Paul Cloke (2000)在R. J. Johnson等人所編的《人文地理學辭典》所作的定義,鄉村是:
然而全球化經濟分工影響了一個國家內的整體土地使用政策以及發展規劃內涵終究是個事實,也因此我們對於全球化對於鄉村轉型的影響不得不重視。鄉村規劃發展學者Terry Masden (1995;1998)提出「調節鄉村新空間」(regulating new rural spaces),將原有空間不均衡發展(uneven development)透過「調節理論」(regulation theory)與「治理」(governance)的概念來檢視鄉村空間行動者之間的權力網絡,並重新界定「鄉村性」(rurality)。
自1990年來,對於鄉村土地使用規劃的論述已漸漸從生產主義(productivism)走向後生產主義(post-productivism),這樣的概念也已經在西歐(Wilson, 2002)、丹麥(Kristensen, 2001, Kristensen et al., 2004)西班牙(Hoggart and Paniaqua, 2001)與澳洲(Argent, 2002; Holmes, 2002; Wilson, 2004),甚至也已經應用到一些發展中國家(Wilson and Rigg, 2003)。所謂的後生產主義,Fitzpatrick(2004)認為其就像後就業模式般可以被制訂為正式與非正式之有價值行為的多重形式,是可以被識別與培育的,他並且將其與環境倫理連結在一起,將這些環境價值視為是一種經濟特質。
在鄉村研究論爭中,後生產主義的特質是基於相對於生產主義的特質,例如Bergstrom(2002)認為後生產主義時代可以被特徵化為像是商品價值一樣,對於土地有更多樣化的經濟行為與態度,以及舒適性價值(amenity values)。在這些論爭中,傾向於將後生產主義歸類為一些面向,Ilbery and Bowler(1998), Wilson(2001),以及Evans et al.,(2002)皆對其做特徵性之描述,整理如下表:
學者
|
理論描述
|
Ilbery and Bowler (1998)
|
已知特性:
1. 農田產出的減量
2. 國家補貼的撤回
3. 在越益競爭的國際市場中的食物生產
4. 對農業作更多的環境管制
三個變化的兩極面向(與生產主義的對立面):
1. 從強化性到可伸展性(from intensification to extensification) 2. 從集約到分散(from concentration to dispersion) 3. 從專業化到多樣化(from specialization to diversification) |
Wilson (2001)
|
與生產主義對立的七個面向:
1. 意識型態
2. 行動者
3. 糧食機制
4. 農業生產
5. 農業政策
6. 耕作技巧
7. 環境衝擊
|
Evans et al., (2002)
|
五個類別:
1. 在食物生產上從量轉為質
2. 農田上的多樣化與農田外的工作越來越多
3. 透過農業環境政策來延伸與促進永續耕作
4. 生產型態的分散化
5. 環境管制與政府對農業支援的重組
|
強化公部門、私部門及自願部門之間的夥伴關係,來發展及執行地方或是區域的政策。透過民眾參與這樣的機制,使得鄉村聚落與農地可以 更密切的結合進行規劃與發展。
Cloke, Paul. 2000. “Rural.” In R. J. Johnson, G. Pratt, D. Gregory, and M. Watts eds., Dictionary of Human Geography, 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Singh, K. (1999) Rural Development: Principles, Policies and Management, second edition, New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.
Masden, T. (1995). “Beyond Agriculture? Regulating the New Rural Spaces.” Journal of Rural Studies, 11: 285-96. Marsden, T. (1998). “New Rural Territories: Regulating the Differentiated Rural Spaces.” Journal of Rural Studies, 14: 107-17.
Wilson, G.A., 2004. The Australian Landcare movement: towards ‘postproductivist’rural governance? Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 461–484.
Kristensen, L., 2001. Agricultural change in Denmark between 1982 and 1989: the appearance of post-productivism in farming? Geografisk Tidsskrift, 101, 77–86.
Kristensen, L.S., Thenali, C., Kristensen, S.P., 2004. Landscape changes in agrarian landscapes in the 1990s: the interaction between farmers and the farmed landscape.A case study from Jutland, Denmark. Journal of Environmental Management, 71, 231–244.
Hoggart, K., Paniagua, A., 2001. The restructuring of rural Spain. Journal of Rural Studies, 17, 63–80.
Argent, N., 2002. From pillar to post? In search of the post-productivist countryside in Australia. Australian Geographer, 33, 97–114.
Holmes, J., 2002. Diversity and change in Australia’s rangelands: a postproductivist transition with a difference? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS 27, 362–384.
Bergstrom, J., 2002. Postproductivism and rural land values. In: Paper Presented at Conference on Land Use Conflicts and Problems, Orlando, FL.
Ilbery, B., Bowler, I., 1998. From agricultural productivism to postproductivism. In: Ilbery, B. (Ed.), The Geography of Rural Change. Longman, Harlow.
Wilson, G.A., 2001. From productivism to post-productivismyand back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS 26, 77–102.
Evans, N., Morris, C., Winter, M., 2002. Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 313–332.
Pezzini,M. (2001) Rural policy lessons from OECD countries. International Regional Science Review, 24(1): 134-145.
Isserman A. M.(2001) ‘Competitive Advantages Of Rural America In The Next Century” International Regional Science Review 24, 1: 38–58