Abstract
In Europe, an increasing share of public subsidies for food production is being transferred towards the production of goods and environmental services. Today, farmers hesitate between the quest for technical and economic performance, which has been the paradigm of their professional activities since the 1960s, on one hand, and taking account of the environmental concerns that have been imposed since the middle of the 80s, on the other. Is it possible for farmers to continue to work according to the paradigm of the producer of agri-food goods, and how do they react to the ecologization of their activities? In this paper, we will see the difficulties and sources of tension induced by landscape maintenance in the daily professional practice of the farmers. We will see that the professional identity of the farmers is profoundly brought into question by these changes (substitution of strictly “agricultural issues” by more general concerns such as “rural issues,” substitution of the farmer by the “ecologized” peasant...). The topic of landscape reveals social strains between farmers. It also raises the question of the legitimacy of farmers to define the sense of their activities by themselves. Finally we will see that environmental orientations do not systematically open up new prospects for all farmers; they sometimes contribute to increase the inequalities between farmers (financial support proportional to land property, marginalization of farmers who are less socially integrated...).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aznar O., Perrier-Cornet P. (2003). Les services environnementaux dans les espaces ruraux: une approche par l’économie des services. Economie Rurale 273–274:142–157
Berque A. (1995). Les raisons du paysage. de la Chine antique aux environnements de synthèse. Paris, Hazan
Berger P., Luckmann T. (1986). La construction sociale de la réalité. Paris, Méridiens Klincksieck
Bourdieu P. (1977). Une classe d’objets. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences sociales 17–18:2–5
Candau J., Le Floch S. (2002). Le paysage comme catégorie d’action publique. Natures, sciences et sociétés 10(2):59–65
Candau J., Chabert M. (2003). La multifonctionnalité, un sens en discussion. La place accordée au paysage dans le projet agricole de la Dordogne. In: Caron P., Pivot J-M. (eds), Les Cahiers de la multifonctionnalité “Coordinations locales et action collective pour une agriculture multifonctionnelle. Paris, Editions Cemagref-Inra-Cirad, pp. 71–87
Darré J.-P. (eds) (1994). Pairs et experts en agriculture. Dialogues et production de connaissance pour l’action. Ramonville Saint -Agne, Erès
Deffontaines J. P. (1998). Les sentiers d’un géoagronome. Paris, Editions Arguments
De la Soudière M. (1991). Paysages et altérité. En quête de ‘cultures paysagères’: réflexion méthodologique. Etudes rurales 121–124:141–150
Douglas M. (1999). Comment pensent les institutions. Paris, La Découverte
Droz Y., Miéville-Ott V. (2001). On achève bien les paysans. Genève, Georg éditeur
Dupré, L., (2001), “Relancer une activité agricole traditionnelle en (re)qualifiant son paysage? Quand une châtaigneraie ardéchoise devient ‘paysage de reconquête’.” pp. 451–458 in Dynamique rurale. Environnement et stratégies spatiales (Montpellier: ed. A. Berger)
Gravsholt Busck A. (2002). Farmers’ Landscape Decisions: Relationships Between Farmers’ Values and Landscape Practices. Sociologia Ruralis 42(3):233–249
Greider T., Garkovich L. (1994). Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment. Rural Sociology 59(1):1–24
Halfacree K. H. (1995). Talking About Rurality: Social Representations of the Rural as Expressed by Residents of Six English Parishes. Journal of Rural Studies 11(1):1–20
Harrison C. M., Burgess J., Clark J. (1998). Discounted Knowledges: ‘Farmers’ and ‘Residents’ Understandings of Nature Conservation Goals and Policies. Journal of Environmental Management 54(4):305–320
Kitchen L. (2000). Environmental Policy and the Differentiation of Rural Space: an Actor-Network Perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2:135–147
Laurent C. (1994). L’agriculture paysagiste: du discours aux réalités. Natures Sciences Sociétés 2(3):231–242
Lémery B. (2003). Les agriculteurs dans la fabrique d’une nouvelle agriculture. Sociologie du travail 45:9–25
Luginbühl, Y., “La demande sociale de paysage.” In Conseil National du Paysage, rapport de la séance inaugurale du 28 mai 2001 (Paris: Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable, 2001) 11–30.
Mallein P., Chemery J. -B. (1996). Agriculteurs et environnement: y aller ou pas?. Travaux et innovations 25:51–55
Marsden T. (1999). Rural Futures: The Consumption Countryside and Its Regulation. Sociologica Ruralis 39(4):501–520
Mauss M. (1985). Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. Paris, PUF
McHenry H. (1996). Farming and Environmental Discourses: A Study of the Depiction of Environmental Issues in a German Farming Newspaper. Journal of Rural Studies 12(4):375–386
Miéville-Ott V. (2000). Les éleveurs du Jura face à l’écologisation de leur métier. Le courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA 40:75–84
Mitchell C. J. A. (1998). Entrepreneurialism, Commodification and Creative Destruction: A Model of Post-modern Community Development. Journal of Rural Studies 14(3):273–286
Morris C., Potter C. (1995). Recruiting the New Conservationists: Farmers’ Adoption of Agri-environmental Schemes in the U.K. Journal of Rural Studies 11(1):51–63
Murdoch, J. and J. Clark (1994), “Sustainable Knowledge.” Geoforum 25, pp. 115–132
Notteghem P. (1991). Haie sèche, haie vive et ronce artificielle. Etudes rurales 121–124:59–72
Périchon S., (2004), “L’impossible reconstruction des bocages détruits.” L’Espace géographique, vol. 2004, n°2, pp. 175–187
Perret, J., (2002), “La mise en valeur d’aménités touristiques rurales pour une élite.” Ingénieries EAT, spécial vol. “Aménités rurales” pp. 35–42
Rémy J. (1998). Quelle(s) culture(s) de l’environnement?. Ruralia 2:85–103
Rémy J. (2000). Multifonctionnalité agricole et pluralité sociale: Les contrats territoriaux d’exploitation. Aménagement et Nature 136:25–36
Schoon B., Te Grotenhuis R. (2000). Values of Farmers, Sustainability and Agricultural Policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environnemental Ethics 12:17–27
Schütz A. (1987). Le chercheur et le quotidien. Paris, Klincksieck
Silvasti T. (2003). The Cultural Model of “The Good Farmer” and the Environmental Question in Finland. Agriculture and Human Values 20(2):143–150
Svendsen G. L. H. (2004). The Right to Development: Construction of a Non-Agriculturalist Discourse of Rurality in Denmark. Journal of Rural Studies 20(1):79–94
Williams R. (1977). Plaisantes perspectives. Invention du paysage et abolition du paysan. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences sociales 17–18:29–36
Wilson G. A., Hart K. (2001). Farmer Participation in Agri-environment Schemes: Towards Conservation-oriented Thinking? Sociologia Ruralis 41(2):254–274
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Deuffic, P., Candau, J. Farming and Landscape Management: How French Farmers are Coping with the Ecologization of Their Activities. J Agric Environ Ethics 19, 563–585 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9010-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9010-0