IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i7p2143-d154016.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Fourth Regime of Open Space

Author

Listed:
  • Hubert Gulinck

    (Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Ernesto Marcheggiani

    (Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
    Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Piazza Roma 22, 60121 Ancona, Italy)

  • Anna Verhoeve

    (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 115, box 2, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Kirsten Bomans

    (Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Valerie Dewaelheyns

    (Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Frederik Lerouge

    (Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Andrea Galli

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Piazza Roma 22, 60121 Ancona, Italy)

Abstract

This article reinterprets open space as the theatre of adaptive regimes in the interfering wakes of two major waves of transformation: the agricultural and the urban transformation. The aim of the wave regime concept is to accommodate traditional and emerging land uses in a logical scheme of co-existing regimes separated by transition waves in space and time. Each wave corresponds to a transitional stage from one set to another set of value regime, which by the agents of the transformation is interpreted as a major value increase. The current struggle for space and the difficult interpretations of quality and sustainability can be explained as expressions of competition between value regimes. These value regimes tend to be driven and perpetuated by customary paradigms of land-use planning and management (urban planning, ecology, agronomy, etc.). Land-use sectors ask for rather unambiguous definitions and clear use rights of land use categories and zoning, leaving limited possibility for interaction, mixed regimes and innovative multifunctional land-use. New service demands, new sustainability and resilience urgencies challenge these customary land-use planning paradigms and their rules and instruments. This paper acknowledges a third wave and consequent fourth regime. This regime seeks overall increased sustainability and resilience in open spaces, stressing the strategic importance of unsealed soils and other life conditioning substrates. Different existing land-use models, such as “transition towns”, “agroforestry” and many more, can be interpreted as fourth regime examples, but altogether there is a need for more coordination or integration to turn the third wave concept into a real “wave”. A specific target is to scan territories for characteristics and values according to the prevailing regimes, and assess each unit in terms of third wave transition opportunities, even within active uses that may be at odds with customary rules and expectations. This is illustrated for cases of illegal intake of farmland for non-agricultural activities and for domestic gardens as a missing category in customary rural and land use policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Hubert Gulinck & Ernesto Marcheggiani & Anna Verhoeve & Kirsten Bomans & Valerie Dewaelheyns & Frederik Lerouge & Andrea Galli, 2018. "The Fourth Regime of Open Space," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2143-:d:154016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2143/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2143/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lovell, Sarah Taylor & DeSantis, S'ra & Nathan, Chloe A. & Olson, Meryl Breton & Ernesto Méndez, V. & Kominami, Hisashi C. & Erickson, Daniel L. & Morris, Katlyn S. & Morris, William B., 2010. "Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving framework to evaluate the design of agroecosystems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(5), pages 327-341, June.
    2. Giuseppe Modica & Luigi Laudari & Francesco Barreca & Carmelo Riccardo Fichera, 2014. "A GIS-MCDA Based Model for the Suitability Evaluation of Traditional Grape Varieties: The Case-Study of ‘Mantonico' Grape (Calabria, Italy)," International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS), IGI Global, vol. 5(3), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Robin Matthews & Paul Selman, 2006. "Landscape as a Focus for Integrating Human and Environmental Processes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 199-212, July.
    4. Ted K. Bradshaw & Edward J. Blakely, 1999. "What are “Third-Wave†State Economic Development Efforts? From Incentives to Industrial Policy," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 13(3), pages 229-244, August.
    5. Bergstrom, John C., 2001. "Postproductivism And Rural Land Values," Faculty Series 16689, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Salvatore Di Fazio & Giuseppe Modica, 2018. "Historic Rural Landscapes: Sustainable Planning Strategies and Action Criteria. The Italian Experience in the Global and European Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrés Pazmiño & Silvia Serrao-Neumann & Darryl Low Choy, 2018. "Towards Comprehensive Policy Integration for the Sustainability of Small Islands: A Landscape-Scale Planning Approach for the Galápagos Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, April.
    2. Sanya Carley & Sara Lawrence, 2014. "Energy-Based Economic Development," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-1-4471-6341-1, October.
    3. Ilaria Zambon & Artemi Cerdà & Sirio Cividino & Luca Salvati, 2019. "The (Evolving) Vineyard’s Age Structure in the Valencian Community, Spain: A New Demographic Approach for Rural Development and Landscape Analysis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Marull, Joan & Pino, Joan & Melero, Yolanda & Tello, Enric, 2023. "Using thermodynamics to understand the links between energy, information, structure and biodiversity in a human-transformed landscape," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 476(C).
    5. Sèyi Fridaïus Ulrich Vanvanhossou & Luc Hippolyte Dossa & Sven König, 2021. "Sustainable Management of Animal Genetic Resources to Improve Low-Input Livestock Production: Insights into Local Beninese Cattle Populations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    7. Horacio Augstburger & Fabian Käser & Stephan Rist, 2019. "Assessing Food Systems and Their Impact on Common Pool Resources and Resilience," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-25, April.
    8. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    9. Elodie Letort & Pierre Dupraz & Laurent Piet, 2017. "The impact of environmental regulations on the farmland market and farm structures: An agent-based model applied to the Brittany region of France," Working Papers SMART 17-01, INRAE UMR SMART.
    10. Maria Cerreta & Simona Panaro & Giuliano Poli, 2021. "A Spatial Decision Support System for Multifunctional Landscape Assessment: A Transformative Resilience Perspective for Vulnerable Inland Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    11. Goldstein, Don, 2015. "Climate-adaptive technological change in a small region: A resource-based scenario approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 168-180.
    12. Accatino, Francesco & Tonda, Alberto & Dross, Camille & Léger, François & Tichit, Muriel, 2019. "Trade-offs and synergies between livestock production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 58-72.
    13. Michael Darger & Alan Barefield & Brent D. Hales, 2017. "Business retention and expansion (BRE) today – research, application, and evaluation: Introduction to the special issue," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 160-169, March.
    14. Dileep Kumar Pandey & Shantanu Kumar Dubey & Ashwani Kumar Verma & Lobsang Wangchu & Sreenath Dixit & Chabungbam Victoria Devi & Gajanan Sawargaonkar, 2023. "Indigenous Peoples’ Psychological Wellbeing Amid Transitions in Shifting Cultivation Landscape: Evidence from the Indian Himalayas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Tian Liang & Peng Du & Fei Yang & Yuanxia Su & Yinchen Luo & You Wu & Chuanhao Wen, 2022. "Potential Land-Use Conflicts in the Urban Center of Chongqing Based on the “Production–Living–Ecological Space” Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, August.
    16. Almstedt Åsa & Brouder Patrick & Karlsson Svante & Lundmark Linda, 2014. "Beyond Post-Productivism: From Rural Policy Discourse To Rural Diversity," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 6(4), pages 297-306, December.
    17. Marney E. Isaac & S. Ryan Isakson & Bryan Dale & Charles Z. Levkoe & Sarah K. Hargreaves & V. Ernesto Méndez & Hannah Wittman & Colleen Hammelman & Jennifer C. Langill & Adam R. Martin & Erin Nelson &, 2018. "Agroecology in Canada: Towards an Integration of Agroecological Practice, Movement, and Science," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Divine Odame APPIAH & Eric Kwabena FORKUO & John Tiah BUGRI, 2015. "Land Use Conversion Probabilities in a Peri-Urban District of Ghana," Chinese Journal of Urban and Environmental Studies (CJUES), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(03), pages 1-21, September.
    19. Yu Chen & Shuangshuang Liu & Wenbo Ma & Qian Zhou, 2023. "Assessment of the Carrying Capacity and Suitability of Spatial Resources and the Environment and Diagnosis of Obstacle Factors in the Yellow River Basin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-26, February.
    20. Spicer, E. Anne & Swaffield, Simon & Moore, Kevin, 2021. "Agricultural land use management responses to a cap and trade regime for water quality in Lake Taupo catchment, New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2143-:d:154016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.