IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v113y2022ics0264837721005743.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From scythe to smartphone: Rural transformation in Romania evidenced by the perception of rural land and population

Author

Listed:
  • Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra Malina
  • Petrescu, Dacinia Crina
  • Azadi, Hossein

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra Malina & Petrescu, Dacinia Crina & Azadi, Hossein, 2022. "From scythe to smartphone: Rural transformation in Romania evidenced by the perception of rural land and population," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:113:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005743
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721005743
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105851?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zoomers, Annelies & van Noorloos, Femke & Otsuki, Kei & Steel, Griet & van Westen, Guus, 2017. "The Rush for Land in an Urbanizing World: From Land Grabbing Toward Developing Safe, Resilient, and Sustainable Cities and Landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 242-252.
    2. David Meek & Katharine Bradley & Bruce Ferguson & Lesli Hoey & Helda Morales & Peter Rosset & Rebecca Tarlau, 2019. "Food sovereignty education across the Americas: multiple origins, converging movements," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(3), pages 611-626, September.
    3. Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra Mălina & Petrescu, Dacinia Crina & Muntean, Octavian Liviu, 2018. "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, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 468-479.
    4. Claude Lacour & Sylvette Puissant, 2007. "Re-Urbanity : urbanising the Rural and Ruralising the Urban," Post-Print hal-00154248, HAL.
    5. Müller, Daniel & Leitão, Pedro J. & Sikor, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing the determinants of cropland abandonment in Albania and Romania using boosted regression trees," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 66-77.
    6. Adina Dabu & Paul D. Aligica, 2020. "The Post-communist Period (1989–2000). Land Reform Between Property Rights Restoration and the Reorganization of Work and Production Relationships in Agriculture," SpringerBriefs in Economics, in: Economic Dualism and Agrarian Policies, chapter 0, pages 29-45, Springer.
    7. Tanis Frame & Thomas Gunton & J. C. Day, 2004. "The role of collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 59-82.
    8. Zhou, Qingna & Gao, Ping & Chimhowu, Admos, 2019. "ICTs in the transformation of rural enterprises in China: A multi-layer perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 12-23.
    9. Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra Mălina & Petrescu, Dacinia Crina & Azadi, Hossein & Petrescu-Mag, Ioan Valentin, 2018. "Agricultural land use conflict management—Vulnerabilities, law restrictions and negotiation frames. A wake-up call," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 600-610.
    10. Ward, Catherine D. & Shackleton, Charlie M., 2016. "Natural Resource Use, Incomes, and Poverty Along the Rural–Urban Continuum of Two Medium-Sized, South African Towns," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 80-93.
    11. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1996. "Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 538-549.
    12. Lena Hommes & Rutgerd Boelens & Leila M. Harris & Gert Jan Veldwisch, 2019. "Rural–urban water struggles: urbanizing hydrosocial territories and evolving connections, discourses and identities," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 81-94, February.
    13. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    14. Mandy Lau, 2018. "Framing processes in planning disputes: analysing dynamics of contention in a housing project in Hong Kong," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5), pages 667-683, July.
    15. Ramona Bunkus & Ilkhom Soliev & Insa Theesfeld, 2020. "Density of resident farmers and rural inhabitants’ relationship to agriculture: operationalizing complex social interactions with a structural equation model," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 47-63, March.
    16. Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra Mălina & Petrescu, Dacinia Crina & Reti, Kinga-Olga, 2019. "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, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 729-741.
    17. Ana Barbič, 1998. "Cultural identity of the Slovenian countryside: Territorial integrity and cultural diversity from the perspective of rural communities," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(3), pages 253-265, September.
    18. Huang, Yaofu & Hui, Eddie C.M. & Zhou, Jinmiao & Lang, Wei & Chen, Tingting & Li, Xun, 2020. "Rural Revitalization in China: Land-Use Optimization through the Practice of Place-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    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. Uchendu Eugene Chigbu & Michael Klaus & Wenjun Zhang & Laina Alexander, 2023. "Rural Land Management and Revitalization through a Locally Coordinated Integrated Master Plan—A Model from Germany to China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Bowen Shan & Jian Liu & Yaqiu Liu & Huanhuan Wang & Ailing Wang, 2022. "How Is Construction Land Transition Related to Rural Transformation? Evidence from a Plain County in China Based on the Grey Correlation Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Liu, Jianzhi & Fang, Yangang & Wang, Ruru & Zou, Cunming, 2022. "Rural typology dynamics and drivers in peripheral areas: A case of Northeast China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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. Petrescu, Dacinia Crina & Hartel, Tibor & Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra Malina, 2020. "Global land grab: Toward a country typology for future land negotiations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag & Hamid Rastegari Kopaei & Dacinia Crina Petrescu, 2021. "What Drives Landowners to Resist Selling Their Land? Insights from Ethical Capitalism and Landowners’ Perceptions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra Malina & Petrescu, Dacinia Crina & Todoran, Silviu Ciprian & Petrescu-Mag, Ioan Valentin, 2021. "Us and them. Is the COVID-19 pandemic a driver for xenophobia in land transactions in Romania?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Czarnecki, Adam & Milczarek-Andrzejewska, Dominika & Widła-Domaradzki, Łukasz & Jórasz-Żak, Anna, 2023. "Conflict dynamics over farmland use in the multifunctional countryside," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    5. Aziz, Noshaba & Ren, Yanjun & Rong, Kong & Zhou, Jin, 2021. "Women’s empowerment in agriculture and household food insecurity: Evidence from Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK), Pakistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Castro, P. & Pedroso, R. & Lautenbach, S. & Vicens, R., 2020. "Farmland abandonment in Rio de Janeiro: Underlying and contributory causes of an announced development," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    7. Charlie M. Shackleton & Patrick T. Hurley & Annika C. Dahlberg & Marla R. Emery & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Urban Foraging: A Ubiquitous Human Practice Overlooked by Urban Planners, Policy, and Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Kashian, Russell, 2004. "State Farmland Preferential Assessment: A Comparative Study," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12.
    9. Ellen Banzhaf & Sally Anderson & Gwendoline Grandin & Richard Hardiman & Anne Jensen & Laurence Jones & Julius Knopp & Gregor Levin & Duncan Russel & Wanben Wu & Jun Yang & Marianne Zandersen, 2022. "Urban-Rural Dependencies and Opportunities to Design Nature-Based Solutions for Resilience in Europe and China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, March.
    10. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Akash Malhotra, 2018. "A hybrid econometric-machine learning approach for relative importance analysis: Prioritizing food policy," Papers 1806.04517, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    12. Xinhui Wu & Luan Chen & Li Ma & Liru Cai & Xun Li, 2023. "Return migration, rural household investment decision, and poverty alleviation: Evidence from rural Guangdong, China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 304-325, March.
    13. Christien Klaufus & Paul Van Lindert & Femke Van Noorloos & Griet Steel, 2017. "All-Inclusiveness versus Exclusion: Urban Project Development in Latin America and Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Xin Deng & Dingde Xu & Miao Zeng & Yanbin Qi, 2018. "Landslides and Cropland Abandonment in China’s Mountainous Areas: Spatial Distribution, Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Tweeten, Luther G., 1997. "Competing For Scarce Land: Food Security And Farmland Preservation," Economics and Sociology Occasional Papers - ESO Series 28325, Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics.
    16. Winters, Paul & Davis, Benjamin & Corral, Leonardo, 2002. "Assets, activities and income generation in rural Mexico: factoring in social and public capital," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 139-156, August.
    17. Zhang, Qianwen & Gao, Wujun & Su, Shiliang & Weng, Min & Cai, Zhongliang, 2017. "Biophysical and socioeconomic determinants of tea expansion: Apportioning their relative importance for sustainable land use policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 438-447.
    18. Jing Zhang & Bingbing Huang & Xinming Chen & Congmou Zhu & Muye Gan, 2022. "Multidimensional Evaluation of the Quality of Rural Life Using Big Data from the Perspective of Common Prosperity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-21, October.
    19. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    20. Ju Tjung Liong & Helga Leitner & Eric Sheppard & Suryono Herlambang & Wahyu Astuti, 2020. "Space Grabs: Colonizing the Vertical City," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(6), pages 1072-1082, November.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:113:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005743. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.