Patterns of on-farm business structure diversification in Greater Copenhagen – farms or firms?

Authors and Affiliations: 

Søren Bech Pilgaard Kristensen ; Anne Gravsholt Busck; Søren Præstholm; Lars Winther; Christian Fertner

Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen

Corresponding author: 
Søren Bech Pilgaard Kristensen
Email: 
Abstract: 

Peri-urban landscapes constitute a dynamic context for traditional agricultural production, presenting both unique opportunities and challenges. The development of on-farm business structure diversification (OFBSD) is a way for farm owners to react to specific production and planning conditions in these areas (ie. proximity to urban markets with a demand for cheap buildings and easy access, services which can frequently be offered by peri-urban farms). In contrast, the increasingly urban-oriented local population and strict planning regulation may pose challenges for OFBSD development. Changing economic conditions and planning legislation will over time facilitate or restrain OFBSD development. Thus, there is a need for knowledge on the drivers and their long term effects for the development of OFBSD on peri-urban farms. OFBSD enterprises do not just grow from external structures and conditions. The development is the result of many individual decisions taken by the existing farm owners/tenants or by newcomers, who have actively identified a business opportunity and started an enterprise in a given location.
In this study, we therefore investigate patterns of OFBSD enterprise development, including ownership, the type of business and their origin, i.e. whether the properties serve as “attractors” for a particular enterprises due to their location and resources or whether an individual, either the property owner or a tenant, was the “initiator” of a particular enterprise. To investigate these questions, we analyze the patterns of OFBSD adoption on 165 properties in Greater Copenhagen collected in a questionnaire survey in 2014 and classify them according to area and building requirements. This broad classification is supplemented by information on owner motives for property purchase and details about owner characteristics. The purpose is to gain a clearer understanding of drivers of change and the possible future role of OFBSD in peri-urban areas.
The results showed that farm assets (buildings and land) are used for OFBSD on more than half of the properties (60%). Storage, office enterprises, construction companies and accommodation are the most common activities, each found on 10-20% of the properties. In terms of property size, OFBSD are less common on very small (< 1 ha) and very large (> 100 ha) properties.
The study also revealed that 34% of the owners were already engaged in the activity prior to the identification and purchase of their property which allowed them to continue with this activity. For others (50%), the economic activity didn't play a major role in the decision to buy the property. Another 10% had the intention to start up the enterprise and were looking for a suitable property while 5% bought a property with an existing activity. Thus, the physical suitability of a property for a given OFBSD was important for almost half of the respondents.
The diversity of OFBSD and related motives poses important challenges for planners

References: 

Antrop, M. (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe, Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, pp. 9-26.

Alsos, Gry Agnete; Ljunggren, Elisabet and Liv Toril Pettersen (2003) Farm-based entrepreneurs: what triggers the start-up of new business activities? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Volume 10 (4). pp. 435-443.

Bomans, K., Dewaelheyns, V., Gulinck, H., 2011. Pasture for horses: an underestimated land use class in an urbanized and multifunctional area. Int. J. Sustain.Dev. Plan. 6, 195–211

Bomans, K., Steenberghen, T., Dewaelheyns, V., Leinfelder, H., Gulinck, H., 2010b.Underrated transformations in the open space – the case of an urbanized andmultifunctional area. Landsc. Urban Plan 94, 196–205.

Busck, A.G.; Kristensen, S.P.; Præstholm, S.; Reenberg, A.; Primdahl, J. (2006). Land system change in the context of urbanisation: Examples from the peri-urban area of greater Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift 106, 21-34.

Daalhuizen, F., van Dam, F., Goetgeluk, R., 2003. New firms in former farms: a processwith two faces. Tijdschr. voor Econ. Soc. Geogr. 94, 606–615.

Hersperger, A.M., Langhamer, D., Dalang, T., 2012. Inventorying human-madeobjects: a step towards better understanding land use for multifunctional plan-ning in a periurban Swiss landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 307–314.

Jaarsma, R.F., de Vries, J.R., 2013. Former farm buildings reused as rural villa, buildingcontractor or garden centre: consequences for traffic flows on minor rural roadsin a changing countryside. Eur. Countryside 5, 38–51.

Scott, A. J., Carter, C., Reed, M. R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N. et al. (2013). Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning 83, 1-52.

Slee, R.W., 2005. From countrysides of production to countrysides of consumption?J. Agric. Sci. 143, 255–265.

Van der Vaart, J.H.P., 2005. Towards a new rural landscape: consequences of non-agricultural re-use of redundant farm buildings in Friesland. Landsc. Urban Plan.70, 143–152.

Oral or poster: 
Oral presentation
Abstract order: 
7