Fabiola Safonte and Gianluca Brunori 1

Abstract – The study aims to assess the lived experi-ence and the quality of life (QoL) perceived level by residents of an high complexity rural area. The paper introduces the concept of rural capital as an effective tool for rural well-being and local rural development analysis and measurement, as well as the rural quali-ty of life (RQoL). The proposed theoretical and meth-odological approach allows, in fact, its analysis in order to understand what dimensions related to terri-toriality are connected to the perceived level of RQoL at local level.¹

INTRODUCTION

The peculiarity of the contemporary countryside, which distinguishes it from other territorial contexts, is its heterogeneity, that unfolds in the diversity of the landscape, in the different development levels and in the various standards of living, in different social and economic structures of rural communities (European Commission, 2008).

In this context, to measure and to assess the RQoL is not easy, due to the absence of a unified meth-odological system and shared operational tools for its measurement, since it is a concept that, on the one hand, possesses a strong subjective valence and, secondly, it summarises the complexity of the problems which characterise the human life in mate-rial and existential terms.

From these assumptions follows, first, that it is not sufficient to consider the objective dimension of the phenomenon, but it becomes necessary to deal with the subjective perception that individuals have of the condition in which they live and, furthermore, that a multidimensional approach to the measure-ment of RQoL involves identifying indicators that cover different dimensions of rural well-being in line with the local context analysis.

BACKGROUND

If the concept of well-being has to be contextualised and related to the socio-territorial systems within an area, the attention towards the rural specificities focuses on those that, in the post rural studies, are defined as repertoires of development (Ray, 1999), i.e. the sum of the resources and the characteristics associated with a territory, and that, the territorialist literature identifies, instead, as territorial mass, with qualitative and quantitative traits, made by the his-torical accumulation of territorialisation acts (Raf-fastin, 1984; Turco, 1988; Magnaghi, 2011).

1 G.F. Safonte is from the University of Catania, Systems Management and Agri-Environmental Department (fabiola.safonte.unict@gmail.com).

G. Brunori is working at University of Pisa, Agricultural Science, Food and Agri-Environmental Department (gbrunori@agr.unipi.it).

The element that distinguishes these settings, as well as the approach of sustainable livelihood (Hann, 2000; Knuttson, 2006), is the interest focused on accessibility to resources which refers to the capabil-ities approach of Sen (1993 e 1996). In this litera-ture, the crucial question is given, on the one hand, by the awareness of local actors about the allocation of local resources and, on the other, by the relation-ship between the different local actors, in terms of networks, which determine the real access to the available resources; the use of the term network (Latour, 2005; Brunori, 2003 e 2006) is a metaphor to analyse and to interpret the processes and the activities that take place in rural areas.

In this perspective, the analysis of territory, which is essential for an active description of the territorial heritage, must be aimed not to the simple cataloguing of resources and of assets, but rather to the understanding of the rules of environmental knowledge, of the processes that gave rise to the type and personality of the place and of relational and co-evolutionary systems among physical envi-ronment, built environment and anthropic environ-ment. Since the territory is the result of a relational process temporally located between these compo-nents, spatial analysis must necessarily make use of special analytical operational methods.

To this end, several studies use the concept of terri-torial capital (LEADER European Observatory, 1999;

OECD, 2001; European Commission, 2005). This is the set of local resources that can be mobilised to create value, broken down into further sub-dimensions, each of which is used in the production process to increase the amount of capital itself.

However, since the measurement unit of the territorial capital can’t be independent by the nature of the processes that itself contains, it follows that the territorial capital of a rural area will have to be assessed with a metric other than that which would apply to the analysis of capital of urban and / or urbanised contexts.

The concept of rural capital (RC) allows to over-come this limitation, since it is the set of dimensions that involve the combination of components and of the tangible and intangible peculiarities of this terri-torial context that make up the total assets.

In literature timid attempts can be traced to con-ceptualise, none of which seems to follow our ap-proach. A similar term, “countryside capital”, is used for the first time since the United Kingdom Country-side Agency, which gives a first definition in terms of

“the fabric of the countryside, its villages and its market towns” (Countryside Agency, 2003: 43).

According to Garrod (2006) its intangible dimensions

concern countryside villages and country towns, considered the functional elements of the rural economy as well as the Heritage Village Shopping (Mitchell, 1998). Other features are discussed in detail by Garrod et al. (2006), and more recently, by the Americans McClinchey and Carmichael (2010).

These frameworks, however, are exclusively aimed to the enhancement of rural resources to add value to specific aspects of rural tourism.

The rural area has its own strong identity that is actively involved in the individual and collective existence: in the cognitive, linguistic, perceptual, sensorial processes. According to this approach, it is clear that we should not report to rural area as a uniform and undifferentiated space that can be treated with generalised models, through the use of simplified variables and purely statistical and quanti-tative procedures and that, from the analytical point of view, the RC can not be analysed exclusively through a list of indicators that quantify the alloca-tion of a particular resource at a given time, but it is rather necessary to analyse the territorial allocation in its temporal becoming in terms of quantity and quality.

METHODS

The dimensions of rural territoriality, and, conse-quently, of the RC, constitute and reconstitute them-selves as resources only if and when they are recog-nised, interpreted, and used by a given community.

In this sense, the rural area has a double meaning:

it is made, at the same time, by objective dimen-sions, that are its properties and characteristics, and by subjective dimensions that define instead the value and the meaning assigned by the community at a local level. This implies a cognitive alternative to the traditional functional approach, in which prevail the deterministic cause-effect relationships that, in the new setting, they must leave the field to more complex relationships, based on how economic agents interact and perceive their reality (Halfacree, 1993).

The methodological approach - which followed the capabilities approach of Sen - provides that the assessment of rural well-being and RQoL perceived level is the final step of a process that begins from the recognition, at the local level, of the tangible and intangible dimensions of RC. In order to assess the level of perception among residents and local actors, operationally the research saw the application of the model to a rural area, with a strong socio-economic marginality, falling within the centre of Sicily, that is connoted, by many empirical studies, as territorial drifts, occupying the last positions in the compara-tive ranking between territories. The analysis is performed both through the examination of bench-mark indicators, and through observation of lived experience by rural residents, detected by sample survey that, in order to ensure the representative-ness of those residing in the countryside, will use a complex sampling design, to contain the sample size and achieve more accurate estimates. A representa-tive sample of rural residents is constructed, starting

from the identification of the respondents through an inversely proportional fixed stratified sampling plan, therefore applying, in all the strata, the same sam-pling fraction, a technique which, in the literature, is used just to deepen the knowledge of small layers of the population.

These results are integrated by a multi-case study carried out by a qualitative survey detected both through desk analysis and in field observation, and through in-depth interviews with stakeholders and focus groups with local actors, all asked to as-sess in a participative way.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The theoretical framework and the methodological approach have permitted the understanding of the different dimensions of territoriality and of RQoL, allowing, on the one hand, to draw up a taxonomy of the different dimensions and, on the other, to identi-fy a mixed indicators system (benchmarks indicators available at LAU2 level and satisfaction and accessi-bility indicators detected locally) able to analytically describe the rural capital dimensions at the local level. The results show that the concept of rural capital and its dimensions are well suited to the assessment of perceived levels of rural well-being and RQoL. In fact, at the local level, the life envi-ronment assumes absolute centrality. It is perceived in its procedural long-term dimension, as a result of the meeting between the tangible and intangible elements of rural capital as a whole, in which the specific dimensions of this territorial typology play a crucial role. They consist of: a) living-landscape rural capital - resulting from the interaction between the actors, who insist on the area, and the landscape and environmental assets and in which the role played by the primary sector is an essential element, and b) socio-relational rural goods, which, in rural areas, take on specific and pervasive forms.

Secondly, the proposed approach has demon-strated how the knowledge of RC contributes to determine the competitiveness of a rural local sys-tem as being crucial for its ability to foster learning processes. The active involvement of local actors, within each of the sampled municipalities, has al-lowed the activation of democratic processes of partnership and collective social learning and has also contributed to the construction of new forms of civic accountability until then unknown.

REFERENCES

Countryside Agency, (2003). The state of the coun-tryside. Cheltenham: Countryside Agency.

Garrod B., Wornell, R. and Youell R. (2006). Re-conceptualizing rural resources as countryside capi-tal: The case of rural tourism, Journal of Rural Stud-ies, 22.

McClinchey K.A. and Carmichael B.A. (2010). Coun-tryside capital, changing rural landscape and rural tourism implication in Mennonite country, Journal of Rural and Community Development, 5, 1/2.

Social Farming and sustainable rural development

Patrizia Bordina

¹

INTRODUCTION

The research aims to analyze the role that the Social Farms can play in the dissemination of new practices of sustainable development and solidarity. The hy-pothesis of the research is that these subjects are organized from the "crisis" of the model of agricul-tural modernization based on the market economy to move towards a model of development that starts from the strengthening of local economies in a sus-tainable social and environmental.

This model is related to the project that will give the different actors operating in a territory and not depend exclusively on the external conditions. At its base there is the drive to maintain and to increase the autonomy with respect to integration of the agri-food system. In this type, the natural resources are heavily involved in the production process, also the work is valued more intensely because they played

"with care", not only to achieve a quality product but also to preserve a good company (Van Der Ploeg, 2006).¹

PROBLEMATIC PICTURE

In Europe, we are discovering how rural and farming communities are not limited to the activity of "con-servation" of natural resources but have given life to experience "innovative" to promote various forms of assistance and social inclusion, solidarity and care.

In recent years it has been used the term social farming (social / care farming and / or green ones) to describe those farming practices that support recovery rehabilitating, the employment of disad-vantaged people (eg people with mental and physi-cal disabilities, prisoners, drug addicts, children, migrants), education and services for everyday life.

From the point of view of the production world, we are witnessing the disappearance of aid systems guaranteed by the Community, and the search for new ways of placement of its offer, the exploitation of internal resources necessary to compete in the markets. In the social services are witnessing the transition from a model based on public intervention, strongly institutionalized, to one that has yet to find its full spread and where the world public and pri-vate, are having to organize their way to operate.

The transformations taking place, see where on the local system to organize the necessary services to meet local needs. This observation leads to the need on the part of individual locations to involve

1 Patrizia Bordina is Phd Student at the Unversity of Calabria, Italy (patriziabordina@libero.it).

more actors to allow the sharing of objectives, strat-egies and actions that form communities prepared to handle the changes with coherent answers. Hence the need to reflect on the future roles that agricul-ture can provide to support their local communities and on the possible link that can be established between agriculture and the scope of services to the person

OBJECTIVES

The specific objective of this work is to verify wheth-er the entwheth-erprise social farming practice that it was a part of the production model farmer, using the re-sources of rural areas for prevention and rehabilita-tion services for the benefit of urban and rural com-munities and improving their economic performance, differentiating business activities that enhance hu-man labor employed in the company and retain some of the value added produced in the entire process chain.

METHODOLOGY

The empirical cases, taken as a basis of research, refer to the national context, and in particular to five case studies in one Italian region with the subse-quent comparison of case studies of Green Rehabili-tation in England. The information collected, through participant observation and semi-structured interviews with actors, allows us to make some considerations: the experiences of social farming analyzed is the result of different strategies pursued by manufacturers that lead to different styles of business management, the result of the involvement of both aspects of the business' production the ma-terial and the social. Within this co-production so much material that the social organizing, mutually influencing their development.

Inside of social farming is carried out that par-ticular "style" as a coherent set of assets (land, livestock, water resources, equipment), social and cultural resources (tacit knowledge, customs and tradition in a modern key), and finally the "external networks" which is being implemented through a particular business strategy.

Strategy made of progressive reduction of uses of chemical fertilizers, introductions of rotation tech-niques of land in order to increase the production capacity of the soil nitrogen and progressive integra-tion with the environment regenerated and local communities, with consequent increase of

biodiversi-ty, through which create new opportunities for prod-uct differentiation and market.

From the wide variety of experiences analyzed, is manifesting a new paradigm that restores the rela-tionship between agriculture, nature, society, and the prospects of agricultural producers (Van der Ploeg, 2000). The integration between agricultural practices and social services allows new forms of income for farms, while improving the image of agriculture in society, and encouraging the develop-ment of new relationships between rural and urban centers.

This' does not exclude, of course, that these pro-cesses are effectively supported by agricultural poli-cies and social innovation.The multi-policy approach turn out to be the most 'innovative, as they are based on the integration of policies and recognition of the social economy as a component of the first floor of the entire production system, which is es-sential to produce services and to generate employ-ment opportunities . It is the task of policy makers in the implementation phase involving the social partners in the implementation of interventions that are the result of careful analysis of the needs that the community expressed through the application of experience and knowledge gained through continu-ous interaction with active citizenship.

REFERENCES

Van der Ploeg J. D. (2006). Beyond modernization.

Rural development processes in Europe, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli (CZ).

Van der Ploeg (2000). Rural Development: from practices and policies towards theory, Sociologia Ruralis, Volume 40, issue 4. Page 391-408.

Di Iacovo F. (2008). Social Farming: when cam-paigns cultivate values. FrancoAngeli.

Economic crisis and the situation of rural families in Poland

Michal Dudek and Agnieszka Wrzochalska

¹

Abstract – The crisis influences the socio-economic situation of rural population. However, its effects could be different among rural families. Traditionally, due to farm ownership the farming families are perceived relatively resistant to shocks and changes in the macroeconomic environment. There has been few research analysing ongoing economic downturn from the perspective of rural families. The paper aims to answer the question whether and how the current economic crisis affected rural families in Poland. In addition, we investigate what were the dominant strategies among them to overcome or alleviate its negative effects. Using the field surveys data, the results indicate that the economic crisis affected only part of rural families. We found that many of them did not plan special activities to mitigate or overcome its consequences. ¹

INTRODUCTION

Events on the American financial markets in 2008 gave rise to one of the largest and unexpected economic crisis in recent decades. The negative social consequences of the economic downturn, such as rising unemployment, worsening of standards of living and increasing pessimism also affected Polish households.

What is interesting in this context is the answer to the question of whether and how the current economic crisis has affected the situation of rural families in Poland. This has not been the subject of many studies so far. Generally, what is investigated are the effects of the economic downturn in the macro dimension: for the economy, for its specific sectors and for the society as a whole (Wenzel, 2009; Chechelski, Judzińska, 2011). In the literature of the subject, the issue of the economic crisis and its impact on rural families is, however, not new (Czajanov, 1966). It was usually claimed that the impact of the economic slowdown may vary according to the type of household. In of the times of recession or economic turmoil, for the sake of greater flexibility, farm owning families are in a better position than other rural families (Gasson, Errigton, 1993). They can increase sales and/or consumption of food produced, as well as take advantage of the relatively greater number of sources of income (or opportunities for increasing them), which involve the possession of an agricultural holding and its constituents (e.g. land,

1 Authors are from the Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics-National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland

(michal.dudek@ierigz.waw.pl; agnieszka.wrzochalska@ierigz.waw.pl).

agricultural machinery, buildings)². Therefore, it shall be assumed that these resources bring more stability to the budgets of farming families, especially during the economic downturn. In this context, it was expected that farming families will suffer the consequences of the current economic crisis relatively less frequently. An attempt is made in this article to verify that hypothesis.

The occurrence of adverse effects of the crisis was usually accompanied by the need for their elimination or mitigation. From the perspective of households, these consequences are generally felt by the fact of reduced income. What becomes a challenge is to increase the income to the satisfactory level. The paper assumes that rural families affected by the current economic crisis will strive to improve their financial situation. Therefore, in the paper we identify the most important actions thereof.

METHODS

The empirical evidence used in the paper came from IAFE-NRI surveys conducted in 2011 on a sample of over 8 477 rural families³ in 76 villages situated throughout Poland (0.18% of total settlements) The sampling of villages for the surveys was purposeful and reflected the socio-economic features of population and the land structure of agricultural holdings⁴. One of the questions contained in the questionnaire refers to the assessment of the impact of the economic crisis on the financial situation of the household. Strategies for overcoming and/or mitigating the adverse consequences of the crisis were identified on the basis of responses received to the question how to improve the income situation of the family⁵. In the paper, the method of comparative analysis of statistical data was used.

R

ESULTS

The IAFE-NRI data have revealed that the economic crisis has affected the situation of only a part of the rural families (table 1). In 2011 36% of the respondents declared the negative consequences for their households. The largest group, however, were

2 In addition, owning a farm is linked with the option of using public aid under the CAP, including mainly direct payments.

3 The sample covered 3 331 farming families; i.e. families owning farms with an area of more than 1 ha of agricultural land, and 5 146 non-farming families.

4 It should be noted that, in the course of studies comprehensive data were collected and these were related to the families’ features and actions undertaken by them.

5 For both questions, the respondent was the head of the family.

families who had no opinion on this matter. Their proportion in all respondents amounted to 41%.

Households in which both the lack of negative or positive impact was declared accounted for 22% of all interviewed.

The empirical evidence analysed also proves that in 2011 there were no distinct differences in the perception of the effects of the economic recession between the farming families and non-farming families. Slightly more often, as evidenced in the opinion of the former, the economic crisis resulted in adverse consequences for the position of their household (38 compared to 34%). On the other hand, a few more non-farming than farming families had no opinion on the issue in question⁶.

Table 1.Influence of the economic crisis on rural families situation in Poland

Specification negative positive neutral lack of opinion non-farming 34,2 1,5 22,2 42,1

farming 37,9 1,5 21,7 38,9

total 35,7 1,5 22,0 40,8

Rural families affected by the crisis had a strategy of improving their income situation more often than the rest of respondents. Usually they declared finding a job (24% of all households affected by the crisis), much rarely – setting up own business (6%) and providing agroturistical services (2%) (Fig. 1). However, almost a half of households who suffer from the negative changes in the economy did not see any possibilities to increase their income.

Figure 1. Dominant strategies of rural families in the times of economic crisis.

DISCUSSION

The data presented in the paper proves the fact that the current economic crisis had no significant effects for the majority of rural families surveyed. The respondents could not determine its impact on their situation or did not refer to it as a change-causingfactor. This fact should, in part, be associated with the good economic situation of Poland⁷. Therefore, the negative consequences of

6 In both group of households, we note the same proportion of families in the opinion of which the crisis had either neutral (22%) or positive (2%) impact on their position.

7 In 2011, we reported GDP growth (4.3%) as well as higher disposable income of households and individual consumption. The

the crisis were not as much experienced socially as it was in the case of other European countries. We should undoubtedly suppose that the situation of the families surveyed has not deteriorated, and if it has, the reasons for this should not be sought in the current crisis.

In the context of the existing literature, as well as the assumptions we made, the relatively more frequent declarations about the negative effects of the economic crisis for the situation of the households reported for rural families may seem surprising at first. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of farming families surveyed did not sell their agricultural production or did it on a very small scale. Public aid for them was also insignificant. Hence, in their case, the negative consequences of the crisis would be relatively more severe than for families having economically strong, market-oriented agricultural holdings or non-farming families, whose budgets were based on supplementary sources of income⁸.

Additionally, a relatively significant proportion of rural families suffering from the crisis, who did not have a plan of improving income situation, above all, we could ascribe to the situation in Polish rural areas. There were insufficient number of job opportunities, as well as the amount of capital for establishing new enterprises. Undoubtedly, it was often a matter of inadequate qualifications and skills or simply lack of business idea.

SUMMARY

The research showed that the current economic crisis has affected the situation of a little more than one-third of Polish rural families. Most of the interviewees were unable to translate crisis impact into their situation or declared no changes caused by it. The declared negative consequences of the crisis affected non-farming and farming families almost to the same extent. In this context, an important conclusion that can be drawn from the analyses undertaken is the fact that owning a farm did not have a significant impact in the mitigation of the negative consequences of the economic crisis. When it comes to the strategies for overcoming its adverse consequences, over two-third households affected by it did not have thereof. The rest of families declared to find a job for their members or, much rarely, set up own businesses.

REFERENCES

Czajanov A. (1966).The theory of peasant economy, Manchester: University Press Manchester.

Gasson R., Errington A. (1993). The farm family business, Wallingford: CAB International.

Wenzel, M. (2009). Reakcje na kryzys gospodarczy, Komunikat z badań, Warszawa: CBOS.

unemployment rate increased only slightly in comparison to previous years.

8 In 2011, households with income based on non-agricultural sources experienced a slowdown in income growth to a relatively lesser extent.

2,1

23,9 6,4

2,4 1,2

47,9 16,1

1,7 14,5 5,5 2,7 1,7

42,7 31,2 agroturistical services

find a job set up a business services for agriculture other no possibility non applicable

affected by crisis remaining

In document eProceedings Laboratorio di studi rurali SISMONDI, Pisa (Italy) ISBN 978 8 8908 9600 2 (Pldal 155-200)