Functions; Land; Negotiation; Property rights; Rural; Forestry; Geography, Planning and Development; Nature and Landscape Conservation; Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
Abstract :
[en] History, economy, policy arrangements, and individual choices can all explain changes in ruralness. The rural transformation represents the main focus of this study which is intended to be a journey in the past to discover the present and understand the future, figuratively marked by the expression “from scythe to smartphone”. The objective of the paper is twofold. Firstly, to offer benchmarks on Romania's economic literature and the modern political, economic, and social changes that have shaped today's rural communities. Secondly, to assess the importance that people assign to rural land and rural population. The research was developed in two main parts and it used a mixed-method approach including document analysis as a qualitative method and survey as a quantitative method. A stratified random sampling method at the country level was used to select a sample of 217 persons. A broad context for the debate on how to negotiate for preserving the ruralness is also outlined. The analysis suggested a small perceived deficit of the rural population for ensuring environmental protection and food security. The results revealed that the hardship of rural space was a human-engineered problem and that modernity, through technology, deeply impacts the diversification of rural people's needs. It follows that this study could stimulate the stewardship of ruralness in other national contexts where rural space is about to become a cyber-reality, a museum space of “how it was once”. Moreover, the present contribution recommends the realignment of rural-urban boundaries. Last but not least, the complex interaction among small-scale farmers' motivations and needs, large-scale land acquisitions consequences, rural exodus, and the dynamics of rural land and population must be scrutinized as well.
Petrescu, Dacinia Crina; Faculty of Business, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Azadi, Hossein ; Université de Liège - ULiège > TERRA Research Centre > Modélisation et développement ; Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
Language :
English
Title :
From scythe to smartphone: Rural transformation in Romania evidenced by the perception of rural land and population
Part of this study was developed in relation to the research projects:, (1) “High nature value farmland (grant ID: 4407/6 09.09.2019) disappearance determinants – climate changes, land grabbing, and rural exodus: from investigating stakeholders’ perceptions on land services to developing win-win community-based solutions” and (2) “Inclusive economic (grant ID: 4407/6 09.09.2019) and climate resilience through the promotion of landraces with good production capacity and ecological adaptability: developing policy recommendations”. The projects received support through the fellowship “Advanced Fellowships – Internal; Excellency in the Activity of Research-Development-Innovation” granted by STAR UBB, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, and they are developed within ISUMADECIP, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania.
Adell, G., 1999. Theories and models of the peri-urban interface: a changing conceptual landscape. Development Planning Unit, UCL, London, UK.
Alexandrescu, I., 1986. Economia României în primii ani postbelici (1945–1947) [Romania's economy in the first post-war years]. Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică.
Ankersen, T., Ruppert, T., Tierra y libertad: the social function doctrine and land reform in Latin America. Tulane Env. Law J. 19 (2006), 69–120.
Badescu, I., Cucu-Oancea, O., Sistean, Gh., 2009. Tratat de sociologie rurală [Treaty of rural sociology]. Mica Valahie, Bucharest, Romania.
Baldwin, C., Smith, T., Jacobson, C., Love of the land: social-ecological connectivity of rural landholders. J. Rural Stud. 51 (2017), 37–52.
Barbič, A., Cultural identity of the Slovenian countryside: territorial integrity and cultural diversity from the perspective of rural communities. Agric. Hum. Values 15 (1998), 253–265.
Barrios, E., Valencia, V., Jonsson, M., Brauman, A., Hairiah, K., Mortimer, P.E., Okubo, S., Contribution of trees to the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 14 (2018), 1–16.
Bonner, K., Reflexivity, sociology and the rural‐urban distinction in Marx, Tonnies and Weber. Can. Rev. Sociol. 35 (1998), 165–189.
Bossuet, L., Peri-rural populations in search of territory. Sociol. Rural 46 (2006), 214–228.
Bulei, I., 2012b. O istorie a romanilor, V. ed. Meronia, Bucharest, Romania.
Bunkus, R., Soliev, I., Theesfeld, I., Density of resident farmers and rural inhabitants’ relationship to agriculture: operationalizing complex social interactions with a structural equation model. Agric. Hum. Values 37 (2020), 47–63, 10.1007/s10460-019-09966-7.
Cairncross, F., The death of distance: how the communications revolution will change our lives. 1997, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Cartwright, A.L., The return of the peasant: land reform in post-communist Romania. 2017, Routledge, London.
Castle, E.N., Wu, J., Weber, B.A., Place orientation and rural–urban interdependence. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 33 (2011), 179–204.
Chirot, D., Social change in communist Romania. Soc. Forces 57 (1978), 457–499.
Cloke, P., Conceptualizing rurality. Handbook of Rural Studies, 2006, SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, 18–28.
Council of Europe, European charter for rural areas. Recommendation, 1296(1996), 1996.
Dabu, A., Aligica, P.D., The post-communist period (1989–2000). land reform between property rights restoration and the reorganization of work and production relationships in agriculture. Economic Dualism and Agrarian Policies, 2020, Springer, 29–45.
De Gennaro, B., Fantini, A., The concept of rurality and the rural-urban relationship as perceived by young people. Farming Rural Syst. Res. Ext. Florence ARSIA, 2002, 253–263.
Directorate of the Central Historical National Archives. Contemporary Archives Service, n.d. Fund of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Agricultural Section http://arhivelenationale.ro/site/download/inventare/Comitetul-Central-al-Partidului-Comunist-Roman.-Sectia-Agrara.-1921-1989.-Inv.-3128.pdf.
Dobrincu, D., Iordachi, C., 2009. Transforming peasants, property and power: the collectivization of agriculture in Romania, 1949–1962. Central European University Press., Budapest.
Durandin, C., 1995. Histoire des Roumains. Fayard, Paris, France.
Enache, M., Regim. juridic al Propr. în Rom. Bul. Curții Constituționale, 2015, 7–26.
European Commission, 2018b. Special Eurobarometer 473. Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP.
European Commission, 2018a. Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2018. Country Report Romania.
European Commission, EUROSTAT, 2019. Statistical Factsheet. Agriculture and Rural Development.
European Network for Rural Development, 2018. Smart villages revitalising rural services (EU Rural Review no.26). European Union.
European Parliament, 2015. Extent of Farmland Grabbing in the EU.
FAO, 2018. Guidelines on defining rural areas and compiling indicators for development policy.
FAO Land and Water Development Division, 1995. Planning for sustainable use of land resources. Towards a new approach.
Fay, D., James, D., 2009. Restoring What Was Ours. An Introduction. Routledge-Cavendish, New York, USA.
Flora, C., 2018. Rural communities: Legacy+ change. Routledge, New York, London.
Frame, T.M., Gunton, T., Day, J.C., The role of collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 47 (2004), 59–82.
Fujiki, K., Mietton, M., Andriamasinoro, A., Andriamasinoro, W., The evolution of a rural territory at plot scale: between hyper-fragmentation andland grabbing (irrigation perimeter PC15 – Marianina Valley, Alaotra-Mangoro, Madagascar. Land Use Policy 43 (2015), 170–185.
Gallent, N., Gkartzios, M., Defining rurality and the scope of rural planning. The Routledge Companion to Rural Planning, 2019, Routledge, Oxon, UK, 24–43.
Gilbert, J., Rural theory: the grounding of rural sociology. Rural Socio, 47, 1982, 609.
Giordano, C., Kostova, D., The social production of. Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Practices in Eurasia, 2002, Routledge, London, UK/New York, USA, 74.
Google maps, 2021. Romania.
Guvernul Romaniei. Ministerul Agriculturii şi Dezvoltării Rurale, 2015. Strategia pentru dezvoltarea sectorului agroalimentar pe termen mediu și lung orizont 2020–2030 (proiect).
Halfacree, K., Rethinking ‘rurality. 2004, Ashgate Publishing, London, UK.
Halfacree, K.H., Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural. J. Rural Stud. 9 (1993), 23–37.
Halfacree, K.H., Talking about rurality: social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of six English parishes. J. Rural Stud. 11 (1995), 1–20.
Hall, C., McVittie, A., Moran, D., What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? a review of evidence and methods. J. Rural Stud. 20 (2004), 211–225.
Hartel, T., Fischer, J., Câmpeanu, C., Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Fazey, I., The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecol. Soc., 19, 2014, 42.
Herman, A., Enchanting resilience: relations of care and people–place connections in agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 42 (2015), 102–111.
Hiner, C.C., Beyond the edge and in between: (Re) conceptualizing the rural–urban interface as meaning–model–metaphor. Prof. Geogr. 68 (2016), 520–532.
Holtslag-Broekhof, S.M., van Marwijk, R., Beunen, R., Wiskerke, J.S.C., Perceived (In)justice of public land acquisition. J. Agric. Env. Ethics, 2016, 167–184.
Hommes, L., Boelens, R., Harris, L.M., Veldwisch, G.J., Rural–urban water struggles: urbanizing hydrosocial territories and evolving connections, discourses and identities. Water Int. 4 (2019), 81–94.
Huang, Y., Hui, E.C., Zhou, J., Lang, W., Chen, T., Li, X., Rural revitalization in China: land-use optimization through the practice of place-making. Land Use Policy, 97, 2020, 104788.
Husa, A., Morse, C.E., Rurality as a key factor for place attachment in the great plains. Geogr. Rev., 2020, 1–19.
Jacob, S., Luloff, A.E., Exploring the meaning of rural through cognitive maps 1. Rural Sociol. 60 (1995), 260–273.
Jacquet, J.B., Guthrie, E., Jackson, H., Swept out: measuring rurality and migration intentions on the upper great plains. Rural Sociol 82 (2017), 601–627.
Jamshed, A., Birkmann, J., Feldmeyer, D., Rana, I.A., A conceptual framework to understand the dynamics of rural–urban linkages for rural flood vulnerability. Sustainability, 12, 2020, 2894.
Johnson, P., Brookes, M., Wood, G., Brewster, C., Legal origin and social solidarity: the continued relevance of Durkheim to comparative institutional analysis. Sociology 51 (2017), 646–665.
Kapfudzaruwa, F., Kudo, S., Hansen, M., Rural-urban linkages and sustainable development in Africa. 2018, Spears Media Press, Denver.
Kaufman, S., Smith, J., Framing and reframing in land use change conflicts. J. Archit. Plan. Res., 1999, 164–180.
Kersan Škabić, I., Tijanić, L., Regional absorption capacity of EU funds. Ekonomska Istraživanja / Econ. Res. 30 (2017), 1192–1208.
Kligman, G., Verdery, K., Peasants under siege: the collectivization of Romanian agriculture. 2011, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 1949–1962.
Kline, J., Wichelns, D., Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland preservation programs. Land Econ. 72 (1996), 538–549.
Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (2002), 239–260.
Lacour, C., Puissant, S., Re-urbanity: urbanising the rural and ruralising the urban. Environ. Plan. A 39 (2007), 728–747.
Lau, M., Framing processes in planning disputes: analysing dynamics of contention in a housing project in Hong Kong. Hous. Stud. 33 (2018), 667–683.
Ledgerwood, A., Liviatan, I., Carnebale, P.J., Group-identity completion and the symbolic value of property. Psychol. Sci. 18 (2007), 873–878.
Lee, B.A., Sharp, G., Ethnoracial diversity across the rural-urban continuum. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 672 (2017), 26–45.
Lerner, A.M., Eakin, H., An obsolete dichotomy? rethinking the rural–urban interface in terms of food security and production in the global south. Geogr. J. 177 (2011), 311–320.
Locke, J., Second treatise of government and a letter concerning toleration. 2016, Oxford University Press.
Lokocz, E., Ryan, R.L., Sadler, A.J., Motivations for land protection and stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 99 (2011), 65–76.
Mahon, M., New populations; shifting expectations: the changing experience of Irish rural space and place. J. Rural Stud. 23 (2007), 345–346.
Manea, G., Matei, E., Vijulie, I., Marin, M., Cocos, O., Tiscovschi, A., Tradition and modernity in the Romanian Rural Space. case study: the arges Sub-Carpathian foothills. East. Eur. Countrys. 19 (2013), 127–151.
Mantescu, L., Vasile, M., Property reforms in rural Romania and community-based forests. Rom. Sociol. 7 (2009), 95–113.
Meek, D., Bradley, K., Ferguson, B., Hoey, L., Morales, H., Rosset, P., Tarlau, R., Food sovereignty education across the Americas: multiple origins, converging movements. Agric. Hum. Values 36 (2019), 611–626.
Metze, T., Fracking the debate: Frame shifts and boundary work in Dutch decision making on shale gas. J. Environ. Policy Plan 19 (2017), 35–52.
Mihailescu, I., 2000. Sociologie generală: concepte fundamentale şi studii de caz [General sociology: fundamental concepts and case studies]. Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, Bucharest, Romania.
Mihailescu, V., 2017. Mit, exceptionalism și narcotice. Un epilog [Myth, exceptionalism and narcotics. An epilogue]. Polirom, Bucharest, Romania.
Mihalache, F., Croitoru, A., 2011. Mediul rural romanesc: evolutii si involutii. Schimbare sociala si antreprenoriat [Romanian rural environment: evolutions and involutions. Social change and entrepreneurship]. Expert, Bucharest, Romania.
Ministerul Agriculturii, 1949. Decret nr. 83 din 2 martie 1949 pentru completarea unor dispoziţiuni din Legea nr.187 din 1945 [Decree no. 83 of March 2, 1949 for completing certain provisions of the Law no.187 of 1945].
Mormont, M., 1990. Who is rural? or, how to be rural: towards a sociology of the rural. David Fulton, London.
Moscovici, S., The coming era of representations. Cognitive Analysis of Social Behavior, 1982, Springer, Dordrecht, 115–150.
Moscovici, S., The phenomenon of social representation. Social Representations, 1984, Cambridge University Press, 3–69.
Müller, D., Leitão, P.J., Sikor, T., Comparing the determinants of cropland abandonment in Albania and Romania using boosted regression trees. Agric. Syst. 117 (2013), 66–77.
Noica, C., 1997. Manuscrisele de la Câmpulung. Reflecţii despre ţărănime şi burghezie [Manuscripts from Campulung. Reflections on the peasantry and the bourgeoisie]. Humanitas, Bucharest, Romania.
Otiman, P.I., Structura agrară actuală a României - o mare (şi nerezolvată) problemă socială şi economică a ţării [The current agricultural structure of Romania-a big (and unresolved) social and economic problem of the country]. Rev. Romana Sociol. 23 (2012), 339–360.
Padure, L.A., 2015. Efecte Economico-Sociale ale Retrocedării Proprităților În România (Social and Economic Effects of the Restitution of the Properties in Romania).
Pahl, R.E., The rural‐urban continuum1. Sociol. Rural. 6 (1966), 299–329.
Pallant, J., 2013. SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education, United Kingdom.
Petrescu-Mag, R.M., Petrescu, D.C., Petrescu-Mag, I.V., Whereto land fragmentation–land grabbing in Romania? The place of negotiation in reaching win–win community-based solutions. Land Use Policy 64 (2017), 174–185.
Petrescu-Mag, R.M., Petrescu, D.C., Azadi, H., Petrescu-Mag, I.V., Agricultural land use conflict management—Vulnerabilities, law restrictions and negotiation frames. a wake-up call. Land Use Policy 76 (2018), 600–610.
Petrescu-Mag, R.M., Petrescu, D.C., Muntean, O.L., Citizen response to a video experiment on values, interests and beliefs related to land. A “Stop and start over!” time for saving Romanian rural heritage. Land Use Policy 73 (2018), 468–479.
Petrescu-Mag, R.M., Petrescu, D.C., Reti, K.-O., My land is my food: exploring social function of large land deals using food security–land deals relation in five Eastern European countries. Land Use Policy 82 (2019), 729–741.
Plieninger, T., Torralba, M., Hartel, T., Fagerholm, N., Perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in European high nature value farming landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 34 (2019), 1565–1581.
Popescu, A., Alecu, I.N., Dinu, T.A., Stoian, E., Condei, R., Ciocan, H., Farm structure and land concentration in Romania and the European Union's agriculture. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 10 (2016), 566–577.
Rao, N.H., A framework for implementing information and communication technologies in agricultural development in India. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (2007), 491–518.
Recanati, F., Maughan, C., Pedrotti, M., Dembska, K., Antonelli, M., Assessing the role of CAP for more sustainable and healthier food systems in Europe: a literature review. Sci. Total Environ. 653 (2019), 908–919.
Resnik, D.B., What is ethics in research & why is it important. Natl. Inst. Environ. Health Sci. 1 (2011), 49–70.
Roberts, J., Community and international business futures: insights from software production. Futures 42 (2010), 926–936.
Biroul Român de Audit Transmedia [Romanian Office of Transmedia Audit], 2015. BRAT: Internetul in mediul rural a atins nivelul de dezvoltare din urbanul anilor 2007-2008. Mai multi sateni au acces la net decat la apa curenta si canalizare [The internet in rural areas reached the level of urban development of 2007-2008. More villagers have access to the net than to running water and sewage] available at https://economie.hotnews.ro/stiri-media_publicitate-19557089-brat-internetul-mediul-rural-atins-nivelul-dezvoltare-din-urbanul-anilor-2007-2008-mai-multi-sateni-acces-net-decat-apa-curenta-canalizare.htm.
Schultz, S.E., Kleine, R.E., Kernan, J.B., These are a few of my favorite things: toward an explication of attachment as a consumer behavior construct. Adv. Consum. Res. 16 (1989), 359–366.
Sen, A., Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. 1981, Claredon Press, Oxford, UK.
Shellabarger, Rachel, M., Voss, R.C., Egerer, M., Chiang, S.-N., Challenging the urban–rural dichotomy in agri-food systems. Agric. Hum. Values 36 (2019), 91–103.
Showbizreport, 2015. Ghita ciobanul, regele Facebook. Un record incredibil.
Sieber, S.S., Medeiros, P.M., Albuquerque, P.M., Local perception of environmental change in a semi-arid area of Northeast Brazil: a new approach for the use of participatory methods at the level of family units. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 24 (2011), 511–531.
Silva, C., The rural lands of urban sprawl: Institutional changes and suburban rurality in Santiago de Chile. Asian Geogr. 37 (2020), 117–144.
Sima, E., 1996. Referiri ale rolului agriculturii în tările central și est europene. AGRIS, Bucharest, Romania.
Sloterdijk, P., 2014. Mânie și timp. Eseu politico-psihologic [Rage and Time: A Psychopolitical Investigation]. Editura Art, Bucharest.
Smelser, N.J., 1994. Sociology. Prantice Hall, New Yersey.
Smith, H.E., Property as the law of things. Harv. Law Rev. 125 (2012), 1691–1726.
Snyder, K., The Iraqw of Tanzania: negotiating rural development. 2018, Routledge.
Stevenson, T., Communities of tomorrow. Futures 34 (2002), 735–744.
The National Institute of Statistics, 2019. Tendinte sociale [Social trends].
The World Bank, 2016. Agricultural land.
The World Bank, 2019. Employment in agriculture (% of total employment).
Timilsina, R.R., Kotani, K., Kamijo, Y., Generativity and social value orientation between rural and urban societies in a developing country. Futures 105 (2019), 124–132.
Tismaneanu, V., Dobrincu, D., Vasile, C., Final report for the analysis of the communist dictatorship in Romania. Romania, 2007, Humanitas, Bucharest.
du Toit, A., 2000. The end of restitution: getting real about land claims. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), Cape Town, South Africa.
Tönnies, F., 2017. Community and Society. Martino Fine Books, Eastford, USA.
Underkuffler, L.S., On property: an essay. Yale Law J. 100 (1990), 127–148.
Varga, M., Resistant to change? smallholder response to World Bank-sponsored “commercialisation” in Romania and Ukraine. Can. J. Dev. Stud. Can. Détudes Dév. 40 (2019), 528–545.
Verdery, K., Seeing like a mayor: or, how local officials obstructed Romanian land restitution. Ethnography 3 (2002), 5–33.
Walker, A.J., Ryan, R.L., Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: a maine case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 86 (2008), 141–152.
Ward, C.D., Shackleton, C.M., Natural resource use, incomes, and poverty along the rural–urban continuum of two medium-sized, South African towns. World Dev. 78 (2016), 80–93.
Wisborg, P.J., Human rights against land grabbing? a reflection on norms, policies, and power. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 26 (2013), 1199–1222.
Woods, M., Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 33 (2009), 849–858.
Woods, M., Heley, J., 2017. Conceptualisation of rural–urban relations and synergies.
Zhou, Q., Gao, P., Chimhowu, A., ICTs in the transformation of rural enterprises in China: a multi-layer perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 145 (2019), 12–23.
Zoomers, A., Van Noorloos, F., Otsuki, K., Steel, G., Van Westen, G., The rush for land in an urbanizing world: from land grabbing toward developing safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and landscapes. World Dev. 92 (2017), 242–252.
