Planning for the future? The emergence of shared visions for agriculture in the urban-influenced Ontario’s Greenbelt, Canada, and Toulouse InterSCoT, France

Abstract

In urban-influenced areas, farmers face new opportunities and constraints that shape their farming styles. In this article, we investigate the impact of two planning strategies, Ontario’s Greenbelt, Canada, and Toulouse InterSCoT, France, on farmers’ investment and discuss the consistency of farmers’ strategies and territorial projects. A theoretical approach centered on J.R. Commons’ concept of Futurity is operationalized with mental modeling during 41 in-depth interviews with farmers. The results show that farming styles, which reflect farmers’ adaptation to their urban-influenced environment, stem in both jurisdictions from farmers’ values, attitudes, skills, and norms. The differences in investment decisions revealed in the respective planning strategies highlight that Ontario’s Greenbelt zoning is not sufficient to preserve urban-influenced farming, while in Toulouse InterSCoT, the viability of farmers’ projects depends on the alignment of farmers and other agricultural stakeholders’ representations of agriculture. The shared territorial vision of the agricultural landscape stemming from such an alignment may help mitigate potential conflicts while supporting farmers’ projects that contribute to this vision. The importance of a shared vision of the future supporting multifunctional agriculture emerged in both jurisdictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Despite conceptual proximities, the concepts of amenities and ecosystem services are different; the overlapping of these concepts has not yet been investigated in depth (Schaeffer and Dissart 2018).

  2. 2.

    Jongeneel et al. (2008) define time inconsistency as the possibility that regulations and public support unexpectedly shift.

  3. 3.

    In this article, we adopt the psychological perspective wherein psyche is understood as a landscape (Kaplan et al. 2017).

  4. 4.

    Although factors identified by farmers are connected by causality arrows, we preferred to not to use the term causal models given that the collected models resulted from the elicitation of farmers’ own perception of their farming projects. Hence, causal relationships on one map could conflict with causal relationships on other maps. In our opinion, this subjectivity is better captured through the term mental maps.

  5. 5.

    At the exception of a specialized and intensive tomato production unit with a land base of 10 ha.

  6. 6.

    Following the definition of the Ontario CSA farm directory, Community Supported Agriculture is a partnership between farmers looking for stable markets and consumers seeking good quality safe food. Food boxes are delivered every week and both parties share the risks of production.

  7. 7.

    Eco-grazing is where the maintenance of public or private green space is done by grazing animals instead of mechanical equipment.

  8. 8.

    SMI is a threshold that aimed to determine the minimum size necessary for a farmer to make a living using conventional agricultural practices and taking into account farm type and the geographical characteristics of farm location.

  9. 9.

    https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2015-138-e.html?cat=agriculture

  10. 10.

    The commodification of agricultural knowledge is a fragmentation of knowledge and a decrease in information sharing resulting from a withdrawal of the State and an increased role of private commercial service providers.

References

  1. Akimowicz M, Magrini MB, Ridier A, Bergez JE, Requier-Desjardins D (2013) What influences farm size growth? An illustration in southwestern France. Appl Econ Perspect Pol 35(2):242–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akimowicz M, Cummings H, Landman K (2016) Green lights in the Greenbelt? A qualitative analysis of farm investment decision-making in peri-urban Southern Ontario. Land Use Policy 55:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Akimowicz M, Képhaliacos C (2018) Coordonner la construction territoriale par une vision du futur. Les dynamiques d’investissement agricole dans l’InterSCoT toulousain. Econ Rurale 365:27–47. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.5851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allaire G, Boyer R (1995) La grande transformation de l’agriculture, lectures conventionnalistes et régulationnistes. INRA Economica, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson G (2009) Going concerns, futurity and reasonable value. J Econ Issues 43(2):433–440. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-3624430216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barnaud C, Corbera E, Muradian R, Salliou N, Sirami C, Vialatte A, Choisis J-P, Dendoncker N, Mathevet R, Moreau C, Reyes-García V, Boada M, Deconchat M, Cibien C, Garnier S, Maneja R, Antona M (2018) Ecosystem services, social interdependencies, and collective action: A conceptual framework. Ecol Soc 23(1):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09848-230115

  7. Barry PJ, Ellinger PN, Hopkin JA, Baker CB (1995) Financial management in agriculture. Interstate Publishers, Danville, Illinois

  8. Benis K, Ferrão P (2018) Commercial farming within the urban built environment–taking stock of an evolving field in northern countries. Glob Food Secur 17:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benjamin C, Phimister E (2002) Does capital market structure affect farm investment? A comparison using French and British farm-level panel data. Amer J Agr Econ 84(4):1115–1129. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bierlen R, Dixon BL, Ahrendsen BL, Barry PJ (1998) Credit constraints, farm characteristics, and the farm economy: differential impacts on feeder cattle and beef cow inventories. Amer J Agr Econ 80(4):708–723. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Billaudot B (2009) Les institutions dans la théorie de la régulation: Une actualisation. Rev Reg 6 [on-line]. http://journals.openedition.org/regulation/7632. doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/regulation.7632:

  12. Bissonnette JF, Dupras J, Messier C, Lechowicz M, Dagenais D, Paquette A, Jaeger JA, Gonzalez A (2018) Moving forward in implementing green infrastructures: stakeholder perceptions of opportunities and obstacles in a major North American metropolitan area. Cities 81:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blancard S, Boussemart JP, Chavas JP, Leleu H (2016) Potential gains from specialization and diversification further to the reorganization of activities. Omega 63:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boncinelli F, Bartolini F, Casini L (2018) Structural factors of labour allocation for farm diversification activities. Land Use Policy 71:204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bryant CR (2013). Rural land-use planning in Canada. In: Cloke P (ed) Rural land-use planning in developed nations. Routledge, New York, pp 190–218

  16. Bryant CR, Marois C (2010). The management and planning of communities in the rural-urban fringe. In: Bryant CR (2013). Rural land-use planning in Canada. In: Cloke P (ed) Rural land-use planning in developed nations. Routledge, New York, pp 190–218

  17. Buchan R, Cloutier DS, Friedman A (2018) Transformative incrementalism: planning for transformative change in local food systems. Prog Plan Corrected Proof. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2018.07.002

  18. Butt A, Taylor E (2018) Smells like politics: planning and the inconvenient politics of intensive peri-urban agriculture. Geogr Res 56(2):206–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Carley K, Palmquist M (1992) Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Soc Forces 70(3):601–636. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/70.3.601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carey JM, Zilberman D (2002) A model of investment under uncertainty: modern irrigation technology and emerging markets in water. Amer J Agr Econ 84(1):171–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chanel O, Delattre L, Napoléone C (2014) Determinants of local public policies for farmland preservation and urban expansion: a French illustration. Land Econ 90(3):411–433. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.90.3.411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chavas JP (1994) Production and investment decisions under sunk cost and temporal uncertainty. Amer J Agr Econ 76(1):114–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Commons JR (1934) Institutional economics: its place in political economy. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Compagnone C, Simon B (2018) Cooperation and competition among agricultural advisory service providers. The case of pesticides use. J Rural Stud 59:10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Conell DJ, Bryant CR, Caldwell WJ, Churchyard A, Cameron G, Johnston T, Margulis ME, Ramsey D, Marois C (2013) Food sovereignty and agricultural land use planning: the need to integrate public priorities across jurisdictions. J Agr Food Syst Community Dev 3(4):117–124. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.034.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Crespo J, Requier-Desjardins D, Vicente J (2014) Why can collective action fail in local agri-food systems? A social network analysis of cheese producers in Aculco, Mexico. Food Policy 46:165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Deininger K, Jin S (2006) Tenure security and land related investment evidence from Ethiopia. Eur Econ Rev 50:1245–1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2005.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Del Corso JP, Kephaliacos C, Plumecocq G (2015) Legitimizing farmers’ new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: application of an agro-environmental policy. Ecol Econ 117:86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Delgado JA, Groffman PM, Nearing MA, Goddard T, Reicosky D, Lal R, Kitchen NR, Rice CW, Towery D, Salon P (2011) Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change. J Soil Water Conserv 66(4):118A–129A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dixit AK, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dong F, Hennessy DA, Jensen HH (2010) Contract and exit decisions in finisher hog production. Amer J Agr Econ 92(3):667–684. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aap041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Duvernoy I (2016) Partenariats inter-institutionnels et construction de représentations d'une activité agricole territorialisée dans l'aire urbaine toulousaine. Rev Econ Reg Urb 4:799–816. https://doi.org/10.3917/reru.164.0799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Duvernoy I, Lima S, Barthe L (2012) Des projets agricoles dans la planification territoriale ? L’exemple de quatre Pays en Midi-Pyrénées. Agr Dev Territ 34:79–92. https://doi.org/10.4000/soe.138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Duvernoy I, Zambon I, Sateriano A, Salvati L (2018) Pictures from the other side of the fringe: urban growth and peri-urban agriculture in a post-industrial city (Toulouse, France). J Rural Stud 57:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Epp S, Caldwell W, Bryant CR (2019) Farmland preservation and rural development in Canada. In: Gottero E (ed) Agrourbanism: tools for governance and planning of agrarian landscape. Springer, Cham, pp 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95576-6

    Google Scholar 

  36. Foltz JD (2004) Entry, exit, and farm size: assessing an experiment in dairy price policy. Amer J Agr Econ 86(3):594–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00603.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gilchrist S, Himmelberg CP (1995) Evidence on the role of cash flow for investment. J Monet Econ 36(3):541–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(95)01223-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gislain JJ (2017) Futurité: Origine des institutions économiques. Econ Inst 25 [on-line]. http://journals.openedition.org/ei/5828. https://doi.org/10.4000/ei.5828

  39. Glauben T, Tietje H, Weiss C (2006) Agriculture on the move: exploring regional differences in farm exit rates in Western Germany. Jahrb Reg 26(1):103–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10037-004-0062-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gould JP (1968) Adjustment costs in the theory of investment of the firm. Rev Econ Stud 35:47–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/2974406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Groumpos PP (2010) Fuzzy cognitive maps: basic theories and their application to complex systems. In: Glykas M (ed) Fuzzy cognitive maps: advances in theory, methodologies, tools and applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hansson H, Ferguson R, Olofsson C, Rantamäki-Lahtinen L (2013) Farmers’ motives for diversifying their farm business – the influence of family. J Rural Stud 32:240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hansson H, Kokko S (2018) Farmers' mental models of change and implications for farm renewal–a case of restoration of a wetland in Sweden. J Rural Stud 60:141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hennessy T, O'Brien M (2008) Is off-farm income driving on-farm investment? J Farm Manag 13(4):235–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2011.00542.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Howley P, Buckley C, Donoghue CO, Ryan M (2015) Explaining the economic ‘irrationality’ of farmers' land use behaviour: the role of productivist attitudes and non-pecuniary benefits. Ecol Econ 109:186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Huang D, Drescher M (2015) Urban crops and livestock: the experiences, challenges, and opportunities of planning for urban agriculture in two Canadian provinces. Land Use Policy 43:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.011

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hubbard RG, Kashyap AK (1992) Internal net worth and the investment process: an application to US agriculture. J Polit Econ 100(3):506–534. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ilbery BW (1991) Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of the West Midlands. J Rural Stud 7(3):201–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(91)90085-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Inwood SM, Sharp JS (2012) Farm persistence and adaptation at the rural–urban interface: succession and farm adjustment. J Rural Stud 28(1):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Isaac ME, Dawoe E, Sieciechowicz K (2009) Assessing local knowledge use in agroforestry management with cognitive maps. Environ Manag 43(6):1321–1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9201-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jones NA, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A (2011) Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol Soc 16(1):46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03802-160146

  52. Jongeneel RA, Polman NB, Slangen LH (2008) Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional? Land Use Policy 25(1):81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Jordan NR, Mulla DJ, Slotterback C, Runck B, Hays C (2018) Multifunctional agricultural watersheds for climate adaptation in Midwest USA: commentary. Renew Agric Food Syst 33(3):292–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Jorgenson D (1967) The theory of investment behavior. In: Ferber R (ed) Determinants of investment behavior. NBER, Cambridge, MA, pp 129–175

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kaplan R, Schuck NW, Doeller CF (2017) The role of mental maps in decision-making. Trends Neurosci 40(5):256–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2017.03.002

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kille GS, Lyne MC (1993) Investment on freehold and trust farms: theory with some evidence from KwaZulu. Agrekon J 32:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.1993.9524730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Labarthe P (2010) Services immatériels et verrouillage technologique. Le cas du conseil technique aux agriculteurs. Econ Soc 44(2):173–196. https://prodinra.inra.fr/record/41862

  58. Lange A, Piorr A, Siebert R, Zasada I (2013) Spatial differentiation of farm diversification: how rural attractiveness and vicinity to cities determine farm households’ response to the CAP. Land Use Policy 31:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lobley M, Potter C (2004) Agricultural change and restructuring: recent evidence from a survey of agricultural households in England. J Rural Stud 20(4):499–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lopez RA, Adelaja AO, Andrews MS (1988) The effects of suburbanization on agriculture. Amer J Agr Econ 70(2):346–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lovell ST (2010) Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustain 2(8):2499–2522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2082499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lucas RE (1967) Adjustment costs and the theory of supply. J Polit Econ 75:321–334. https://doi.org/10.1086/259289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. McDonald R, Siegel D (1986) The value of waiting to invest. Q J Econ 101(4):707–727. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Manson SM, Jordan NR, Nelson KC, Brummel RF (2016) Modeling the effect of social networks on adoption of multifunctional agriculture. Environ Model Softw 75:388–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.09.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Marsden T, Sonnino R (2008) Rural development and the regional state: denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. J Rural Stud 24:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ollsson E, Kerselaers E, Søderkvist Kristensen L, Primdahl J, Rogge E, Wästfelt A (2016) Peri-urban food production and its relation to urban resilience. Sustain 8(12):1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ostrom E (1999) Social capital: A fad or a fundamental concept? In: Dasgupta P, Serageldin I (eds) Social capital: A multiperspective approach. World Bank, Washington DC, pp 195–198

    Google Scholar 

  68. Oude Lansik AGJM, Verstegen JAAM, Van Den Hengel JJ (2001) Investment decisions making in Dutch greenhouse horticulture. Neth J Agric Sci 49:357–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(01)80023-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Paül V, McKenzie FH (2013) Peri-urban farmland conservation and development of alternative food networks: insights from a case-study area in metropolitan Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Land Use Policy 30(1):94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Perrin C, Nougarèdes B, Sini L, Branduini P, Salvati L (2018) Governance changes in peri-urban farmland protection following decentralisation: a comparison between Montpellier (France) and Rome (Italy). Land Use Policy 70:535–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Purvis A, Boggess WO, Moss CB, Holt J (1995) Technology adoption decisions under irreversibility and uncertainty: an ex ante approach. Amer J Agr Econ 77:541–551. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Rastoin JL, Ghersi G (2010) Le système alimentaire mondial Concepts et méthodes, analyses et dynamiques. Quae, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ricart S, Kirk N, Ribas A (2019) Ecosystem services and multifunctional agriculture: Unravelling informal stakeholders' perceptions and water governance in three European irrigation systems. Environ Policy Gov 29(1):23–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Rojo MS, Moratalla AZ, Alonso NM, Jimenez VH (2014) Pathways towards the integration of periurban agrarian ecosystems into the spatial planning system. Ecol Process 3(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-014-0013-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sanz Sanz E, Martinetti D, Napoléone C (2018) Operational modelling of peri-urban farmland for public action in Mediterranean context. Land Use Policy 75:757–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Schaeffer Y, Dissart JC (2018) Natural and environmental amenities: a review of definitions, measures and issues. Ecol Econ 146:475–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Serra T, Zilberman D, Goodwin BK, Featherstone A (2006) Effects of decoupling on the mean and variability of output. Eur Rev Agric Econ 33(3):269–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbl014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Singh I, Squire L, Strauss J (1986) Agricultural household models: extensions, applications, and policy. The World Bank 

  79. Singh C, Dorward P, Osbahr H (2016) Developing a holistic approach to the analysis of farmer decision-making: implications for adaptation policy and practice in developing countries. Land Use Policy 59:329–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Steinhäußer R, Siebert R, Steinführer A, Hellmich M (2015) National and regional land-use conflicts in Germany from the perspective of stakeholders. Land Use Policy 49:183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Stenholm P, Hytti U (2014) In search of legitimacy under institutional pressures: a case study of producer and entrepreneur farmer identities. J Rural Stud 35:133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Stiglitz JE, Weiss A (1981) Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. The American Economic Review, vol 71, no. 3, pp 393–410

  83. Summers LH (1987) Investment incentives and the discounting of depreciation allowances. In: Feldstein M (ed) The effects of taxation on capital accumulation. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 295–304

    Google Scholar 

  84. Szpiro GG (1997) The emergence of risk aversion. Complex 2(4):31–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199703/04)2:4<31::AID-CPLX8>3.0.CO;2-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Taylor BM, Van Grieken M (2015) Local institutions and farmer participation in Agri-environmental schemes. J Rural Stud 37:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Taylor E, Butt A, Amati M (2017) Making the blood broil: Conflicts over imagined rurality in peri-urban Australia. Plan Prac Res 32(1):85–102

  87. Trigeorgis L (1996) Real options: Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  88. United Nations (2018) 2018 revision of world urbanization prospects. Multimedia Library https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html

    Google Scholar 

  89. van der Ploeg JD, Laurent C, Blondeau F, Bonnafous P (2009) Farm diversity, classification schemes and multifunctionality. J Environ Manag 90:S124–S131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. van Dijk WFA, Lokhorst AM, Berendse F, de Snoo GR (2016) Factors underlying farmers’ intentions to perform unsubsidised agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy 59:207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Van Huylenbroeck G, Durand G (2003) Multifunctional agriculture: a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  92. Vandermeulen V, Verspecht A, Van Huylenbroeck G, Meert H, Boulanger A, Van Hecke E (2006) The importance of the institutional environment on multifunctional farming systems in the peri-urban area of Brussels. Land Use Policy 23(4):486–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Viaggi D, Raggi M, Paloma SG (2011) Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: methodological issues in assessing policy impacts. J Policy Model 33(1):127–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Wästfelt A, Zhang Q (2018) Keeping agriculture alive next to the city–the functions of the land tenure regime nearby Gothenburg, Sweden. Land Use Policy 78:447–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Westerink J, Jongeneel R, Polman N, Prager K, Franks J, Dupraz P, Mettepenningen E (2017) Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management. Land Use Policy 69:176–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wilber CK, Harrison RS (1978) The methodological basis of institutional economics: pattern model, storytelling, and holism. J Econ Issues 12(1):61–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1978.11503505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Williamson OE (1981) The modern corporation: origins, evolution, attributes. Journal of Economic Literature, vol 19, no. 4, pp 1537–1568

  98. Zagata L, Sutherland LA (2015) Deconstructing the ‘young farmer problem in Europe’: towards a research agenda. J Rural Stud 38:39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Zepeda L (1995) Asymmetry and nonstationarity in the farm size distribution of Wisconsin milk producers: an aggregate analysis. Amer J Agr Econ 77(4):837–852. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243807

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participants for their time and commitment. The MARSUPIA project was funded by the European’ Commission Research Executive Agency (Grant Marie Curie – IOF 622830).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikaël Akimowicz.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Farmland Management

Appendix. Factors used for mental modeling

Appendix. Factors used for mental modeling

Table 3 Classification of factors used for the mental modeling activities

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akimowicz, M., Képhaliacos, C., Landman, K. et al. Planning for the future? The emergence of shared visions for agriculture in the urban-influenced Ontario’s Greenbelt, Canada, and Toulouse InterSCoT, France. Reg Environ Change 20, 57 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01635-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Farm investment
  • Commons’ futurity
  • Mental modeling
  • Ontario’s Greenbelt
  • Toulouse InterSCoT
  • Farmland preservation
  • Urban-influenced agriculture