Abstract
Increased global demand for agricultural production is being driven, in particular, by the rising middle class in the Asia-Pacific geo-region. The significant role of natural resource-based industries, especially agriculture, in the development of non-metropolitan regions is again being recognised. In this context, this article describes a spatial analysis approach to agricultural development based on the development of Production Areas (PAs) in regional/rural economies. PAs are spatial units within regions selected for the intensive sustainable development of agriculture (including forestry, agro-forestry and bio-energy), their associated activities and underpinning infrastructure. A case study in a resource-based region in Australia—Gippsland – explains the approach. This is informed by the eco-economy model of endogenous regional/rural development, which addresses the links between novel co-production and consumption networks. The methodology for the identification and analysis of PAs has, at its core, Land Suitability Analyses of those agricultural commodities currently cultivated in the region and those that could be grown in future climates. The use of GIS enables us to overlay and analyse several constraints (e.g. flood erosion and salinity risk) and resources (e.g. water and transport) to define PAs and the available land within each of them. The approach is further illustrated by focusing in one PA—Macalister, an irrigated dairy production area where recent dry climatic conditions caused a substantial decline in water resources. Key elements for the sustainable development of this PA are outlined including construction of Blue-Green Infrastructure. Comments on the approach and the need for strategic long-term planning concludes the article.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to Schumpeter (1934, 1950), development is caused by a bundle of interlocking innovations (primarily technological but also of other types such as organisational) spread over a wide range and sufficient to bring about qualitative changes in industries (and society) through the replacement of ‘old combinations of production’ and firms by new ones. His concept of ‘creative destruction’ (as explained in the 1950 book) refers to the opportunities for novelty (innovation) which emerge from the phasing out of the ‘old’ technologies (or products). New firms entering the industry are likely to choose the disruptive technology, and incumbent firms have the difficult choice of trying to extend the life of their current technology, or investing in switching to the new technology. See also Perroux (1964), and Schilling and Esmundo (2009). Innovations necessitates individuals, leaders or organisations that will secure and combine the necessary resources (including relevant information) and assume the risks of failure; every innovation thus requires an innovative agent, as explained by Friedman (1973, Chapter 3). This term is roughly analogous to Schumpeter’s image of the ‘entrepreneur’.
It is interesting to note that in the 1970s, Friedmann put forward an ‘agropolitan’ approach for territorial development, particularly of rural areas, which shares some elements with the eco-economy approach of Marsden and others (Friedmann and Weaver 1979).
Regional endogenous development theory combines three main dimensions (or fields) of development: the economic dimension, derived from the concept of economic growth using inputs that are at least partially sourced locally; the socio-cultural dimension reflecting cultural needs and community identity; and the political (and institutional/organisational) dimension relative to decision making and involvement of regional/local groups and individuals in the policy process (Moulaert and Sekia 2003). Ethical and nature-based considerations lead to the inclusion of a fourth main dimension—the ecological or environmental—thus creating a holistic (i.e. systemic) approach to sustainable development. See also Footnote 4.
However, multifunctionality and sustainability are different notions. Sustainability is a normative approach related to society’s readiness and capability to develop resource-conserving lifestyles and consumption. It is an ‘end’ towards society should move; whilst sustainable development is the ‘path’ towards that end. As a resource-oriented notion, sustainability requires maintaining some aggregate measure of economic, natural and social capital, with a possibility of trade-offs between them (in a ‘weak’ interpretation of the concept) in order to meet the needs of future generations (Pearce et al. 1989). Therefore, it has a temporal dimension (Cairol et al. 2009). Multifunctionaliy is an activity and outcome-oriented notion. It describes the characteristics of farm production and the diverse functions of the land resource, focusing on the connections. It lacks a direct temporal dimension. In most research, multifunctionality has nevertheless some normative emphasis, but it is better used as a conceptual and analytical framework. See also National Research Council of the National Academies (2010).
In the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) a new set of scenarios—termed Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)—was used that largely replaced the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (see IPCC 2013a-c, and Nakicenovic and Swart 2000). In contrast to the AR4 (where the scenarios were substantially policy free), the climate change from the RCP scenarios in the AR5 is framed as a combination of adaptation and mitigation. The simulations were carried out under the framework of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) of the World Climate Research Program. Four RCPs, representing a large set of mitigation scenarios, were selected from the published literature and are used in the AR5 for climate projections; they have differing targets in terms of radiative forcing at 2100 (IPCC 2013). It should be noted that a more recent climate model ensemble is now available for Australian regional projections (Taylor et al. 2012). However, projected climate changes over Australia differ little from the results shown in this article using the previous models (Whetton et al. 2014).
References
ABARES—Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. (2011). Potential effects of climate change on forests and forestry in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government. (2012). Australia in the Asian century white paper. Canberra: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Bagnasco, A. (1977). Tre Italie: La Problematica Territoriale dello Sviluppo Italiano (The Third Italy: the territorial problematic of the Italian development). Bologna: Il Mulino.
Benke, K. K., Wyatt, R. G., & Sposito, V. A. (2011). A discrete simulation approach to spatial allocation of commodity production for revenue optimisation over a local region. Journal of Spatial Science, 56(1), 89–101.
Brouwer, F. (Ed.). (2004). Sustaining agriculture and the rural economy. Series advances in ecological economic. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Brusco, S. (1982). The Emilian model: productive decentralization and social integration. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 6, 167–184.
Cairol, D., Coudel, E., Knickel, K., et al. (2009). Multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas as reflected in policies: the importance and relevance of the territorial view. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(4), 269–289.
Christesen, L. (2002). Dairy farming and river condition: investigating the sustainable use of water resources in an agricultural area. Water Science and Technology, 45(11), 21–28.
Christoff, P. (Ed.). (2013). Four degrees of global warming - Australia in a hot world. London: Earsthcan.
Climate Council of Australia. (2014) Australian heatwaves: hotter, longer, more often. Report written by W. Steffen, L. Hughes & S. Perkins. Sydney: Climate Council.
Coe, N. M., Kelly, P. F., & Yeung, H. W. C. (2013). Economic geography—a contemporary introduction (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Department of Environment and Primary Industries—DEPI. (2013). Dairy directions: analysing farm systems for the future. Melbourne: DEPI.
Department of Primary Industries—DPI. (2008). Approaches to managing nutrient emissions in the macalister irrigation district. Melbourne: DPI.
Diamond, D. (2005). Collapse—how societies choose to fail or survive. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Diogo, V., Koomen, E., & van der Hilst, F. (2012). Second generation biofuel production in the Netherlands: a spatially-explicit exploration of the economic viability of a perennial biofuel crop. Amsterdam: SPINlab Research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
European Commission—EC. (1997) Towards a common agricultural and rural policy for Europe. Report of an Expert Group (Blackwell Report). DG VI/A1.
European Commission—EC (2005) Europe’s countryside—more than a food conveyor belt. http://ec.europaeu/research/environment/newsanddoc/article_3184_en.htm. Accessed 20 March 2014.
FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1977) A framework for land evaluation. Rome: Soils Bulletin 22, FAO.
Friedmann, J. (1973). Urbanization, planning, and national development. Beverly Hills/London: Sage Publications.
Friedmann, J., & Weaver, C. (1979). Territory and function—the evolution of regional planning. London: Edward Arnold.
GRP PCG—Gippsland Regional Plan Project Control Group (2010) Gippsland Regional Plan. http://www.onegippsland.com.au. Accessed 5 April 2014.
Hettne, B. (1995). Development theory and the three worlds (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Hirschman, A. O. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Howden, M., Schroeter, S., & Crimp, S. (2014). Agriculture in an even more sunburnt country. In P. Christoff (Ed.), Four degrees of global warming—Australia in a hot world (pp. 101–120). London: Earsthcan.
IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). www.ipcc/ch. Accessed 11 April 2014.
IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers. Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). www.ipcc/ch. Accessed 11 April 2014.
Jingzhong, Y., Schneider, S., & van der Ploeg. J.D. (2010). Rural development reconsidered: building on comparative perspectives from China, Brazil and the European Union. Proceedings of the Comparative Studies Conference, Rome, 2010.
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. (2009) Special Issue on Agricultural Multifunctionality, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 11(4), 269–273.
Juma, C., & Konde, V. (2001). The new bio-economy: industrial and environmental biotechnology in developing countries. New York: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Keating, B. A., Carberry, P. S., Hammer, G. I., et al. (2003). An overview of APSIM: a model designed for farming systems simulations. European Journal of Agronomy, 18(3–4), 267–288.
Kitchen, L., & Marsden, T. (2009). Creating sustainable rural development through stimulating the eco-economy: beyond the eco-economic paradox? Sociologia Ruralis, 49(3), 273–294.
Knickel, K., & Peter, S. (2004). Amenity-led development of rural areas. The example of the regional action pilot programme in Germany. In G. P. Green, S. Deller, & D. Marcoullie (Eds.), Amenities and Rural Development: Theory, Methods and Public Policy. Series: New Horizons in Environmental Economics (pp. 302–321). Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Knickel, K., Schiller, S., Vihinen, H., & Weber, A. (2008). New institutional arrangements in rural development. In J. D. van der Ploeg & T. Marsden (Eds.), Unfolding Webs: the dynamics of regional rural development (pp. 111–128). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Kroger, M., & Knickel, K. (2005) Evaluation of Policies with Respect to Multifunctionality of Agriculture; Observation Tools and Support for Policy Formulation and Evaluation. Summary Report. Frankfurt: MULTAGRI Project. WP6.
Larsen, K., Ryan, C., & Abraham, A. B. (2008). Sustainable and Secure Food Systems for Victoria: What do we know? What do we need to know? Victorian Eco-Innovation Lab (VEIL) Research Report No. 1—Main Report and Summary. Melbourne: Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Melbourne.
Latrobe Valley Transition Consultative Committee. (2012). Report to Government—June 2012. Melbourne: Latrobe Valley Transition Committee Secretariat, Regional Development Victoria, Department of Planning and Community Development.
Mackinnon, D., & Cumbers, A. (2011). Introduction to economic geography—globalization, uneven development and place (2nd ed.). Essex: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Marsden, T. K. (2003). The condition of rural sustainability. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Marsden, T. K. (2010). Mobilising the regional eco-economy: evolving webs of agri-food and rural development in the UK. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 225–245.
Marsden, T., Yu, L., & Flynn, A. (2011). Exploring ecological modernization and urban–rural eco-development in China: the case of Anji County. Town Planning Review, 82(2), 195–224.
McHarg, I. L. (1969/1992) Design with Nature. Garden City, New York: Doubleday/The National History Press. Reprinted in 1992, 25th anniversary edition.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: a critical survey. Regional Studies, 37(3), 289–302.
Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. London: Duckworth.
Nakicenovic, M., & Swart, R. (Eds.). (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios—SRES. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council of the National Academies. (2010). Toward sustainable agricultural systems in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). The new rural paradigm: policies and governance. Paris: OECD.
OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001) Multifunctionality: Towards and Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A., & Barbier, E. (1989). Blueprint for a Green economy. London: Earthscan Publications.
Perroux, F. (1964). L’Economie du XXe Siecle (The economy of the 20th century). Paris: Presses Universitaires du France.
Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
Potter, R. B., Binns, T., Elliot, J. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Geographies of development—an introduction to development studies (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Regional Australia Institute. (2013) [In]Sight—Australia’s regional competitiveness index. http://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/. Accessed 12 May 2014.
Renting, H., Oostindie, H., Laurent, C., et al. (2008). Multifunctionality of agricultural activities, changing rural identities and new institutional arrangements”. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 7(4/5), 361–385.
Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process (2nd ed.). Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Schenk, S., & Haggis, J. (2000). Culture and development: a critical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schilling, M. A., & Esmundo, M. (2009). Technology S-curves in renewable energy alternatives: analysis and implications for industry and government. Energy Policy, 37, 1767–1781.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The Theory of economic development: an inquiry. Translation from the German original version by R. Opie, with additions by J. A. Schumpeter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Snell, D., & Fairbrother, P. (2013). Transitioning a carbon-exposed region: skill and the future of work in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria. Melbourne: Centre for Sustainable Organisations and Work, RMIT University.
Stokes, C. J., & Howden, S. M. (Eds.). (2010). Adapting Australian agriculture to climate change. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012). An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93, 485–498.
Thompson, P. B. (2008). Agrarian philosophy and ecological ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 527–544.
van der Ploeg, J. D., & Marsden, T. (Eds.). (2008). Unfolding webs: the dynamics of regional rural development. Assen: Van Gorcum.
van der Ploeg, J. D., Long A. and Banks, J. eds (2002) Living countrysides: rural development processes in Europe: the state of the art. Amsterdam: Elsevier
van Huylenbroek, G., & Durand, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multifunctional agriculture: a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Aldeshot: Ashgate.
Verzandvoort, S., Rietra, R., & Hack, M. (2009). Pressures on prime agricultural land in Europe. UR: Alterra, Wageningen.
Whetton, P., Karoly, D., Watterson, I., et al. (2014). Australia’s climate in a four degree world. In P. Christoff (Ed.), Four Degrees of Global Warming - Australia in a hot world (pp. 17–32). London: Earthscan.
Wilson, G. A. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. Wallingford: CABI.
Wilson, E., & Piper, J. (2010). Spatial planning and climate change. Abingdon: Oxon.
Acknowledgments
This article outlines research that was supported financially by the Gippsland Local Government Network (GLGN, which comprises the six Local Councils of the Gippsland region), Region Development Australia—Gippsland Committee, Deakin University, The University of Melbourne, and the (former) Victorian Department of Primary Industries. We would also like to thank the manuscript reviewers who provided valuable comments that made the final version of this paper significantly better.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sposito, V.A., Romeijn, H. & Faggian, R. Development of Regional Production Areas in a Changing Climate: A Case Study of Gippsland, Australia. Appl. Spatial Analysis 9, 365–387 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-015-9152-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-015-9152-4