Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CRP:

Conservation Reserve Program

EU:

European Union

References

  • Amekawa, Y. 2011. Agroecology and sustainable livelihoods: Towards an integrated approach to rural development. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35: 118–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Batie, S. 2009. Green payments and the US farm bill: Information and policy challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(7): 380–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M.M. 2004. Farming for us all: Practical agriculture and the cultivation of sustainability. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, W. 1977. The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bland, W.L., and M.M. Bell. 2007. A holon approach to agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5(4): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R.M., R.I. Fretz, and L.L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Glover, J.D., C.M. Cox, and J.P. Reganold. 2007. Future farming: A return to roots? Scientific American 297: 82–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, D.J., and M. Levin. 1998. Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hudson, J.C. 1994. Making the Corn Belt: A geographical history of Middle-Western agriculture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Jackson, D., and L. Jackson. 2002. The farm as natural habitat: Reconnecting food systems with ecosystems. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jackson, L. 2008. Who ‘designs’ the agricultural landscape? Landscape journal 27: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. 1949. The Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mander, Ü., H. Wiggering, and K. Helming. 2007. Multifunctional land use: Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T. 2003. The condition of rural sustainability. Assen: Van Gorcu.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Conservation Reserve Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/. Accessed 15 March 2011.

  • Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2001. Multifunctionality: Toward an analytic framework. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2007. Multifunctionality in agriculture: Evaluating the degree of jointness, policy implications. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. The census of agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. Accessed 15 March 2011.

  • Wilson, G.A. 2007. Multifunctional agriculture: A transition theory perspective. Wallingford: CABI.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Family Development, University of Minnesota Extension, 715 11th St N. #701C, Moorhead, MN, 56560, USA

    Noelle M. Harden

  2. Department of Community and Environmental Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1450 Linden Dr., Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Loka L. Ashwood & Michael M. Bell

  3. Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1525 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    William L. Bland

Authors
  1. Noelle M. Harden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Loka L. Ashwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William L. Bland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael M. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loka L. Ashwood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harden, N.M., Ashwood, L.L., Bland, W.L. et al. For the public good: weaving a multifunctional landscape in the Corn Belt. Agric Hum Values 30, 525–537 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9429-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9429-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation