Advertisement

Density of resident farmers and rural inhabitants’ relationship to agriculture: operationalizing complex social interactions with a structural equation model

  • Ramona BunkusEmail author
  • Ilkhom Soliev
  • Insa Theesfeld
Article
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

The presence of agriculture is diminishing in today’s society: it provides only a small percentage of jobs, and the number of visible farms that can provide exposure to agricultural processes is continuously decreasing. We hypothesize that the direct involvement with farm activities or interaction with farmers and visual appreciation of agricultural processes of all kinds, influences rural inhabitants’ relationship to agriculture. We assume that the latter plays a role in how far inhabitants are attached to their place, and more specifically, perceive rural place. In this paper, we aim to initiate a discussion on this complex social relationship and suggest a model to capture fine interactions between relationship to agriculture and rural place attachment. We examine the direct and indirect effects from the density of resident farmers on these interactions. We set up a model using data from empirical research in Germany conducted in 2016. We surveyed rural inhabitants and interviewed farmers in villages purposefully sampled based on high and low density of resident farmers. To reveal underlying relationships among the latent constructs and more directly measurable indicators, as well as the indirect effect of farm presence on place attachment through its effect on forming perceptions about agriculture, we operationalized our analysis using a structural equation model. Besides a good model fit, our initial results indicate that rural inhabitants form stronger relationship to agriculture when the density of resident farmers is higher. Further, farm presence and attachment to rural place are positively related, but needs to be better captured.

Keywords

Farm presence Place attachment Non-farmer perception Distribution of landownership Rural development SEM Germany 

Abbreviations

GDR

German Democratic Republic

SEM

Structural equation model

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the farmers and non-farm rural inhabitants for their time to take part in our research, as well as Jörg Gersonde for his comments on an earlier version of the database and Wiebke Schramm for helping with data management. We also thank the anonymous reviewer and the editor for their helpful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baldock, D., J. Dwyer, P. Lowe, J.-E. Petersen, and N. Ward. 2001. The nature of rural development: Towards a sustainable integrated rural policy in Europe. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, H., and G. Tuitjer. 2016. Ländliche Lebensverhältnisse im Wandel 1952, 1972, 1993, 2012. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 66 (46–47): 6.Google Scholar
  3. Beckmann, V., and K. Hagedorn. 1997. Decollectivisation and privatisation policies and resulting structural changes of agriculture in Eastern Germany. In Agricultural privatization, land reform and farm restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. J.F.M. Swinnen, A. Buckwell, and E. Mathijs. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. BMEL. 2000. Agrarbericht 2000. Agrar- und ernährungspolitischer Bericht der Bundesregierung. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft.Google Scholar
  5. BMEL. 2015. Agrarpolitischer Bericht der Bundesregierung 2015. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft.Google Scholar
  6. Boddenberg, M., M.H. Frauenlob, L. Gunkel, S. Schmitz, F. Vaessen, and B. Blättel-Mink. 2017. Solidarische Landwirtschaft als innovative Praxis—Potenziale für einen sozial-ökologischen Wandel. In Soziale Innovationen für nachhaltigen Konsum: Wissenschaftliche Perspektiven, Strategien der Förderung und gelebte Praxis, ed. M. Jaeger-Erben, J. Rückert-John, and M. Schäfer, 125–148. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borstel, D. 2010. Zivilgesellschaft in dörflichen Kontexten—eine ostdeutsche Perspektive. In Stadtentwicklung, Zivilgesellschaft und bürgerschaftliches Engagement, ed. E. Becker, E. Gualini, C. Runkel, and R. Strachwitz. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
  8. Bowen, S. 2011. The importance of place: Re-territorialising embeddedness. Sociologia Ruralis 51 (4): 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bredenbeck, M. 2014. Neu-Wilhelmsdorf, Wertheim Village und der Wiederaufbau der Frankfurter Altstadt. Der Einfluss dörflicher Strukturen auf die Architektur der Gegenwart. In Imaginäre Dörfer. Zur Wiederkehr des Dörflichen in Literatur, Film und Lebenswelt, ed. W. Nell and M. Weiland, 157–174. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, G., C.M. Raymond, and J. Corcoran. 2015. Mapping and measuring place attachment. Applied Geography 57: 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryman, A. 2012. Social research methods, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bund-Länder-Arbeitsgruppe Bodenmarktpolitik. 2015. Landwirtschaftliche Bodenmarktpolitik: Allgemeine Situation und Handlungsoptionen. Bonn: Bund-Länder-Arbeitsgruppe Bodenmarktpolitik.Google Scholar
  13. Bundesagentur für Arbeit. 2018. Arbeitslosenquote in Deutschland nach Bundesländern (Stand: Dezember 2017). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36651/umfrage/arbeitslosenquote-in-deutschland-nach-bundeslaendern/. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.
  14. Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 1961. Gesetz über Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und zur Sicherung land- und forstwirtschaftlicher Betriebe (Grundstückverkehrsgesetz - GrdstVG). Bonn: Bundesrepublik Deutschland.Google Scholar
  15. Bunkus, R., and I. Theesfeld. 2018. Land grabbing in Europe? Socio-cultural externalities of large-scale land acquisitions in East Germany. Land 7 (3): 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Byrne, B.M. 2010. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  17. Casakin, H., B. Hernández, and C. Ruiz. 2015. Place attachment and place identity in Israeli cities: The influence of city size. Cities 42: 224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Constance, C.Z. 2017. What if the trucks stop coming? Exploring the framing of local food by cooperative food retailers in New Mexico. Wageningen: Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  19. Deter, Alfons. 2016. Niedersachsen plant Pachtpreisbremse in der Landwirtschaft. https://www.topagrar.com/news/Home-top-News-Niedersachsen-plant-Pachtpreisbremse-in-der-Landwirtschaft-3947136.html. Accessed 28 June 2017.
  20. Destatis. 2017. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2017. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  21. Doering, N., J. Bortz, S. Pöschl, C.S. Werner, K. Schermelleh-Engel, C. Gerhard, and J.C. Gäde. 2016. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eisenhauer, B.W., R.S. Krannich, and D.J. Blahna. 2000. Attachments to special places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society & Natural Resources 13 (5): 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eurofound. 2018. Social cohesion and well-being in Europe. Luxembourg: P. O. o. t. E. Union.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. 2016. Europeans, agriculture and the CAP. Special eurobarometer 440. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. 2017. The EU explained: Agriculture. A partnership between Europe and farmers. Luxembourg: Publicatons Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  26. Galdeano-Gomez, E., J.A. Aznar-Sánchez, and J.C. Pérez-Mesa. 2011. The complexity of theories on rural development in Europe: An analysis of the paradigmatic case of Almería (South-east Spain). Sociologia Ruralis 51 (1): 54–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gao, S., P. Mokhtarian, and R. Johnston. 2008. Non-normality of data in structural equation models. Davis: UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
  28. Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, and R. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  30. Hawkins, E.A., J.M. Bryden, N. Gilliatt, and N. MacKinnon. 1993. Engagement in agriculture 1987–1991: A west European perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 9 (3): 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henkel, G. 2014. Das Dorf. Landleben in Deutschland—gestern und heute. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.Google Scholar
  32. Hernández, B., M.C. Hidalgo, M.E. Salazar-Laplace, and S. Hess. 2007. Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (4): 310–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hinojosa, L., E.F. Lambin, N. Mzoughi, and C. Napoléone. 2016. Place attachment as a factor of mountain farming permanence: A survey in the French Southern Alps. Ecological Economics 130: 308–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunziker, M., M. Buchecker, and T. Hartig. 2007. Space and place—Two aspects of the human-landscape relationship. In A changing world. Landscape series, ed. F. Kienast, O. Wildi, and S. Ghosh. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Jantsch, A., C. Wunder, and N. Hirschauer. 2016. Lebensqualität in Deutschland - Ein Vergleich von städtischen und ländlichen Regionen. Paper presented at the 56. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V., Bonn, 29 Sep 2016.Google Scholar
  36. Koomen, E. 2011. Indicators of rural vitality. A GIS-based analysis of socio-economic development of the rural Netherlands. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  37. Landesregierung Sachsen-Anhalt. 2010. Landesentwicklungsplan 2010 des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt. Magdeburg: Landesregierung Sachsen-Anhalt.Google Scholar
  38. Laschewski, L. 2014. Rural restructuring and conflicting definitons of the rural (problem) in East Germany. Cottbus: BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg.Google Scholar
  39. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The social production of space. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Lijadi, A.A., and G.J. Van Schalkwyk. 2017. Place identity construction of Third Culture Kids: Eliciting voices of children with high mobility lifestyle. Geoforum 81: 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. LNV. 2004. Agenda voor een Vitaal Platteland. Den Haag: Ministerie van Landbouw Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit.Google Scholar
  42. Lobao, L., and C.W. Stofferahn. 2008. The community effects of industrialized farming: Social science research and challenges to corporate farming laws. Agriculture and Human Values 25 (2): 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lokocz, E., R.L. Ryan, and A.J. Sadler. 2011. Motivations for land protection and stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 99 (2): 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Low, S.M., and I. Altman. 1992. Place attachment. In Place attachment, ed. I. Altman and S.M. Low, 1–12. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Lu, T., F. Zhang, and F. Wu. 2018. Place attachment in gated neighbourhoods in China: Evidence from Wenzhou. Geoforum 92: 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lyson, T.A., R.J. Torres, and R. Welsh. 2001. Scale of agricultural production, civic engagement, and community welfare. Social Forces 80 (1): 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McAndrew, F.T. 1998. The measurement of ‘rootetness’ and the prediction of attachment to home-towns in college students. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (4): 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meinzen-Dick, R. 2014. Property rights and sustainable irrigation: A developing country perspective. Agricultural Water Management 145: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mensah, A.H. 2017. Urban households’ engagement in agriculture: Implications for household food security in Ghana’s medium sized cities. Geographical Research 55 (2): 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meyer, K., F. Böltken, F. Gödderz, and W. Neußer. 2003. Lebensbedingungen aus Bürgersicht. Bonn: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung.Google Scholar
  51. Migliore, G., F. Caracciolo, A. Lombardi, G. Schifani, and L. Cembalo. 2014. Farmers’ participation in civic agriculture: The effect of social embeddedness. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 36 (2): 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moore, J. 2000. Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 (3): 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moroney, J.L., and R.S. Castellano. 2018. Farmland loss and concern in the Treasure Valley. Agriculture and Human Values 35 (2): 529–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. MULE. 2015. Regierungserklärung: Eine Politik der Verantwortung für eine zukunftssichere Landwirtschaft. Magdeburg: Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Sachsen-Anhalt.Google Scholar
  55. MULE. 2018. Leitbild „Landwirtschaft 2030 Sachsen-Anhalt“. Magdeburg: Ministerium für Umwelt Landwirtschaft und Energie des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt.Google Scholar
  56. Neu, C. 2015. Peripherisierung und Landflucht 3.0. Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf die Veränderung von Stadt und Land im demographischen Wandel. In Landflucht 3.0. Welche Zukunft hat der Ländliche Raum?, ed. Herbert Quandt-Stiftung, 18–33. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
  57. Ngo, M., and M. Brklacich. 2014. New farmers’ efforts to create a sense of place in rural communities: Insights from southern Ontario, Canada. Agriculture and Human Values 31 (1): 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nkegbe, P.K., H. Alhassan, M.B. Abu, Y. Ustarz, E.D. Setsoafia, and S. Abdul-Wahab. 2018. Rural non-farm engagement and agriculture commercialization in Ghana: Complements or competitors?. Ghana: PAGE policy analysis on growth and employment.Google Scholar
  59. NordNordWest. 2008. Germany location map. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_location_map.svg. Accessed 17 Dec 2018.
  60. Nunnally, J.C. 1967. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  61. Obach, B.K., and K. Tobin. 2014. Civic agriculture and community engagement. Agriculture and Human Values 31 (2): 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pambo, K.O., R.M. Mbeche, J.J. Okello, G.N. Mose, and J.N. Kinyuru. 2008. Intentions to consume foods from edible insects and the prospects for transforming the ubiquitous biomass into food. Agriculture and Human Values 35 (4): 885–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pedroli, B., T. Pinto Correia, and J. Primdahl. 2016. Challenges for a shared European countryside of uncertain future. Towards a modern community-based landscape perspective. Landscape Research 41 (4): 450–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Penker, M. 2006. Mapping and measuring the ecological embeddedness of food supply chains. Geoforum 37 (3): 368–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pierenkemper, T. 2010. Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Die Entstehung der modernen Volkswirtschaft. Akademie Studienbücher. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  66. Quinn, C.E., and A.C. Halfacre. 2014. Place matters: An investigation of farmers’ attachment to their land. Human Ecology Review 20 (2): 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rao, J. 2018. Fundamental functionings of landowners: Understanding the relationship between land ownership and wellbeing through the lens of ‘capability’. Land Use Policy 72: 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Raymond, C.M., G. Brown, and D. Weber. 2010. The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4): 422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Riger, S., and P.J. Lavrakas. 1981. Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology 9 (1): 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rodriguez Castro, L. 2017. The embodied countryside: Methodological reflections in place. Sociologia Ruralis 58 (2): 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sargeson, S. 2018. Grounds for self-government? Changes in land ownership and democratic participation in Chinese communities. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (2): 321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Scannell, L., and R. Gifford. 2010. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scannell, L., and R. Gifford. 2017. The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 51: 256–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schreiber, J.B., A. Nora, F.K. Stage, E.A. Barlow, and J. King. 2006. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research 99 (6): 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Statistisches Bundesamt. 2016. Exporte aus Deutschland nach Güterabteilungen (Top 15) im Jahr 2016 (in Milliarden Euro). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/151019/umfrage/exportgueter-aus-deutschland/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  76. Stedman, R.C. 2003. Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources 16 (8): 671–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stofferahn, C.W., C.A. Fontaine, D.J. McDonald, M. Spletto, and H. Jeanotte. 1991. Growth fundamentalism in dying rural towns: Implications for rural development practitioners. Agriculture and Human Values 8 (25): 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sumner, J., H. Mair, and E. Nelson. 2010. Putting the culture back into agriculture: Civic engagement, community and the celebration of local food. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8 (1–2): 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Theodori, G.L., and A.E. Luloff. 2000. Urbanization and community attachment in rural areas. Society & Natural Resources 13 (5): 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tietz, A. 2017. Überregional aktive Kapitaleigentümer in ostdeutschen Agrarunternehmen: Entwicklungen bis 2017. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut.Google Scholar
  81. TUBS. 2011. Germany in the European Union on the globe (Europe centered). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Germany_in_the_European_Union_on_the_globe_(Europe_centered).svg. Accessed 17 Dec 2018.
  82. Walker, A.J., and R.L. Ryan. 2008. Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning 86 (2): 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weiss, W., A. Wolz, T. Herzfeld, and J. Fritzsch. 2013. Sozialökonomische Effekte des demographischen Wandels in ländlichen Räumen Sachsen-Anhalts. Halle: IAMO.Google Scholar
  84. Welsh, R. 2009. Farm and market structure, industrial regulation and rural community welfare: Conceptual and methodological issues. Agriculture and Human Values 26 (1–2): 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wester-Herber, M. 2004. Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts—The role of place-identity in risk perception. Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2): 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Windsong, E.A. 2014. Insights from a qualitative study of rural communes: Physical and social dimensions of place. Society & Natural Resources 27 (1): 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wirth, P., V. Elis, B. Müller, and K. Yamamoto. 2016. Peripheralisation of small towns in Germany and Japan—Dealing with economic decline and population loss. Journal of Rural Studies 47: 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. World Bank. 2018. Europäische Union: Verteilung der Erwerbstätigen auf die Wirtschaftssektoren in den Mitgliedsstaaten im Jahr 2017. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/249086/umfrage/erwerbstaetige-nach-wirtschaftssektoren-in-den-eu-laendern/. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  89. Wynveen, C.J., I.E. Schneider, S. Cottrell, A. Arnberger, A.C. Schlueter, and E. Von Ruschkowski. 2017. Comparing the validity and reliability of place attachment across cultures. Society & Natural Resources 30 (11): 1389–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zander, K., F. Isermeyer, D. Bürgelt, I. Christoph-Schulz, P. Salamon, and D. Weible. 2013. Erwartungen der Gesellschaft an die Landwirtschaft. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Policy, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional SciencesMartin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations