Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 525–537 | Cite as

For the public good: weaving a multifunctional landscape in the Corn Belt

  • Noelle M. Harden
  • Loka L. Ashwood
  • William L. Bland
  • Michael M. Bell
Article

Abstract

Critics of modern agriculture decry the dominance of monocultural landscapes and look to multifunctionality as a desirable alternative that facilitates the production of public goods. In this study, we explored opportunities for multifunctional Midwestern agriculture through participatory research led by farmers, landowners, and other local actors. We suggest that agriculture typically fosters some degree of multifunctionality that arises from the divergent intentions of actors. The result is a scattered arrangement of what we term patchwork multifunctionality, a ubiquitous status quo in which individuals provide public goods without coordination. In contrast, interwoven multifunctionality describes deliberate collaboration to provide public goods, especially those cases where landowners work across fence lines to weave a synergistic landscape. Using examples from two case studies, we demonstrate the spectrum of patchwork and interwoven multifunctionality that currently exists in the Corn Belt, and present underutilized opportunities for public good creation.

Keywords

Multifunctionality Agriculture Phosphorus pollution Participatory research Landscape 

Abbreviations

CRP

Conservation Reserve Program

EU

European Union

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Soil Science. A previous version of this paper was the recipient of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Graduate Student Paper Award in 2011.

References

  1. Amekawa, Y. 2011. Agroecology and sustainable livelihoods: Towards an integrated approach to rural development. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35: 118–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amekawa, Y., H. Sseguya, S. Onzere, and I. Carranza. 2010. Delineating the multifunctional role of agroecological practices: Toward sustainable livelihoods for smallholder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34: 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashwood, L., N. Harden, M.M. Bell, and W.B. Bland. 2011. Real problems, real answers: The green action plan. University of Wisconsin-Madison and Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs. http://www.iira.org/pubs/publications/Real_Problems_Real_Answers_The_Green_Action_Plan.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2013.
  4. Batie, S. 2009. Green payments and the US farm bill: Information and policy challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(7): 380–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, M.M. 2004. Farming for us all: Practical agriculture and the cultivation of sustainability. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, W. 1977. The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bland, W.L., and M.M. Bell. 2007. A holon approach to agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5(4): 1–15.Google Scholar
  8. Boody, G. 2002. Agriculture as a public good. In The farm as natural habitat: Reconnecting food systems with ecosystems, ed. D. Jackson, and L. Jackson, 261–273. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boody, G., B. Vondracek, D. Andow, M. Krinke, J. Westra, J. Zimmerman, and P. Welle. 2005. Multifunctional agriculture in the United States. BioScience 55: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouma, J., E. Bulte, and D. Soest. 2008. Trust and cooperation: Social capital and community resource management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56: 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Claassen, R., M. Aillery, and C. Nickerson. 2007. Integrating commodity and conservation programs: Design options and outcomes. ERR-44. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  12. Cuellar-Padilla, M., and A. Calle-Collado. 2011. Can we find solutions with people? Participatory action research with small organic producers in Andalusia. Journal of Rural Studies 27: 372–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emerson, R.M., R.I. Fretz, and L.L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. National summary of impaired waters and TMDL information. http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T. Accessed 3 April 2012.
  15. Evans, N., C. Morris, and M. Winter. 2002. Conceptualizing agriculture: A critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography 26(3): 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farm Service Agency (FSA), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. The National Agriculture Imagery Program. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/apfoapp?area=home&subject=prog&topic=nai. Accessed 15 March 2011.
  17. Franks, J.R., and A. McGloin. 2007. Environmental co-operatives as instruments for delivering across-farm environmental and rural policy objectives: Lessons for the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 23: 472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedmann, H. 1982. The political economy of food: The rise and fall of the postwar international food order. American Journal of Sociology 88: S248–S286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedmann, H. 1990. Family wheat farms and third world diets: A paradoxical relationship between unwaged and waged labor. In Work without wages: Comparative studies of domestic labor and self-employment, ed. J. Collins, and M. Gimenez, 193–213. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  20. Glover, J.D., C.M. Cox, and J.P. Reganold. 2007. Future farming: A return to roots? Scientific American 297: 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenwood, D.J., and M. Levin. 1998. Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Guzmán, G.I., and A.M. Alonso. 2010. The European Union: Key roles for institutional support and economic factors. In The conversion to sustainable agriculture: Principles, processes, and practices, ed. S.R. Gliessman, and M. Rosemeyer, 239–272. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hudson, J.C. 1994. Making the Corn Belt: A geographical history of Middle-Western agriculture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). 2007. The common agricultural policy: A brief introduction. Prepared for the global dialogue meeting, May 14–15, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Jackson, D., and L. Jackson. 2002. The farm as natural habitat: Reconnecting food systems with ecosystems. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jackson, L. 2002. Restoring prairie processes to farmlands. In The farm as natural habitat: Reconnecting food systems with ecosystems, ed. D. Jackson, and L. Jackson, 137–154. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jackson, L. 2008. Who ‘designs’ the agricultural landscape? Landscape journal 27: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Janke, R. 2002. Composing a farm. In The farm as natural habitat: Reconnecting food systems with ecosystems, ed. D. Jackson, and L. Jackson, 209–220. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jordan, N., G. Boody, W. Broussard, J.D. Glover, D. Keeney, B.H. McCown, G. McIsaac, M. Muller, H. Murray, J. Neal, C. Pansing, R.E. Turner, K. Warner, and D. Wyse. 2007. Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 316: 1570–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leopold, A. 1949. The Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Leopold, A. 1991. The farmer as a conservationist. In The river of the mother of god and other essays by Aldo Leopold, ed. S.L. Flader, and J.B. Callicott, 255–265. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lovell, S.T., and D.M. Johnston. 2009. Designing landscapes for performance based on emerging principles in landscape ecology. Ecology and Society 14(1): 44.Google Scholar
  33. Lovell, S.T., S. DeSantis, C.A. Nathan, M.B. Olson, V.E. Mendez, H.C. Kominami, D.L. Erickson, K.S. Morris, and W.B. Morris. 2010. Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving framework to evaluate the design of agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems 103: 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mander, Ü., H. Wiggering, and K. Helming. 2007. Multifunctional land use: Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Marsden, T. 2003. The condition of rural sustainability. Assen: Van Gorcu.Google Scholar
  36. Marsden, T., and R. Sonnino. 2008. Rural development and the regional state: Denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 24: 422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morgan, S.L., T. Marsden, M. Miele, and A. Morley. 2010. Agricultural multifunctionality and farmers’ entrepreneurial skills: A study of Tuscan and Welsh farmers. Journal of Rural Studies 26(2): 116–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. Land values and cash rents 2010 summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriLandVa/AgriLandVa-08-04-2010.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2011.
  39. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Conservation Reserve Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/. Accessed 15 March 2011.
  40. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2001. Multifunctionality: Toward an analytic framework. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  41. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2007. Multifunctionality in agriculture: Evaluating the degree of jointness, policy implications. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  42. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Porter, P., L. Scott, and S. Simmons. 2009. Northern Midwest (U.S.) farmers’ views of the conversion process. In The conversion to sustainable agriculture, ed. S.R. Gliessman, and M. Rosemeyer, 67–90. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  45. Potter, C., and M. Tilzey. 2005. Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: Neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography 29: 581–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poteete, A.R., M.A. Janseen, and E. Ostrom. 2010. Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Schulte, L.A., M. Liebman, H. Asbjornsen, and T.R. Crow. 2006. Agroecosystem restoration through strategic integration of perennials. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 61(6): 164–169.Google Scholar
  48. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. The census of agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. Accessed 15 March 2011.
  49. Wilson, G.A. 2007. Multifunctional agriculture: A transition theory perspective. Wallingford: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noelle M. Harden
    • 1
  • Loka L. Ashwood
    • 2
  • William L. Bland
    • 3
  • Michael M. Bell
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Family DevelopmentUniversity of Minnesota ExtensionMoorheadUSA
  2. 2.Department of Community and Environmental SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations