Sparing or sharing? Differing approaches to managing agricultural and environmental spaces in England and Ontario. (December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Marr, Eric Joseph; Howley, Peter; Burns, Charlotte
• Is Part Of: Journal of rural studies. Volume 48(2017)
• Page Start: 77
• Page End: 91
• Publication Date: 2016-12
• Subjects: Comparative policy -- Agri-environmental policy -- Land use conflict -- Land sparing -- Land sharing -- Post-productivism; Sociology, Rural -- Periodicals; Country life -- Periodicals; Rural development -- Periodicals; Land use, Rural -- Planning -- Periodicals; Rural conditions -- Periodicals; Sociologie rurale -- Périodiques; Vie rurale -- Périodiques; Développement rural -- Périodiques; Sol, Utilisation agricole du -- Planification -- Périodiques; Conditions rurales -- Périodiques; Country life; Land use, Rural -- Planning; Rural conditions; Rural development; Sociology, Rural; Periodicals; 307.72
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.10.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0743-0167

Abstract

Abstract: The ability to balance agricultural production and environmental conservation in the face of increasing demand for food, fuel and fibre poses a major challenge for governments around the world. This challenge is explored in two areas of comparison: Ontario, Canada and England, UK in order to understand how each has balanced agriculture and environment in its land use policies. England and Ontario share similarities that suggest lessons and instruments may be transferrable to achieve similar land use objectives. Through the use of a thematic analysis of policy documentation, from each case study area, themes are identified demonstrating differences in approaches, and underlying policy preferences, associated with balancing agriculture and the environment. Specifically, results suggest that policymakers in Ontario hold a preference for land-sparing and leanings towards the productivist paradigm, whereas the land-sharing approach coupled with evidence of post-productivism is more common in England. The structural similarities of these cases provides insights into less tangible aspects of either context, such as policymaker preferences, where different approaches have emerged from a similar foundation. Moreover, as England transitions out of the EU, it may draw on the experiences of other jurisdictions in the design of a new suite of agri-environmental policies, with Ontario's approach providing one alternative. Overall, this paper contributes to our understanding of the manifestation of land-sparing/sharing and productivism/post-productivism in real world policy contexts and the relationship between both sets of concepts. Highlights: We compare agricultural and environmental land use policy in England and Ontario. Thematic analysis of land use policy documentation is conducted. Approach is found to be land-sparing in Ontario and land-sharing in England. Preference for productivism is found in Ontario and post-productivism in England. Findings suggest policymaker preferences may explain different approaches.