and the identification of market
niches, i.e. organic production6. Farm products are more easily marketed directly by
farm-gate purchase, farmers’ markets or food box networks7. Due to their small-scale
structure, it is argued, that the horticulture sector in particular requires different modes
of marketing as well as strong horizontal cooperation8. Diversification into agricultural
businesses, non-farming activities and off-farm employment has also been observed in
peri-urban areas9.
Research Objective
With the catching-up process following the political isolation of Western Berlin, the city
has regained its relationship with the peri-urban hinterland, including as a regional food
source. Increasingly, horticultural farm owners have adapted their production and mar-
keting to the urban market. However, like farming styles, structures and farm owners’
perspectives differ, and adaptation strategies are also highly heterogeneous and mul-
Ingo Zasada
Peri-urban Adaptation Strategies of Horticultural Farms
in the Berlin Metropolitan Area
132
1- Zasada (Ingo), “Multifunctional peri-urban areas – A Review
of societal demands and agricultural provision of goods and
services”, Land Use Policy, 2011, in press.
2- Péron (Jean-Yves) et Geoffriau (Emanuel), “Characteristics
and Sustainable Development of Peri-Urban Vegetable Pro-
duction in Europe”, Acta Horticulturae, n°762, 2007, p. 159-
170.
3- Von Thünen (Johann H.), The Isolated State, Oxford, Perga-
mon Press, 1966, 304 p.
4- Robinson (Guy M.), Geographies of agriculture: globali-
sation, restructuring and sustainability, Harlow, Pearson,
2004, 331 p.
5- Munton (Robert), “Rural land ownership in the United
Kingdom: Changing patterns and future possibilities for land
use”, Land Use Policy n°26, 2009, p. S54-S61.
6- Matzdorf (Bettina) and Piorr (Annette), “Städte nicht links
liegen lassen”, LandInForm n°3, 2010, p. 48-49.
7- Jarosz (Lucy), “The city in the country: Growing alternative
food networks in Metropolitan areas”, Journal of Rural Stud-
ies n°24, 2008, p. 231-244.
8- Péron (Jean-Yves) et Geoffriau (Emanuel), op. cit.
9- Præstholm (Søren) and Kristensen (Søren P.), “Farmers as
initiators and farms as attractors for non-agricultural econo-
mic activities in peri-urban areas in Denmark”, Geografisk
Tidsskrift, n°107(2), 2007, p. 13-27.
10- Piorr (Annette) and Matzdorf (Bettina), “Environmental
impact assessment of rural development programme of Bran-
denburg state, Germany”, in Proceedings of the 87th EAAE
Seminar Assessing Rural Development Policies of the Com-
mon Agricultural Policy. Vienna, April 21-23, 2004, p. 177-
195.
11- Siebert (Rosemarie), Dosch (Axel) and Volgmann (Alexan-
dra), Arbeit und Einkommen im ländlichen Raum: Chan-
cen durch Diversifizierung, Potsdam, Ministerium für Infras-
truktur und Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg, 2009,
41 p.
12- Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umweltschutz und Rau-
mordnung (MLUR), Gemeinsamer Landesentwicklungsplan
für den engeren Verflechtungsraum Brandenburg-Berlin,
Potsdam, Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umweltschutz und
Raumordnung, 2002, 64 p.
13- Gemeinsame Landesplanungsabteilung Berlin-Branden-
burg (GL), Raumordnungsbericht 2008, Potsdam, Gemeinsame-
Landesplanungsabteilung Berlin-Brandenburg, 2008, 134 p.
tifaceted within the horticultural sector, as previous re-
search in the area suggests10, 11. The aim of this study is to
enhance our understanding of farm owners’ perspectives
and their evaluation of the peri-urban location, and to
gain insights into their adaptation strategies and motiva-
tion in relation to the immediate context. Moreover, addi-
tional knowledge on specific farm-related differences in
development trajectories needs to be identified.
Case Study of the Berlin Metropolitan Area
The Berlin Metropolitan area consists of two Federal states,
Brandenburg and Berlin. Its central area includes 66 muni-
cipalities around Berlin and the city itself. Delineated by
the regional planning authorities to control urban growth,12
this so-called sphere of mutual influence (engerer Verflech-
tungsraum) can be regarded as a peri-urban area. It em-
braces an area of around 5,400 km² and is populated by
about one million inhabitants (2006), that has been stea-
dily growing at a rate of an additional 75,000 inhabitants
since 200013. According to calculations based on the Corine
Land Cover 2000, about 15% of the area is used for settle-
ment and infrastructure, with the most of the area charac-
terised as suburban.
Farming in the case study area is affected by less favou-
rable conditions of low quality soils, consisting mainly of
sand and clay, as well as extensive wetland and peat bog.
However, horticulture features a number of cultivation tra-
ditions of nationwide importance, such as asparagus, fruit
trees and cucumber. In 2005, the Brandenburg agricul-
tural census counted over 800 holdings with primary or
secondary occupation in horticulture, with production
covering 12,000 ha of agricultural land14. Although horti-
culture represents only 0.9% of the total agricultural area
and 12% of the total holdings, it accounts for about 20%
of the net value added of the entire farming sector, illus-
trating its economic relevance15. As figure 1 shows, horti-
cultural production is spatially concentrated in the tradi-
tional growing areas of Potsdam-Mittelmark, South-west
III. Analyse critique de situations et dispositifs agri-métropolitains
133
Cahiers thématiques N°11
(36%) and Märkisch Oderland, East of Berlin (17%), both encompassing large parts of
the Berlin peri-urban area, although accurate figures are not available16.
Methodology
To capture in-depth personal insights, this work builds on a qualitative inquiry of a few,
very carefully selected prototypical and information-rich cases. This methodology was
chosen as the most suitable to explore individual experience and to secure high density
information, required for further interpretation17. To reflect on the presumed heteroge-
Fig. 1: Number and cultivation area (in ha) of Horticultural farms in Brandenburg per county 2005, Data
source: Landesamt für Datenverarbeitung und Statistik Brandenburg, 2006, own illustration.
134
14- Landesbetrieb für Datenverarbeitung und Statistik (LDS),
Statistische Berichte – Gartenbauerhebung im Land Bran-
denburg 2005, Potsdam, Landesbetrieb für Datenverarbei-
tung und Statistik, 2006, 71 p.
15- Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft (MIL),
Agrarbericht 2010, Potsdam, Ministerium für Infrastruktur
und Landwirtschaft, 2010, 104 p.
16- Landesbetrieb für Datenverarbeitung und Statistik, op. cit.
17- Attelslander (Peter), Methoden der empirischen Sozial-
forschung, Berlin, Erich Schmidt, 2008, 359 p.
18- Patton (Michael Q.), Qualitative research and evalua-
tion methods, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2002, 688 p.
19- Bowen (Glenn A.), “Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation
concept: a research note”, Qualitative Research n°8, 2008, p.
137-152.
20- Van der Ploeg (Jan D.), “Styles of farming: an introductory
note on concepts and methodology”, in van der Ploeg (J. D.)
and Long (A.), Born from within: practice and perspectives
of endogenous rural development, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1994,
p. 7-30.
21- Heimlich (Ralph E.) and Barnard (Charles H.), “Agricul-
tural Adaption to Urbanization: Farm Types and Agricultural
Sustainability in U.S. Metropolitan Areas”, in Audirac (I.), Ru-
ral Sustainability Development in America, New York, Wiley
and Sons, 1997, p. 283-303.
neity of the horticultural sector in the region, a maximum
variation sampling method, as suggested by Patton18, is
applied to identify recurring and diverging patterns of
farm adaptation. Thus, representativeness and generali-
zability through randomisation and large sample sizes are
not the main objective, but rather theoretical saturation
through the adequate fit of selected cases19. Therefore the
selection of individual cases is based on the farm-style ap-
proach20, which facilitates understanding and operationa-
lization of the heterogeneity of the farmers’ socio-econo-
mic situations, behaviours and decision-making. This dif-
ferentiation has already been applied in other Metropoli-
tan areas to explain farm household strategies21. Through
inductive reasoning from a broad empirical basis of pri-
mary agricultural census data, as well as research projects
conducted by the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Lands-
cape Research, we derived a theoretical farm typology
framework (see fig. 2). The interviews were carried out
with the help of pre-tested semi-structured guidelines to
achieve comparability on the thematic issues.
Farm Portraits
On the basis of their characteristics and spatial adjacency
to settlement areas, horticultural holdings were selected
as representative of a specific farm type. A conventionally
producing, larger-scale salad grower was chosen for farm
type A. Quite small in size, but with a strong marketing
orientation towards neighbouring urban areas, the se-
cond holding was chosen to represent the adaptive farm
type B. A long-established vegetable grower, who has
reduced the size of his production area over time, was
regarded archetypically for a phasing-out type C. Finally,
type D is represented by a new form of cooperative far-
ming and gardening, which is spreading in and around
Berlin. It represents an innovative approach for dealing
with the new demands and requirements of urban dwel-
lers and was thus of interest for our study. Figures 3 a-d
show the surrounding land use structure. Table 1 gives
an overview of the main structural characteristics of the
selected cases.
Fig. 2 : Farm Typology Framework, own illustration.
III. Analyse critique de situations et dispositifs agri-métropolitains
135
Cahiers thématiques N°11
Traditional Farm (Type A)
“We had to struggle for the first 10 years to remain in this location.” (Farmer A)
The first portrait represents the traditional farm prototype. The conventional salad,
herbs and fodder grower is located within the inner fringe of Eastern Berlin, an area of
dynamic land use development, urban sprawl and the conversion of allotment gardens
for permanent living units. With an agricultural area of about 100 ha (almost exclusively
on a tenure basis), it is the most extensive of all the selected farms. It employs seven full-
time workers and an additional 30 to 40 seasonal workers.
Fig. 3 a-d : Farm Locations.
136
The peri-urban situation is evaluated differently by the
holder. On the one hand, good road access and proximity
to the inner city are acknowledged as important factors,
even though the farm does not sell products directly to
consumers. 60% of the production is delivered to a near-
by food processing company. The rest is sold wholesale to
fine food businesses in Berlin. In contrast to remote rural
areas, the farmer emphasises the opportunities available
when providing fresh products on a daily, just-in-time
basis. On the other hand, he mentions certain disadvan-
tages, such as mutual conflict with the neighbourhood.
In particular, new residents complain about exposure
to production and loading-related noise and dust. Farm
operations have been disrupted by theft, trespassing,
free-running dogs and recreational activities that make
intensive use of private agricultural lanes. Higher costs of
renting facilities and greater distances to the agricultural
area are also noted. Planning security, land scarcity and
ownership are not considered an issue. Although ren-
tal contracts include termination opportunities in cases
of building permission, municipal planning is generally
oriented towards farming. However, looking at the overall
picture from the farmer’s perspective, the disadvantages
appear to outweigh the advantages of the peri-urban
location. As a typical traditional farm, adaptation strate-
gies to cope with the location within the Metropolitan
region are less noticeable. Neither diversification on and
off the farm, nor specific urban-oriented production and
specialisation are acknowledged. A location change has
been considered to escape the difficulties inherent in the
peri-urban location, but the farmer felt too established to
go ahead with it.
Adaptive Farm (Type B)
“Proximity to the customer is important to get
contact and communication.” (Farmer B)
A medium-size holding (ca. 20 ha) located outside a
sprawling community North-West of Berlin (distance of
3 km) was chosen to represent adaptive farmers. The hol-
III. Analyse critique de situations et dispositifs agri-métropolitains
137
Cahiers thématiques N°11
ding was established in 1994 with the particular purpose of making use of the consumer
potential in the peri-urban location. Most of the agricultural land is rented. Only the
farmstead itself is owned. A specialised production of typical regional berries and aspa-
ragus are sold uniquely to local consumers through the farm shop. In the wake of recur-
ring food scandals, the farmer recognises a growing interest in regional and natural pro-
duction. He places great emphasis on communication and consumer trust, although his
production techniques are conventional. The peri-urban location is generally favoured
by the farm holder and road access and close proximity to urban areas are considered
important geographic factors for direct marketing.
Urban proximity is considered less in terms of conflict and more as potential customers.
Despite initial expectations by the landowner of additional urban development, at pre-
sent the producer does not expect any development within the next few decades. He
bases his certainty on existing planning regulations which guarantee continuation of
agricultural land use. Yet, he abstains from land purchase due to continuing specula-
tion-driven, high land prices. Actively developing the urban market through newsletters,
regular farm festivals and attracting new customers, the farm exploits the agricultural
opportunities of its peri-urban location. Although no other diversification measures are
in place at present, expansion into other activities (e.g. entertainment, gastronomy) is
planned. The farm owner cooperates with other, mainly agricultural actors in the fields
of pooling with neighbouring farmers and exchange of products to diversify the farm
shop offer. Relocation is absolutely out of the question.
Phasing Out Farm (Type C)
“We are not an entertainment park, but a food producer.” (Farmer C)
This portrait gives insights into the third farm prototype – the phasing out model. The
organic producer has been in the same location in an outer district of Potsdam, a town
close to Berlin, for 50 years. Owning 10 of the 17 ha of agricultural land, the holding has
gradually reduced its cultivation area. The overall outlook is insecure, as the farm holder
is nearing retirement with no successor in the offing. Still, four full-time employees and
two seasonal employees work on the holding.
The peri-urban location is assessed somewhat negatively. While access by car and public
transport, and adjacency to the urban consumers are considered as positive factors,
from the farmer’s perspective, the direct neighbourhood is seen as relatively conflict-
ridden (unauthorised parking, dogs, theft), underpinned by disinterest in agriculture.
Moreover, the high cost of municipal services, such as water supply and treatment, as
well as street cleaning, are considered as negative factors. Conversion is not expected,
as the open landscape has been profoundly valorised and the municipal plans do not in-
138
tend to exploit land for building purposes. The farm mar-
kets its production directly to consumers (70% to organic
markets in Berlin, 30% box service, canteen kitchens
and own farm shop). Apart from landscape management
measures, which contribute only a small amount to in-
come generation, the farm holder is relatively sceptical
regarding further diversification measures. Relocation
has been considered, but hindered by economic barriers
caused by the European Agricultural Policy.
Innovative Farm (Type D)
“The actual production activity is always related to
environmental and health education.” (Farmer D)
22- Vandermeulen (Valérie), Verspecht (Ann) and Van Huylen-
broeck (Guido), “Perception of Land Scarcity by Peri-Urban
Farmers”, in Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the EAAE
The Future of Rural Europe in the Global Agri-Food System.
Copenhagen, August 23-27, 2005, 15 p.
23- Péron (Jean-Yves) and Geoffriau (Emanuel), op. cit.
Table 1: Overview of the selected farm holdings.
Farm A
(Traditional)
Farm B
(Adaptive)
Farm C
(Phasing-out)
Farm D
(Innovative)
Location
Farm area
Berlin-Wartenberg Dallgow-Döberitz Potsdam-Bornim Berlin-Falkenberg
100 ha rented area
20 ha of rented
area (production
area)
7 ha rental land 3 ha rented land
Crop Types
0.3 ha self-owned
land, (basically
farm-stead)
10 ha ownership
Salad, herbs,
fodder crops
berries, asparagus,
sweet corn and
pumpkin
fruits, vegetable,
fodder crops
Herbs, vegetable,
berries, fruits
1,300 laying hens 30 suckler sheep
Legal Status Agricultural
enterprise
Agricultural and
business enter-
prise
Agricultural enter-
prise Registered Association
Production
Mode Conventional Conventiona Organic Organic
Work Force 7 full-time
employees
5 full-time and
10 part-time
employees
4 full-time em-
ployees 30-50 private producers
30-40 seasonal
employees
5-10 seasonal
employees
2 seasonal
employees
III. Analyse critique de situations et dispositifs agri-métropolitains
139
Cahiers thématiques N°11
The last prototype represents farms which have been innovatively adapted to the requi-
rements and demands of nearby Metropolitan areas. An organic garden (“Ökogarten”),
which is currently enjoying growing popularity in the area, was selected for the portrait.
30-50 people, organised as a registered association, grow all kinds of herbs, vegetables,
berries and fruits. As a non-profit organisation, the main idea behind this type of horti-
culture is less to do with economics than environment, education, leisure and self-sub-
sistence.
Although they are not yet accepted as agricultural farms, the garden addresses urban
dwellers directly. The location on the urban fringe with good access to Berlin’s public
transport system is very important as it can be reached easily by the people who work on
the farm. The farmers are highly sensitive to the interaction with their urban and agricul-
tural neighbourhood, as they make use of the synergies, i.e. security and farm operation
support. They have an extensive network of local actors from politics, nature protection,
agriculture and horticulture. While the farm and the social and environmental approach
is widely accepted by the neighbouring residents, vandalism and theft is a regular nui-
sance. However, the concept of the organic garden requires proximity to urban areas, so
a move is out of the question.
Discussion and Conclusion
All the cases are located within the peri-urban area and have direct contact with the
local housing areas. Mutual conflict with local residents is often acknowledged, but is
perceived very differently by the various farm types. Obviously, production intensity
has a strong impact on the perceived level of nuisance. Thus, the traditional farm (type
A) reports most resident complaints, whereas small-scale, organic producers get along
better. More interesting though, holders who interact with the urban neighbourhood in
a more open-minded way, such as the adaptive and innovative one, are far less conflict-
ridden. They recognise the advantages of proximity to customers and the farm’s integra-
tion in the local community. The duration of the farm’s establishment also contributes
to acceptance. All holdings are well connected to road infrastructure, which is most
appreciated by farms with close social contacts to consumers and user (types B and
D). Rather surprising, and in contrast to other findings22, land scarcity, high land prices,
land tenure difficulties and planning insecurity are generally not issues for the farmers
interviewed. Their trust that they will remain unaffected by urban development is based
on the municipality’s comprehensive plan, which in fact only has limited binding force.
However, due to low economic and demographic growth in the Berlin Metropolitan
region, there has only been moderate suburbanisation pressure in the past. In addition,
less space-intensive horticultural holdings are encouraged more than cash crop farmers
in order to cope with higher land rents.
Different development trajectories are identified among the farm types. Whereas the
140
adaptive farm (type B), coming from outside, purposely
chose the peri-urban location and focuses production
and diversification on the urban market, the phasing-
out farm (C) is gradually reducing the agricultural area,
seeing farming in the urban fringe as an activity with
little promise in the future. However, they all make use
of the nearby city, basically selling directly to consumers
at the farm shop or in the city’s markets. Niche outlets
have been developed, like organic production, specific
crop types or altruistic combinations for education and
health. Yet, the passive types (A & C) have little interest in
this potential farm output. In line with observations from
other European Metropolitan areas23, horizontal coope-
ration with other producers is a frequent, but less stron-
gly pronounced phenomenon among small horticultural
holdings to make use of scale economies, and is most
prevalent in farm, types B, C and D, but absent with the
large producer (type A).
These findings are drawn from an exploration of the hor-
ticultural sector in the Berlin Metropolitan region. Based
on qualitative information, they are strongly influenced
by the researcher’s interpretations and need further vali-
dation and verification through empirical evidence (e.g. a
larger-scale questionnaire survey). However, some conclu-
sions can nonetheless be drawn for the role of the peri-
urban location and subsequent adaptation strategies. Horti-
cultural farms assess and respond heterogeneously to the
spatial framework conditions. The portraits of prototypi-
cal farms contribute to an understanding of the diversity
of farming types, their perception of the peri-urban loca-
tion and decision-making processes regarding adaptation
strategies. Negative effects exist, but are outweighed by
advantages and opportunities. The adjacent urban area
represents a relevant economic factor for the farming acti-
vity, its specialisation and diversification as well as for
marketing and distribution.
