공간농업경제연구

무안군 노지 스마트팜 (스프링쿨러, 워터펌프) 자동화 시범 적용 연구 사업

Dr. JHH — Thu, 23 May 2024 13:19:35 +0900

공간농업경제연구에서는 노지 소형 스마트팜 기술을 무안군 농가에 시범 연구 적용을 하였습니다.
국내에서 노지형 스프링 쿨러 적용한 첫 사례가 될 것 같습니다.

노지(밭농사) 기본 현황

현황 :
소재 : 전남 무안군
노지 밭 농사 : 0.7ha
규모 : 모터 펌프 2대 (3마력), 스프링 쿨러 150대 (3 way 형태)
적용 : 모터펌프 파워, 스프링쿨러 벨브 3대, 인터넷 라우터

자동관수 노지스마스팜 스프링쿨러

적용방안

방식 :
노지 밭은 150개의 스프링쿨러가 작동되고 있으며, 워터 모터펌프는 총 2대가 직렬 연결되어 있습니다. 스프링 쿨러는 50개씩 3개의 벨브로 전체 밭의 1/3씩 물주기를 실시하고 있습니다.
노지 스마트팜 셋톱박스의 기능은 스마트폰으로 모터펌프 2대의 전원을 컨트롤 할 수 있고,
총 3대의 벨브 또한 각각 컨트롤 할 수 있습니다.
스마트폰에서, 각각의 벨브와 모터의 타이머를 적용할 수도 있습니다. 2시간씩, 3시간씩, 벨브를 열고 닫으며, 모터의 전원을 지정한 시간에 끌 수 있도록 세팅 할 수 있습니다. 비가 오는 날에는 모터 전원이 자동으로 꺼지게 할 수 있으며 날씨 정보는 어플에서 제공합니다. 따라서 정확하지 않을 수 있습니다. 더 정확한 정보체계를 구현하려면 추가적으로 습도계, 표면 습도계 등을 장착하면 더 정확한 스마트팜 구현이 될 것입니다. 그러나 제 생각에는 표면 습도는 농민이 더 잘 압니다. 굳이 그렇게까지 할 것은 없을 것 같고, 오늘 날씨에는 2시간 주면 되겠군, 저녁에는 비가 온다고 하니 안줘도 되겠군, 그렇게 생각하면서 스마트폰 세팅을 하면 될 것이고, 매번 밭에 가서 키고, 껴고 옮기고 하는 수고만 줄어도 농가에 큰 도움이 될 것입니다. 경제적으로 하루 밭에 안가면 비용적으로 시간적으로 하루 약 7만원 절약된다고 추정 할 수 있습니다. (인건비+기름값+기타)

설치에 따른 효과

효과 :
- 노지밭에 물주기는 농민의 입장에서 매우 번거러온 일입니다. 물주기를 시작할 때, 구획을 변경할 때, 전원을 끌 때 작은 노력이 소비되지만 시간적으로, 거리적으로 매우 많은 시간적 손실이 발생합니다.
- 경제적으로도, 이동하는데 드는 비용이 발생합니다.
- 노동력감소, 스마트폰으로 물주기 방식을 콘트롤 할 수 있음으로 언제든 현장에 가지 않고도 물주기가 가능합니다.
- 범용성, 노지형 스마트팜은 습도계, 압력계, 날씨 등의 영향을 스마트폰으로 전송하거나 스스로 컨트롤 할 수 있습니다. 예를들어 비가 오면 습도를 확인하고 펌프의 작동을 멈추게 하거나, 밭의 토지습도가 낮으면 자동으로 물 주기를 시작할 수도 있습니다. 이러한 범용성은 어떠한 Attachments를 적용하느냐에 따라서 사용 범위가 매우 넓어집니다.

설치결과

2024년 5월 24일 무안군 현경면에 노지스마트팜 스프링쿨러 자동화 연구를 시연하였습니다.

현재 밭작물이 없는 관계로 스프링 쿨러가 설치되지 않아서, 가설치하고, 6월에 재설치 하기로 합니다. 상태확인하고, 향후 벨브의 위치를 고려해 전선 연결을 실시하였습니다. 농수관이 100미터이기 때문에 우선은 첫번째 벨브와 중간벨브는 나중에 달기로 하고 끝 벨브를 설치하였습니다. 그리고 테스트를 진행합니다.
콘트롤러와 라이터는 농가 경영주의 스마트폰에 재연결을 합니다. 이부분에서 콘트롤러의 재설정 방법을 몰라서 조금 헤맸습니다만, 리셋을 하고, 라우터도 비번을 변경하여 연결을 완료 했습니다.
벨브는 열리고 닫히는데 약 5초 정도 걸립니다. 배관이 커서 그렇습니다. 배관이 크면 더 큰 토크값이 필요하기 때문에 천천히 돌더라도 모터에 무리가 없어야합니다.
펌프의 전원은 7kw 이상 견딜 수 있도록 솔리드스테이트 릴레이를 적용했습니다. 전선도 8AWG를 사용합니다.

시연영상 성공

연구자
공간농업경제연구 연구위원(소장) 정현희 농학박사 (gusgml77@gmail.com)

Mobile 010 5858 1217

농업의 다원적 기능이란 (What is multifunctionality of agriculture)

Dr. JHH — Fri, 15 Dec 2023 22:50:10 +0900

농업생산 활동에 의한 다원적 기능

2. Multifunctionality of agriculture (MOA)
The concept of Multifunctionality of agriculture A first appeared in the international community at the Rio Conference in 1992. In 1995, the term ‘multifunctionality’ was first used officially during the 50th-anniversary commemoration ministerial meeting of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) held in Quebec, Canada (Kang, 2007). After that, it started to attract the attention of the international community as importing countries emphasized it in the NTCs of agriculture, a logic of protecting national agriculture from exporting countries’ claim to an open agriculture market in the Uruguay Round (UR) negotiation. In 2001, the OECD specified multifunctionality as the numerous benefits in agriculture which may have multiple outputs and accordingly may contribute to the achievement of several societal objectives at once. Applied to the Multifunctionality of agriculture, this approach defines agriculture’s positive externalities, such as environmental goods, jointness and environmental preservation, as an additional form of production.
Table 2.1 presents the WTO’s definition of agriculture’s multifunctionality, founded after the OECD, FAO and UR, and distinguishes the specific content of multifunctionality as a social function, environmental function, economic function, food security function and cultural function. The OECD stated that multifunctionality is agriculture’s economic externalities or NTCs and described it as an additional function to agricultural production. In contrast, the FAO reported that multifunctionality is a more specific agricultural production function, the means of applicable agricultural income generation. Table 2.1 indicates that there are many multifunctionalities companied with agriculture production and these multifunctional functions of agriculture and rural places are inseparable and have a mutual relationship with Multifunctionality of agriculture
Table 2.1 Detailed information on the Multifunctionality of agriculture from the OECD and FAO

Division	Group function
OECD	① Landscape ② Species and ecosystem diversity ③ Soil quality ④ Water quality ⑤ Air quality ⑥ Water use ⑦ Land conservation ⑧ Greenhouse gases ⑨ Rural viability ⑩ Food security ⑪ Cultural heritage ⑫ Animal welfare
FAO	Social function	① Mitigation of urbanization ② Viability of rural communities ③ Sheltering function
	Cultural function	④ Transmission of cultural heritage, identity, values and tradition ⑤ Offering a beautiful rural landscape
	Environmental function	⑥ Preventing floods ⑦ Retention of water ⑧ Soil conservation ⑨ Biodiversity
	Food security function	⑩ Supplying domestic foods ⑪ Meeting national strategic needs
	Economic function	⑫ Balanced development and growth of communities ⑬ Buffer for economic crises

출처 :Jung Hyunhee, 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization

R을 이용한 워드클라우드와 네트워크 분석 앤그램

Dr. JHH — Fri, 15 Dec 2023 16:55:10 +0900

2023년도 연구

에너지 관련 법률 워드클라우드와, 네트워크분석

분석 패키지 R 4.3.1

앤그램

워드클라우

공간농업연구의 시작

Dr. JHH — Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:52:11 +0900

2023년도가 훌쩍 지나가 버렸습니다. 한 것도 없는데 시간이 빠릅니다.
나는 늘 바쁘고, 힘들고, 지쳐 있는데, 행복은 온 데 간데없습니다.

2024년 새로운 마음으로 다 같이 화이팅 합니다.

공간농업경제연구는 문어발 경영을 하고 있습니다. 각개전투 다기능 전투를 해야 할 것 같습니다.

농촌은 말도 많고, 정의도 많고, 정책도 많은 곳입니다.
공간농업경제연구는 농업을 공간으로 바라보는 농업입니다. 농업과, 농촌과 환경과 사람을 공간의 테두리 안에서 정책을 펼칩니다. 공간농업경제연구를 진행합니다. 세부적으로 농업의 외부성을 농업활동에 포함하는 다기능 농업과, 환경 농업의 연구를 펼칩니다.

공간농업연구는 농업인으로서 스마트팜을 연구하고 추진합니다. 작물재배, 온도, 습도, 관개방법에 대한 연구 학습회를 운영하고, 나무와 묘목 스마트 화분, 소형 IOT 기기 연구를 진행합니다.

공간농업 활성화를 위한 교육사업과 연구인력을 양성하고, 호호익선을 추구해 보고자 합니다.

공간농업경제연구

공간농업경제연구 RSEA 연구진 Researchers

Dr. JHH — Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:34:19 +0900

연구진

정현희 (Ph.D., 농학박사, 경제학), 연구위원, Research Manager (R.M)

세종대학교 경영학사

서울대학교 농업경제학과 경제학석사

교토대학교 자원환경경제학과 농학박사(경제학), Schoralship Appointed as a JSPS RONPAKU Fellowship Program, Division of Natural Resource Economics, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University

Employment History

2008/10/01 Apointements as a junior researcher in Department of Green growth, Korean Energy Economics Institute, KEEI
2010/02/18 Resignation from the above
2011/07/01 Apointements as a Junior researcher in Sustainable Development in Agriculture (6th Industry), Chungnam Institute, CNI
2016/07/01 Apointements as a Senior researcher in Sustainable Development in Agriculture (6th Industry), Chungnam Institute, CNI
2022/12/18 Resignation from the above
2023/10/01 Apointements as a Senior researcher in SAEI (Spatial Agricultural Economics Institute)

허남혁 (비상임 연구위원)

서울대학교 경제학과 학사

서울대학교 환경대학원 환경계획학과(도시, 지역계획) 석사

캐나다 York University 환경학과 박사과정 수학

대구대학교 지리교육과 박사수료

이관률 (Ph.D., 행정학박사, 지역개발), 자문위원

영남대학교 지역개발학과 행정학 박사

現)충남연구원 선임연구위원

RSEA Research History

Articles
Jung Hyun Hee, 2014, “Valuing Amenity attributes of Farm village using Choice Experiment, Valuing Rurality”, Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning, vol., 20, no. 4.2014 (243-252)
Jung Hyun Hee and Lee, K. R., 2014, “Activating Multifunctional Agriculture”, Chungnam Report-103, CNI, pp.1-15
Jung Hyun Hee , 2017, “Performance analysis of 6thindustry and Expansion plan”, Chungnam Report-284, CNI, pp.1-14
Jung Hyun Hee, 2017, “6th industry status and development plan”, Chungnam Economics, 80(33-38), 2017 CNI
Jung Hyun Hee, 2020, “Estimating the social value of multifunctional agriculture (MFA) with choice experiment”, Agricultural Economics-Czech, 66, 2020 (3):120-128
Jung Hyun Hee, 2021, “Korean Green New Deal, Rural Convergence Industry Promotion Policy”, Chungnam Report-(Accepted publication), CNI, pp.1-17

Research papers
Jung H. H., “Principal Investigator, Chapter 1, Introduction and purpose Chapter 2 Operational status and performance analysis, Chapter 3 Case study of EU and America, Chapter 4 Consumer awareness survey, Chapter 6 Result and implication” Kwon, O. S., Kim Y. S., 2012, The strategy for management activation and present state of Ettum Qmark, Researching Report, CNI, pp.1~142
Jung, H. H., “Principal Investigator, Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2 Multifunctional Agriculture Theory, Chapter 3 International and national fact finding analysis, Chapter 4 Activation plan as a multifunctional agriculture, Chapter 5 Result” Lee K. R., Huh N. H., 2013, Activation policy of Multifunctional agriculture, Researching Report, 2013, CNI, pp. 1-116
Cho Y. J., Yun J. M., Lee K. R., Kang M. Y., Yu H. R., Kim J. H., Kim K. H., Jung H. H., “Part of public catering development pp.52-55” Um S. J., Kim J. H., Yea M. S., 2014, Agriculture, Rural, Peasant (3 Nong Policy) innovation 2030 development master plan, Consigned Research, Chungnam Government. pp.1-295
Lee C. H., Jung H. H., “Chapter 5, 1. Operation and linkage with surrounding areas p.85-91” Lim J. H., Kim W. C., Shin S. A., 2015, Taean-Gun Building Gateway plan, Taean-Gun (Consigned Research) pp.1-115
Jung, H. H., “Principal Investigator, Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2 Policy trend of 6th industry, Chapter 3 Analysis of 6th Industry Agricultural Structure, Chapter 4 6th industry broadening strategy using local resources part 1 common strategy, Chapter 5 Result” Lee K. R., Kim Y. S., 2016, 6thIndustry Regional Resources Utilization and Expansion plan, Researching Report, CNI, pp.1-123
Jung, H. H., “Chapter 1 Overview of Tasks, Chapter 2 6th industry concept and trend, Chapter 3 Chungnam 6th Industry Policy Evaluation and Development Direction, Chapter 4 Basic plan, Chapter 5 Action business strategy” Lee K. R., Jung J. K.., 2018, 6th industrial mater plan for five years in Chungnam, Consigned Research, Chungnam Government, pp.1-151

Latent Class Logit 모형 (계층 로짓 모형)

Dr. JHH — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:47:34 +0900

4.2.2 잠재 클래스 모델과 이질성 문제
한편, 위 절의 추정은 환경적 속성에 대한 선호도의 이질성을 고려하지 않는 문제가 있다. MFA에 대한 최근 CE 연구에서는 이질적인 선호도를 발견했습니다. 예를 들어, Dominguez-Torreiro와 Solino(2011)는 관찰되지 않은 취향 이질성을 설명하기 위해 무작위 매개변수 로짓(혼합 로짓)을 사용하여 다기능 농촌 개발 정책에 대한 CE 데이터를 분석했습니다. Sangkapituxet al. (2017)은 잠재 클래스 로짓 모델을 사용하여 MFA 선호도의 이질성을 발견했습니다. 따라서 본 연구의 결과에 타당성과 이질성을 고려한 모형을 적용할 필요가 있다. 본 장에서는 조건부 로짓 모델에 적용할 수 있는 LCL(Latent Class Conditional Logit) 모델을 적용하여 모델에 이질성이 있는지 알아보고, 이질적인 잠재 클래스를 분리 또는 제거하여 모델을 검증한다.
LCL 모델은 관찰되지 않은 선호도 이질성의 이산 표현을 통합하여 조건부 로짓 모델을 확장합니다. 대수적으로 LCL 우도 함수는 조건부 로짓 우도 함수가 다른 클래스의 유한 혼합입니다(Yoo, 2020).
LCL은 의사 결정자 간에 관찰되지 않은 선호도 이질성의 이산 표현을 통합하여 조건부 로짓을 확장합니다. LCL은 또한 의사 결정자의 고유한 유형 또는 클래스가 있고 각 클래스가 효용 계수 벡터 β c를 사용하여 자체 clogit 모델과 일치하는 선택을 한다고 가정합니다. 의사결정자 n이 클래스 c에 속할 확률이 분수 다항 로짓 사양으로 주어진다고 가정합니다(Yoo, 2019).

Yoo의 다항 로짓 사양(5.4)에서 z_n은 의사 결정자 n의 특성과 일반적인 상수 회귀 변수(즉, 1)의 행 벡터입니다. θ_c는 식별을 위해 θ_c를 0으로 정규화한 클래스 c에 대한 멤버십 모델 계수의 적합한 열 벡터입니다. γ= (θ_1〖,θ〗_2〖,…,θ〗_(C-1))는 식별된 C-1 멤버십 계수 벡터의 집합을 나타낸다. LCL에서 의사 결정자 n의 선택에 대한 공동 가능성은 다음과 같이 제공됩니다.

여기서 B=(β_(1,) 〖 β〗_(2,…,) β_C)는 C 효용 계수 벡터의 집합을 나타내며, 각 P_n(β_c)은 일반적인 조건부 로짓 모델을 평가하여 구합니다.
표 5.10의 조건부 로짓 결과에 이질성이 있는지를 판단할 필요가 있으며, 잠재적인 클래스가 몇 개인지 알아보기 위해 LCL 분석을 수행하였다. 표 5.13은 각 잠재 클래스에 대한 각 변수의 추정된 계수를 보여줍니다. 분석 결과 두 개의 잠재 클래스가 있고 이질성이 있는 것으로 나타났다. BIC(Bayesian information criterion)의 결과에 따라 잠재적 클래스의 적절한 수를 결정할 수 있습니다. 두 경우에서 BIC 결과는 1935.2인 반면 세 경우에서 BIC 결과는 1957.9로 증가합니다. 값이 작을수록 클래스가 더 적합합니다.
두 부류 중 1급은 전체 표본의 71.9%를 차지하고, 2급은 28.1%로 위계가 분리될 수 있으며, 자연과 환경, 역사와 문화, 공공활동 변수에 이질성이 있음을 보여준다.
LCL 추정 결과에 따르면 MOA의 값은 두 잠재 클래스의 최적 값을 추정할 수 있다. EM 알고리즘을 사용하여 대수 우도를 최대화함으로써 Class 1, Class 2 및 Share 1은 위의 방정식 (5.4) 및 (5.5)에 대해 각각 (β_(1,) 〖 β〗_(2,…,) β_C) 및 θ_1에 해당합니다. 표 5.14는 아래 표 5.13에 제시된 이질성을 포함하는 5개의 확률계수변수와 비용변수를 추정한 결과이다.

표 5.13 LCL 추정 결과

Variables	2 classes		3 classes
Variables	Class1	Class2	Class1	Class2	Class3
Nature and environment	0.084	-0.098	0.163	-0.036	0.077
History and culture	0.019	0.167	0.047	0.078	-0.002
Landscape	0.031	0.021	-0.014	0.005	0.101
Public activity	0.048	-0.047	0.028	-0.018	0.098
Cost	-0.000	0.001	-0.000	0.000	-0.001
Class Share	0.719	0.281	-0.371	0.295	0.334
Result of BIC	1935.2		1957.9
Log likelihood	-928.4		-928.3

LCL 추정 결과, Class 2에서는 자연과 환경, 역사와 문화에 대한 MOA 변인의 값이 유의하였으나 그 외 변인의 값은 유의하지 않았다. 또한 자연변수와 환경변수의 계수값은 유의미한 확률값을 얻었으나 양수여야 하는데 음의 부호로 추정되어 응답자나 판단오류로 인한 결과는 Class 2에 포함된 것으로 보인다. .

표 5.14 LCL MLE 추정치

Variables (ML)		Class1	Class2	Value of class 1 (USD)
Nature and environment		0.083509***	-0.09932***	0.310
History and culture		0.019036***	0.168824***	0.070
Landscape		0.03054***	0.021218	0.113
Public activity		0.04839***	-0.04729	0.179
Cost		-0.00027***	0.000526***
Class Share		0.719	0.281
Share1	Constant	0.941507***
Log likelihood		-928.4

한편, Class 1의 결과는 전체 표본의 71.9%를 차지하고 있으며 MOA의 4가지 속성과 본 장에서 그 값을 추정하고자 하는 비용 변수에 대해 유의한 값을 추정하였다.
표 5.14의 LCL 모형으로 추정한 결과 값의 크기 변화가 가장 큰 것으로 나타났다. 조건부 로짓 모델로 추정한 값의 약 25%였다. 자연환경자원 가치가 0.310달러로 가장 높았고, 공공활동 179달러, 경관 0.113달러, 역사·문화자원 0.07달러 순으로 가장 낮았다. 가치의 순위변화에서 역사문화자원의 가치는 <표 5.10>의 조건부 로짓모형에서 2위를 차지하였으나 LCL이 가장 낮은 가치를 나타내었다. 이는 Class1 계층과 Class2 계층의 역사와 문화에 대한 응답자의 선택이 매우 다르고 이질적이라는 것을 의미한다.
결과적으로 조건부 로짓모형은 MOA의 존재가치에 이질성을 가지고 있음을 알 수 있지만, 실제로 사람들은 이를 연구자의 기대치보다 낮은 가치로 평가하고 있다. MOA의 존재가치를 더욱 명확히 하기 위해서는 이질성을 줄이기 위한 명확한 설문지 구성과 클래스 간 유의미한 LCL 결과 분석을 위한 더 많은 샘플 확보가 필요하다.

Latent class Logit model and Heterogeneity problems

Dr. JHH — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:36:54 +0900

4.2.2 Latent class model and Heterogeneity problems
Meanwhile, the estimation in the above section has a problem not considering heterogeneity in preferences of environmental attributes. Recent CE studies on MFA found heterogeneous preferences. For example, Dominguez-Torreiro and Solino (2011) analyzed CE data on multifunctional rural development policies using random parameter logit (mixed logit) to account for unobserved taste heterogeneity. Sangkapitux et al. (2017) found heterogeneity in preferences of MFA using latent class logit model. Therefore, it is necessary to apply a model that considers validation and heterogeneity to the results of this study. In this chapter, the latent class conditional logit (LCL) model that can be applied to the conditional logit model is applied to examine whether there is heterogeneity in the model, and to separate or remove the heterogeneous latent class to verify the model.
The LCL model extends the conditional logit model by incorporating a discrete representation of unobserved preference heterogeneity. Algebraically, the LCL likelihood function is a finite mixture of classes different conditional logit likelihood function (Yoo, 2020).
LCL extends the conditional logit by incorporating discrete representations of unobserved preference heterogeneity among decision makers. LCL also assumes that there are distinct types or classes of decision makers, and that each class makes choices consistent with its own clogit model using a utility coefficient vector β c . Assume that the probability that a decision maker n belongs to class c is given by a fractional multinomial logit specification (Yoo, 2019).

By Yoo’s multinomial logit specification (5.4) where zn is a row vector of decision maker n’s characteristics and the usual constant regressor (i.e. 1); θc is a conformable column vector of membership model coefficients for class c, with θc normalized to 0 for identification; and γ = (θ1,θ2,…,θC-1 ) denotes a collection of the C -1 identified membership coefficient vectors. Under LCL, the joint likelihood of decision maker n’s choices is given by

where B=(β1, β2,…, βC) denote a collection of the C utility coefficient vectors, and each Pn(βc) is obtained by evaluating general conditional logit model.
It is necessary to determine whether there is heterogeneity in the conditional logit result in Table 5.10, and LCL analysis was performed to find out how many potential classes are on it. Table 5.13 shows the estimated coefficient of each variable for each latent class. As a result of the analysis, it was found that there are two latent classes and there is heterogeneity. An appropriate number of potential classes can be determined according to the result of the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). In two cases, the BIC result is 1935.2, whereas in the case of three, the BIC result increases to 1957.9. The smaller the value, the more appropriate the class.
Among the two classes, Class 1 occupies 71.9% of the total sample, and Class 2 shows that the hierarchy can be separated by 28.1%, and there is heterogeneity in nature and environment, history and culture, and public activity variables.
According to the LCL estimation result, the value of MOA can estimate the optimal value of the two latent classes. Through maximizing loglikelihood using EM algorithm, Class 1, Class 2, and Share 1 correspond to (β1, β2,…, βC) and θ1 respectively for equations (5.4) and (5.5) above. Table 5.14 is obtained as a result of estimating the five random coefficients variables involving heterogeneity presented below in Table 5.13 and cost variables.
Table 5.13 Estimation result of LCL

Variables	2 classes		3 classes
Variables	Class1	Class2	Class1	Class2	Class3
Nature and environment	0.084	-0.098	0.163	-0.036	0.077
History and culture	0.019	0.167	0.047	0.078	-0.002
Landscape	0.031	0.021	-0.014	0.005	0.101
Public activity	0.048	-0.047	0.028	-0.018	0.098
Cost	-0.000	0.001	-0.000	0.000	-0.001
Class Share	0.719	0.281	-0.371	0.295	0.334
Result of BIC	1935.2		1957.9
Log likelihood	-928.4		-928.3

As a result of LCL estimation, in Class 2, the values of nature and environment, history and culture For MOA variables were significant, but the values of other variables were not significant. In addition, the coefficient value of the nature and environment variable obtained a significant probability value, but it was estimated as a negative sign even it should be positive, and it seems that the results caused by the respondent or judgment error were included in Class 2.
Table 5.14 The estimation value of LCL MLE

Variables (ML)		Class1	Class2	Value of class 1 (USD)
Nature and environment		0.083509***	-0.09932***	0.310
History and culture		0.019036***	0.168824***	0.070
Landscape		0.03054***	0.021218	0.113
Public activity		0.04839***	-0.04729	0.179
Cost		-0.00027***	0.000526***
Class Share		0.719	0.281
Share1	Constant	0.941507***
Log likelihood		-928.4

Note: *** is ρ -value parameter below 1%.

On the other hand, the result of Class 1 occupies 71.9% of the total sample, and significant values were estimated for the four attributes of MOA and also the cost variable for which the value was to be estimated in this chapter.
As a result of estimation by the LCL model in Table 5.14, it showed the largest change in the value size. It was about 25% of the value estimated by the conditional logit model. The value of natural environment resources was estimated to be the highest at USD 0.310, followed by public activity at USD 0.179, landscape at USD 0.113 and history and cultural resources at USD 0.07 at the lowest estimate. In the ranking change of value, the value of history and culture resources ranked second in the conditional logit model in Table 5.10, but LCL showed the lowest value. It means that the selection of respondent for the history and culture of the Class1 and Class2 layers are very different and has heterogeneity.
As a result, it can be seen that the conditional logit model has heterogeneity in the existence value of MOA, but in fact, people evaluate it as a lower value than the researcher’s expectation. In order to further clarify the existence value of MOA, it is necessary to construct a clear questionnaire to reduce heterogeneity and to secure a larger number of samples to analyse meaningful LCL results between classes.

6차산업과 다기능 농업 정책 영어 강의 자료 (ppt) (강원대)

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 15:15:19 +0900

6차산업의 현황과 문제점
추진 주요 내용
다기능 농업의 개념과 의의
다기능 농업 정책 방향
다기능 농업 효과
6차산업과 다기능 농업 비교

강원대학교 강의자료
정현희 malter96@hotmail.com
공간농업경제연구소, 농학(농업경제학)박사

6차산업 다기능농업 정책 강의자료_ Understanding mfa and 6th industrialization.pdf

4.33MB

한국의 6차산업 정책 현황

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 15:04:43 +0900

3. 한국의 6차 산업화 운동
한국은 역동적인 나라로 불릴 만큼 빠르게 변화했다. 한국전쟁(1950-1953)과 1980년(세마을운동) 사이에 정치적, 사회적, 경제적으로 엄청난 성장을 이뤘을 뿐만 아니라 농업에서도 상당한 변화가 일어났다. 농업정책의 주요 목표는 식량의 대량생산과 농촌기반시설의 확충이었다. 1980년부터 2000년까지 경제가 급속히 성장하면서 보조금 중심의 직접사업이 농촌지역의 주요 정책이 되었다. 보조금 정책은 농촌사회의 소득불평등 문제의 주범으로 지금까지 논란이 되어왔다. 2000년 이후 지방자치정부(1995년)가 시행되면서 지역개발, 향토음식, 사회적농장, 부대사업 등을 함께 추진하였고, 2015년부터는 6차 산업을 육성하였다. 2015년 이후의 대한민국 농업과 미래의 변화를 대표한다.

3.1 6차 산업화 정책
2013년 7월 농림축산식품부는 '6차 산업화 종합대책'을 발표하여 6차 산업화 정책을 추진하였다. 첫째, 6차 산업화 모델은 우리농촌운동과의 협력을 통해 지역사회 맞춤형으로 추진되었다. 둘째, 재능기부와 지구귀환 운동을 위해 외부 전문가를 영입해 현지 인력의 역량을 보완했다. 마지막으로 신설 성장기 및 개발성장기의 지역 네트워크 강화 및 지원체계 구축 방안을 제시하였다.
2015년 5월 4일 ‘농촌융합산업 및 진흥에 관한 법률(6차 산업화법)’이 국회를 통과하면서 6차 산업화 운동의 추진을 위한 법적 근거가 마련되었다. 이 법에서 '농업종합산업(6차산업)'의 정의는 '생산, 물류 또는 관광과 관련된 유형의 부가가치를 창출하거나 증가시키기 위한 무형의 농업, 농촌 및 천연 자원'. 이 법은 고부가가치 농업의 기반을 마련하고 농업과 농촌의 발전을 촉진하며 농촌경제를 활성화함으로써 농업인과 농촌주민의 소득증대에 이바지함은 물론, 국민경제 활성화를 도모하였다(Jung et al., 2014).
이 법은 도농융합발전계획의 수립·시행, 통계DB의 연구·구축, 농촌종합기업의 인증, 지원기관 및 종합산업부문의 지정 등 총 6장 43조항으로 구성되어 있다. . 이 법에 따라 농림축산식품부는 전국 9개 광역권에 6차 산업화지원센터로 중견단체를 지정·운영하고 있다. 지원센터의 주요 기능은 6차산업 기업의 인증 및 사후관리, 안테나숍 운영, 판매 플랫폼 구축, 6차 산업화 기업 조사 등이다. 2021년까지 인증을 받은 농장은 2,054개로 2016년보다 5% 증가했으며, 그 중 89%(1,821개 농장)가 농식품 가공에 종사하고 있다(표 3.7 참조). 이는 한국의 6차 산업화가 식품가공업에 집중되고 있음을 의미한다.

Table 3.7 Number of the sixth industrialization businesses by region (as of September 2021)

Region	# of certified		1st × 2nd × 3rd industry (comprehensive)	1st × 2nd industry (processing)	1st × 3rd industry (relating to tourism)
Region	2016	2021	1st × 2nd × 3rd industry (comprehensive)	1st × 2nd industry (processing)	1st × 3rd industry (relating to tourism)
Total	960	2,045	1,459	362	224
Gangwon-do	114	185	121	40	24
Gyeonggi-do	108	210	138	21	51
Chunngcheongbuk-do	92	134	107	4	23
Chunngcheongnam-do	75	212	166	34	12
Jeonrabuk-do	144	332	185	114	33
Jeonranam-do	142	355	274	65	16
Gyeongsannam-do	98	194	144	27	23
Gyeongsanbuk-do	101	224	199	14	11
Jeju-do	59	122	68	35	19
Daegu-si	1	3	2	-	1
Daejeon-si	4	-	-	-	-
Sejong-si	12	26	17	6	3
Ulsan-si	2	9	6	1	2
Incheon-si	8	37	31	1	5

Source: Korean Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2016–Sep. 2021.

2016년 ‘농업 6차 산업화에 따른 농촌경제 및 수출활성화 방안’ 발표를 통해 그동안 개인 농가의 비농업 소득 위주로 추진해 온 6차 산업을 지역형 체제로 발전시켰다. 이를 통해 전문 경영조직을 육성하고 외부 자본과 기술을 활용한 기업 간 상생협력을 적극 추진해 농업의 내부 역량을 강화했다.
주요 업무는 다음과 같다. 첫 번째는 스마트팜 보급, 밭농사 및 밭작물 공동체 확대 등 농업에 첨단기술을 접목하는 것이다. 두 번째는 식품산업의 제조·가공 활성화(식품·외식업체 등 국산 농산물 사용 확대)다. 셋째, 수출의 효율적 유통과 확대(로컬푸드 매장 확대, 직거래 확대, 중국 김치 수출)이다. 넷째는 외국인 농촌관광 활성화(외국인 관광객 유치, 자유학기제 연계 등)이다. 이러한 과제를 바탕으로 지역 6차 산업화 체제 지원 대상 후보 77개 항목 중 26개 항목을 우선 대상으로 선정하고 다양한 지원 방안을 마련·추진하고 있다.

한국의 6차산업의 형태는 아래 그림과 같다.

원문 : https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/17

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

(pdf) Sixth industrialization movement in Korea and Asia .pdf

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 14:53:44 +0900

3. The sixth Industrialization Movement in Korea
Korea has changed so rapidly that it is referred to as a dynamic country. Not only has it achieved great political, social and economic growth, but also significant changes took place in agriculture, though not as much as in economic growth, between the Korean War (1950–1953) and 1980 (the Semaeul movement[1]), when the main agricultural policy objectives were the mass production of food and the expansion of the rural infrastructure. From 1980 to 2000, as the economy grew rapidly, direct projects centred on subsidies became the main policy in rural areas. The subsidy policy is the main culprit behind the income inequality problem in rural society and has so far been controversial. Since 2000, as the local autonomous government (1995) was implemented, regional development, local food, social farms and auxiliary projects were promoted together, while the sixth industry was fostered from 2015.[2] In this chapter, it discuss the sixth industry policies and cases representing Korea’s agriculture after 2015 as well as future changes.

3.1 The sixth industrialization policy
In July 2013, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs of Korea promoted the sixth industrialization policy through the announcement of the ‘Comprehensive Plan for the sixth Industrialization’. Firstly, the sixth industrialization model was customized for local communities and implemented through cooperation with the ‘Woori nongchon’ [Our Farm Village] movement. Secondly, the movement complemented the local human resource capacities with outside experts for talent donation and the return to earth movement. Lastly, it suggested means to strengthen the local networks and established support systems in the newly founded and development growth stages.
The legal basis for the implementation of the sixth industrialization movement was established on 4 May 2015, when the ‘Rural Convergence Industry and Promotion Act (Sixth Industrialization Act)’ was passed by the National Assembly. The definition of ‘agricultural comprehensive industry (sixth industry)’ in this act is ‘A movement that provides a combination of resources or services to farmers and residents of the rural area who attempt to utilize production, logistics, or tourism-related, tangible and non-tangible agricultural, rural, and natural resources to generate or increase value-added’. The purpose of the act is to provide a foundation for high-value-added agriculture, to promote the development of agriculture and farming villages and to revitalize the rural economy, thereby contributing to the income growth of farmers and rural residents as well as developing the national economy (Jung et al., 2014).
The act consists of 6 chapters and 43 articles, including the establishment and implementation of the rural–urban convergence and development plan, the research and establishment of a statistical database, the certification of rural comprehensive businesses and the designation of supporting organizations and comprehensive industrial sectors. Based on these laws, the Department of Food and Rural Affairs of the Ministry of Agriculture has designated and operated intermediate-sized organizations as the sixth industrialization support centres in 9 metropolitan areas across the country. The primary functions of the support centres include certification and follow-up management of sixth industry businesses, the operation of antenna shops, the establishment of sales platforms and the investigation of the sixth industrialization businesses. By 2021, 2,054 farms had been certified, a 5% increase from 2016, 89% (1,821 farms) of which engaged in agricultural food processing, as shown in Table 3.7. This means that the Korean the sixth industrialization seems to concentrate on the food processing industry.
Table 3.7 Number of the sixth industrialization businesses by region (as of September 2021)

Region	# of certified		1st × 2nd × 3rd industry (comprehensive)	1st × 2nd industry (processing)	1st × 3rd industry (relating to tourism)
Region	2016	2021	1st × 2nd × 3rd industry (comprehensive)	1st × 2nd industry (processing)	1st × 3rd industry (relating to tourism)
Total	960	2,045	1,459	362	224
Gangwon-do	114	185	121	40	24
Gyeonggi-do	108	210	138	21	51
Chunngcheongbuk-do	92	134	107	4	23
Chunngcheongnam-do	75	212	166	34	12
Jeonrabuk-do	144	332	185	114	33
Jeonranam-do	142	355	274	65	16
Gyeongsannam-do	98	194	144	27	23
Gyeongsanbuk-do	101	224	199	14	11
Jeju-do	59	122	68	35	19
Daegu-si	1	3	2	-	1
Daejeon-si	4	-	-	-	-
Sejong-si	12	26	17	6	3
Ulsan-si	2	9	6	1	2
Incheon-si	8	37	31	1	5

Source: Korean Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2016–Sep. 2021.

Through the announcement of the ‘Rural Economy and Export Activation Plan in the Sixth Industrialization of Agriculture’ in 2016, the sixth industry, which has been promoted mainly for the non-farm income of individual farmers, has been developed into a regional system. This has strengthened the internal competence of agriculture by fostering professional management bodies and by actively promoting win-win cooperation between companies through the utilization of external capital and technology.
The main tasks are the following. The first is the adaptation of cutting-edge technology in agriculture, such as smart farm dissemination and the expansion of field farming and field crop communities. The second is the activation of manufacturing and processing in the food industry (expanding the use of domestic agricultural products, such as food and food service companies). The third is the efficient distribution and expansion of exports (expansion of local food stores, expansion of direct transactions and exporting of kimchi to China). The fourth is the activation of rural tourism for foreigners (attracting foreign tourists, linking free semesters, etc.). Based on these tasks, 26 of the 77 candidate items for the regional the sixth industrialization system support target were selected as priority targets, and various support measures are being prepared and promoted.

[1] Saemaul Undong (movement, 1970 ~) refers to any community development movement, which builds a village or community to improve villagers’ quality of life based on the spirits of diligence, self-help and cooperation, and approaches by the villagers, of the villagers and for the villagers. Saemaul Undong is also based on self-reliant decision making through the process of planning, implementation, evaluation and feedback to the next phase.

[2] Park’s administration made the sixth industrial development law in 2015.

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

Korean 6th industrialization movemnet.pdf

0.27MB

유럽 다기능 농업 사례 (네덜란드, 이탈리아) 치유농업, 케어팜

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 13:21:06 +0900

네덜란드는 1970년대 농업 생산량의 증가로 인한 경관 가치 손실의 문제를 인식하였다. 1975년에 이것은 인정된 자연과 경관의 질을 가진 지정된 지역에서 농지의 자연과 경관을 보존하기 위한 국가 정책 계획을 세웠다. 농장의 자연과 경관을 보전하고자 하는 농부들에게 농업보상금이 지급되었다. (헨크 우스틴디, 2015). 그 이후로 농가에 소득 압박이 가해졌고(Ploeg et al, 2000) 농부들에게 농업 산업 가치 사슬과 별개로 또는 외부에서 대안적인 개발 및 소득 전략을 찾도록 촉구했다. 그들은 특정 소비자 또는 사회적 요구와 기능에 봉사하는 여러 종류의 유망한(새롭거나 활성화된) 활동을 개발하고 참여했다. 농장에서 가공 및 직접 판매, 고품질 제품 마케팅, 자연 및 조경 관리, 농장 통합 관리 활동 , 유기 농업, 에너지 생산 등. 1990년대에 이러한 전략은 확장, 심화 및 재정비 과정을 통한 농촌 개발 활동 측면에서 개념화되었으며(Knickel & Renting, 2000; Ploeg & Renting, 2000; Ploeg et al., 2002) 때로는 녹색 서비스(Dagevos et al. , 2004, Henkens & van Raffe, 2002). 다기능 농업의 개념은 1996년 네덜란드 농업 연구소의 연구에서 처음으로 나타났다(Vereijken et al., 1999a; Vereijken et al., 1999b). 따라서 네덜란드의 다기능성 개념은 처음에는 자연, 경관, 농업, 관광, 주거용 등 다양한 '기능'의 조합을 가능하게 하는 토지 이용과 관련하여 공간 분리 대 농촌 기능 통합의 장단점에 대한 과학적 논쟁이 주로 언급되었다(Bloemen et al., 2002; Deelstra, 2001; Gordijn, 2003, Kuhlman et al., 2003; Habiforum, 2001; Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2002) ).
네덜란드는 유럽의 표준농업정책을 다기능 농업로 효과적으로 적용하고 있다고 할 수 있다. 농업의 경제적 가치를 2008년부터 2012년까지 두 배로 늘리기 위해 정부 산하 민간 및 시민단체가 운영하는 다기능농장 태스크포스를 네덜란드 와게닝엔(WUR)에 신설해 운영했다. TF는 시장 수요(부가가치), 지역 공간 소통(커뮤니케이션), 창업(교육), 다양한 접근 방식 개발(네트워크), 현장 접근 연구개발(R&D), 여성 사회 참여 확대 등을 추진했다.
네덜란드에서 시행된 다기능 농업 프로그램은 세계에서 가장 생산적이고 기술적으로 진보한 네덜란드 농업에 혁명적인 변화를 가져왔다. 네덜란드는 처음으로 다기능 농업를 집중적으로 지원하겠다는 의지를 표명하고 통합적인 정책방향을 추진했다. 2007년부터 본격적으로 시행되고 있는 이번 다기능 농업는 돌봄·보육·직매·생태관광·휴양·교육농업 등 6개 정책 카테고리로 구분된다.
표 3.1은 2007년부터 2011년까지의 복합농업 농장의 경제성과 매출액 현황을 나타낸 것이다. 시골의 쾌적한 자연환경과 아이들이 자연에서 놀고 체험하고 배우는 욕구가 중요한 요소인 것 같다.

Table 3.1 Multifunctional agriculture form and economic performance in the Netherlands

Classification	Number of farms (company)			Revenue (annual, mil. euros)
Classification	2007	2009	2011	2007	2009	2011
Healing farm	756	870	1,050	45	63	80
Care farm	20	64	209	4	14	20
Farmer’s market	2,580	3,000	3,300	89	128	147
Rural tourism	13,700	13,660	14,000	90	79	86
Recreation	2,432	2,240	2,884	92	121	156
Educational farm	500	500	800	1.5	1.7	2.2
Total				322	407	491

Source: Roest et al. (2011).

사회활동으로는 2007~2011년 756개였던 치매치유농장을 1050개로 늘렸다. 20에서 209. 마찬가지로 치유 및 돌봄 농장의 수입이 증가했다. 치유 농장의 수익은 4500만 유로에서 8000만 유로로 증가한 반면, 돌봄 농장의 수익은 4년 동안 400만 유로에서 2000만 유로로 증가했다. 힐링앤케어팜을 활용한 농촌관광 활성화로 인구 유입이 증가하면서 파머스마켓도 활성화된 점도 눈여겨볼 만하다.
네덜란드에서 다기능 농업의 세 가지 주요 예는 다음과 같다.

1) Ac Hooper – 힐링팜과 사회적 기업팜
축구장 16배 규모인 12ha의 유기농 농지에서 채소를 재배하고 닭 6,000마리를 키우는 힐링팜이다. 농장을 찾는 손님들은 주로 알코올 중독자, 정신질환자, 치매환자, 노인들이다. 현재 총 85명이 시설을 이용하고 있다. 간호사와 20명의 간병인이 다양한 환자별 치유 프로그램을 개발하고 적용했다. 농장의 인력은 고객이 닭을 기르고 야채를 수확하는 것과 같은 모든 농장 작업을 처리할 수 있도록 최선을 다하고 있다. 생산된 농산물과 계란은 세계적으로 인증을 받아 전 세계 또는 매주 평균 7,000~8,000명의 치유 프로그램 환자의 가족과 친척을 방문하는 농장 옆 농부의 시장에서 판매한다. Ac Hooper Farm의 연간 수익은 120만 유로이며 그 중 절반은 직접 판매로 벌어들인다.

2) 어린이 힐링팜
비영리단체에서 운영하는 힐링팜은 여의도의 4분의 1 규모인 네덜란드 생태보호구역 내 네덜란드 치료기관과 연계돼 있다. 주의력결핍 과잉행동장애(ADHD) 등 정신질환을 앓고 있는 아동·청소년들이 힐링팜의 주 고객이다. 자연 속을 걷고, 동물과 교감하고, 또래들과 어울리며 자연스럽게 마음을 열고 정신적, 정서적 상처를 치유합니다. 농장은 현재 200명의 어린이와 청소년을 수용하고 있다.

3) Farm Zonnehoeve - 돌봄농장, 체험농장, 교육농장 및 직판
Farm Zonnehoeve는 네덜란드 북동부의 Almere 매립지에 위치한 가장 오래된 바이오 다이내믹 농장이다. 농장에는 14명의 근로자와 간병인이 있다. 농지 면적은 50헥타르에 달하며 60마리의 홀스타인 소, 밀, 짚, 토끼풀, 사탕수수가 있다. 농장은 혼합 및 유기 농업 형태로 운영된다. 초원 식생과 소는 동물이 풀을 먹고 대변이 풀을 비옥하게 하는 지속 가능한 먹이 순환 농업을 완성한다. 농업 생산과 더불어 사회적 기능을 갖춘 돌봄농장을 운영하고 있으며, 상주 의료진과 전문 돌봄 인력에게 아이들을 맡길 수 있다. 농장에서는 종마를 기르고 승마 체험도 할 수 있다. 농장 한쪽에는 심신 회복 활동의 일환으로 마약중독 청년들이 생산한 유기농 밀로 직접 빵을 굽는다. 교육농장은 어린이들에게 자연의 안전한 농식품을 교육하고 기업 워크숍을 개최하는 등 전통 농법을 심화·확대시킨 사례다.

2.2 이탈리아
이탈리아 농업에서는 가족농의 99.23%가 다기능 농업에 참여하고 있다. 현재 한국의 80% 이상의 농민이 생산 중심의 농업에 의존하고 있는 반면, 이탈리아의 농업은 보다 다양화되어 있음을 알 수 있다. 다기능 농업 전략을 통해 심화가 47.45%로 가장 활발했으며, 일반적으로 농민들이 선호하는 농산물 가공(37.6%)과 직매(22.8%)가 포함됐다. 복합활동으로 제안된 재접지가 42.5%를 차지했고, 확폭은 37.2%로 가장 높은 속성은 토지임대(33.7%)였다.
요약하면 농촌의 맥락에서 농업 관광, 다양화, 자연 및 조경 관리와 같은 많은 활동이 확대되어 토스카나의 부가가치 창출에 기여했다. 농식품 네트워크는 '심화' 변화를 보이고 있으며, 유기농, 품질 기반 생산, 공급망 단축 등의 실천이 이루어지고 있으며, 농장에서는 이 세 가지를 기반으로 생산 활동을 결합하기도 한다. 유기농 제품의 경우 틈새시장의 특성을 살려 직거래 모델을 도입했다. 결합된 비용 절감 활동은 내부 자원을 재정비하려는 노력에서 관찰되었다(FARP, 2013).

Table 3.2 Status of Italian Multifunctional agriculture (2006)

	Total	The ratio of farms over the total number of farms (%)	The ratio of farms per category (%)	The number of farms	The ratio of family farms over the total number of farms (%)	The ratio of family farms per category (%)
Broadening	263,528	37.23	100.00	261,558	37.24	100
Rural tourism	12,789	1.81	4.51	12,538	1.79	4.46
Landscape preservation	4,266	0.60	1.50	4,228	0.6	1.5
Biodiversity preservation	1,957	0.28	0.69	1,956	0.28	0.7
Utility rent	23,536	3.33	8.30	23,295	3.32	8.28
Land lease	238,701	33.73	84.18	236,973	33.74	84.25
Regular rental	2,305	0.33	0.81	2,286	0.33	0.81
Deepening	335,233	47.36	100.00	333,249	47.45	100
Direct sales	131,235	22.78	27.97	160,363	22.83	28.01
Proof of origin	71,482	10.11	2.40	70,573	10.05	12.33
Organic farming	29,567	4.18	5.13	29,341	4.18	5.13
Hypoallergenic agriculture	39,556	5.59	6.86	39,182	5.58	6.84
Landscape painting	8,816	1.25	1.53	8,816	1.26	1.54
Farm-processed food	265,765	37.55	46.11	264,170	37.61	46.15
Regrounding				298,542	42.51
Combined activity				298,542	42.51
Total farm	707,776	100.00		702,360	99.23

Source: FARP (2013).

관련 사례로 리보르노에 위치한 와인 농장인 빌라 카프레라시아(Villa Capreracia)는 방문자가 주로 와인으로 생산된 제품을 체험하고 판매할 수 있는 농업 관광 활동을 제공한다. 농장은 생산하고 처리하는 와인의 품질과 직접 병입을 개선했다. 직접 판매를 통해 부가가치를 촉진한다. 여성의 역할을 강조하는 가족노동제도를 도입하고, 시설 개축, 보틀링 시설 도입 등 새로운 지식과 전문성, 고정자산 개발을 통해 인적자원을 재개발했다. 이러한 농장의 개혁은 농장의 재정비, 심화 및 확장 활동을 강화하였다. 그 결과 관광수요 증가와 지역사회 고용기회 창출로 지역경제가 활성화되었다. 또한 제품의 지역성을 강화했다. 이러한 활동에는 직업 교육 및 투자 지원과 같은 정부 지원이 수반되었다(Jung et al., 2014).

Table 3.3 multifunctional agriculture of Villa Capreracia

1) Contents
Broadening	Deepening	Regrounding
Agricultural tourism Linkage between the products and the area	- Improved wine and bottling quality - Farm processing - Direct sales	- Mobilization and use of resources - Reorganized the family labour system (emphasizing women’s role) - Reconstruction of facilities - Introduction of bottling facilities
2) Effects and Government support
Public good	- Area-related quality increase - Increased tourism demand - Increased employment opportunities - Reinforced women’s role
Internalization of non-products	- Premium and high-quality wine - Increased added value through direct sales - Added value generation through agricultural tourism
Government support	- Job training - Investment support

Note: The farm area is vineyard (11 ha), olives (2 ha) and other fruits (4 ha).

토스카나주에 위치한 목장인 카나스팜은 양젖으로 치즈를 직접 생산해 소비자에게 직접 판매함으로써 농업관광사업과 연계하고 인적자원과 고정자산을 재정비한다. 그 결과 지역특산품이 다양화되고 부가가치 증대로 지역경제와 지역사회가 활성화된다. 공공 지원, 직업 훈련, 홍보 및 투자 지원은 정부에서 제공했다(Jung et al., 2014).

Table 3.4 Multifunctional agriculture of Cannas Farm

1) Contents
Broadening	Deepening	Regrounding
- Agricultural tourism - Introduction of a new occupational pattern in the shepherd community	- High-quality cheese production - Direct sales	- Negotiate with family for independent partial management of the flock - Develop new knowledge and professional skills - Regrounding of family labour - Broadening of processing facilities - Reconstruction of farm buildings
2) Effects and Government support
- Public goods	- Diversification of local resources - Maintenance of local value added - Linkage between the quality and the local image - Improving the reputation of pastoral activities and communities
- Internalization of non-products	- Premium price for direct-sales products - Income generation from agricultural tourism
- Government support	- Job training - Promotion - Investment support

Source: Jung et al. (2014).

토스카나주에 위치한 유기농 농장인 플로리다팜은 농장경관을 새롭게 정리하고 농업관광활동과 연계한 유기농으로 전환하여 생태농법을 도입하였다. 이를 위해 인적 자원과 고정 자산을 개편했다. 그 결과 농촌경관이 개선되고 양질의 지역특산품이 생산되었으며 새로운 지역지식이 창출되었다. 이를 위해 EU의 휴경 보조금과 유기/경관 관리 인센티브가 지원을 제공되었다(Jung et al., 2014).

Table 3.5 Multifunctional agriculture of Florida Farm

1) Contents
Broadening	Deepening	Regrounding
- Agricultural tourism - Introduction of a new occupational pattern in the shepherd community	- Conversion to organic farming	- Adaptation of ecological farming - Farm landscape regrounding - Development of new knowledge and professional skills - Regrounding of family labour - Reconstruction of farm buildings
2) Effects and Government support
- Public goods	- Improvement of the landscape - Creation of new regional knowledge - Production of high-quality products
- Internalization of non-products	- Premium price of organic products - Agricultural tourism income
- Government support	- The EU fallow support - Organic farming and landscape management incentives

Source: Jung et al. (2014).

마지막으로 투스카니에 위치한 목장인 Tardeli 농장은 소비자를 위한 농업 관광 활동 제공과 함께 풍경과 동물 복지를 개선하기 위해 지방 자치 단체 소유였던 버려진 목초지를 재건했다. 이를 위해 인적자원과 고정자산을 개편하여 농업관광수입, 경관, 동물복지 등 또한 개선하였다. 이러한 활동은 EU의 LEADER 프로그램의 일환으로 대중의 지지를 받았다(Jung et al., 2014).
이러한 접근 방식을 통해 공공재와 함께 다양한 상업용 농산물 및 서비스가 생산되었다. 전형적인 예로는 지역 경제의 고용 및 관광 수요 증가, 지역 경관 및 환경 개선, 지위 강화 및 지역 지식 창출을 통한 지역 사회에서 여성의 역할 확대 등이 있다. 또한, 신규 부가가치를 창출하는 아직 상용화되지 않은 비제품의 내재화 요인은 유기농, 고품질 생산을 통한 프리미엄화, 직판을 통한 농가 소득 비율 증가, 이를 통한 부가가치 창출 등이다.
마지막으로 이러한 농업인의 다기능적 농업활동에 대한 공적 지원으로는 직업교육, 투자지원, 홍보마케팅, 환경직불금, EU의 농촌개발정책 등이 있다.

Table 3.6 Multifunctional agriculture of Tardeli Farm

1) Contents
Broadening	Deepening	Regrounding
- Agricultural tourism - Local government land lease	- Direct sales to small businesses	- Conversion of some livestock to beef production - Farm strategy changes - Development of new knowledge and professional skills - Regrounding of family labour - Reconstruction of farm buildings
2) Effects and Government support
- Public goods	- Restoration of abandoned grassland - Landscape improvement through grazing - Promotion of animal welfare - Creation of new regional knowledge
- Internalization of non-products	- Agricultural tourism income
- Government support	- LEADER programme of the EU

Source: Jung et al. (2014).

원문 : https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/15

Multifunctional Agriculture in EU (Cases)

2.1 The Netherlands The Netherlands recognized the problem of loss of landscape value due to an increase in agricultural production in the 1970s. In 1975 this resulted in a national policy scheme for the conservation of nature and landscape on farmland, in

multifunctionality.tistory.com

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

(pdf) Multifunctional Agriculture in EU (Cases)

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 12:41:41 +0900

2.1 The Netherlands

The Netherlands recognized the problem of loss of landscape value due to an increase in agricultural production in the 1970s. In 1975 this resulted in a national policy scheme for the conservation of nature and landscape on farmland, in designated areas, with acknowledged nature and landscape qualities. Income compensation payments were paid to farmers who are willing to conserve nature and landscape on their farms. (Henk Oostindie, 2015). Since then, income pressure has been put on farm households (Ploeg et al, 2000) and urged farmers to look for alternative development and income strategies aside from or outside of the agro-industrial value chain. They developed and engaged themselves in several kinds of promising (new or revitalized) activities serving particular consumers or societal needs and functions: on-farm processing and direct sales, marketing of high-quality products, management of nature and landscape, farm integrated care activities, organic farming, energy production, and so on. In the 1990s these strategies were conceptualised in terms of rural development activities through broadening, deepening and regrounding processes (Knickel & Renting, 2000; Ploeg & Renting, 2000; Ploeg et al., 2002) and sometimes as green services (Dagevos et al., 2004; Henkens & van Raffe, 2002). The concept of Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) appears only for the first time in a study by Dutch Agricultural Research institutes in 1996 (Vereijken et al., 1999a; Vereijken et al., 1999b). Thus, the concept of multifunctionality in the Netherlands was initially primarily used in relation to land-use that enabled a combination of multiple ‘functions’ such as nature, landscape, agriculture, tourism, residential use, etc., in a broader public, political and scientific debate about the pros and cons of spatial segregation versus integration of rural functions (Bloemen et al., 2002; Deelstra, 2001; Gordijn, 2003, Kuhlman et al., 2003; Habiforum, 2001; Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2002).
It can be said that the Dutch apply the standard agricultural policies of Europe as Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) effectively. To double the economic value of agriculture from 2008 to 2012, the Multifunctional Farm Task Force, operated by private and civic groups under the government, was established and operated in Wageningen (WUR), the Netherlands. The task force promoted the market demand (added value), communication in local spaces (communication), entrepreneurship (education), the development of various approaches (network), field access research and development (R&D) and the expansion of women’s social participation.
The Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) programmes implemented in the Netherlands caused a revolutionary shift for Dutch agriculture, which became the most productive and technologically advanced in the world. The Dutch expressed the will to support Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) intensively for the first time and promoted an integrated policy direction. This Multifunctional agriculture (MFA), which has been implemented in earnest since 2007, is divided into six policy categories: care, childcare, direct sales, eco-tourism, recreation and educational farming.
Table 3.1 shows the current status of multifunctional agricultural farms’ economic performance and sales volume from 2007 to 2011. The desire to enjoy the pleasant natural environment of the countryside and children’s playing, experiencing and learning in nature seems to be an important factor.

Table 3.1 Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) form and economic performance in the Netherlands

Classification	Number of farms (company)			Revenue (annual, mil. euros)
Classification	2007	2009	2011	2007	2009	2011
Healing farm	756	870	1,050	45	63	80
Care farm	20	64	209	4	14	20
Farmer’s market	2,580	3,000	3,300	89	128	147
Rural tourism	13,700	13,660	14,000	90	79	86
Recreation	2,432	2,240	2,884	92	121	156
Educational farm	500	500	800	1.5	1.7	2.2
Total				322	407	491

Source: Roest et al. (2011).

For social activities, the number of healing farms for patients with dementia increased from 756 to 1,050 farms in the period of 2007 to 2011. The number of care farms for children that raise pigs and cows and grow crops also increased by more than 10 times from 20 to 209. Similarly, the income of healing and care farms increased. The revenue of healing farms grew from 45 to 80 million euros, while that of care farms rose from 4 to 20 million euros in the 4 years. It is also worth noting that, as the population influx increased as a result of the activation of rural tourism utilizing the healing and care farms, the farmers’ market was also activated.
The three primary examples of Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) in the Netherlands are presented below.[1]

1)   Ac Hooper – Healing farm and social enterprise farm
This healing farm grows vegetables and raises 6,000 chickens on 12 ha of organic farmland, which is 16 times the size of a football field. The customers who visit the farm are mainly alcoholics, people with mental illness, dementia patients and the elderly. A total of 85 people is currently using the facility. Nurses and 20 caretakers have developed and applied a variety of patient-specific healing programmes. The workforce at the farm is dedicated to helping the customers handle all the farm tasks, such as raising chickens and harvesting vegetables. The agricultural products and eggs produced are certified globally and sold around the world or to the 7,000 to 8,000 tourists on average who visit the area every week, including the families and relatives of the healing programme’s patients, at the farmer’s market next to the farm. The annual revenue of the Ac Hooper Farm is 1.2 million euros, half of which is earned in direct sales.

2)   Child healing farm
This healing farm, operated by a non-profit organization, is linked to a Dutch therapeutic institution in the Dutch Ecological Reserve, a quarter of the size of Yeouido.[2] Children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other mental illnesses are the main clients of this healing farm. They walk in nature, interact with animals and socialize with their peers, naturally opening their minds to heal mental and emotional wounds. The farm now hosts 200 children and youths.

3)   Farm Zonnehoeve – Care farm, experience farm, education farm and direct sales
Farm Zonnehoeve is the oldest bio-dynamic farm located in the Almere reclaimed area in the northeast of the Netherlands. The farm has 14 workers and caregivers. The farmland area covers 50 ha and contains 60 Holstein cattle, wheat, straw, shamrock and sugar beets. The farm operates in the form of mixed and organic farming. The grassland vegetation and the cattle form a sustainable food cycle in which the animals feed on the grass and their stool fertilizes it. In addition to agricultural production, it operates a care farm with social functions, and children can be entrusted to the resident medical and professional caring staff. On the farm, stallions are raised, and horse-riding experiences are also available. On one side of the farm, bread is baked directly from organic wheat produced by young people with drug addiction as part of the mental and physical restoration activities. Educational farms are examples of the deepening and broadening of traditional farming customs, such as educating children on natural and safe agri-foods and holding corporate workshops.

2.2 Italy
In Italian agriculture, 99.23% of family farmers are involved in Multifunctional agriculture (MFA). While currently more than 80% of farmers are dependent on production-oriented agriculture in Korea, it can be seen that Italian agriculture is more diversified. Through the Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) strategy, the deepening was most active at 47.45%, and it included agricultural product processing (37.6%) and direct sales (22.8%), which are generally preferred by farmers. The regrounding accounted for 42.5%, which was suggested as a combined activity, and the broadening was 37.2%, the highest attribute was land lease (33.7%).
In summary, in the rural context, many activities, such as agricultural tourism, diversification, nature and landscape management, were broadening, contributing to the generation of added value in Tuscany. The agri-food network shows a ‘deepening’ change, and practices such as organic farming, quality-based production and shortened supply chains have been carried out, with farms sometimes combining production activities based on these three. In the case of organic products, taking advantage of the characteristics of a niche market, a direct trade model has been introduced. Combined and cost-saving activities have been observed in the efforts to reground internal resources (FARP, 2013).

Table 3.2 Status of Italian Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) (2006)

	Total	The ratio of farms over the total number of farms (%)	The ratio of farms per category (%)	The number of farms	The ratio of family farms over the total number of farms (%)	The ratio of family farms per category (%)
Broadening	263,528	37.23	100.00	261,558	37.24	100
Rural tourism	12,789	1.81	4.51	12,538	1.79	4.46
Landscape preservation	4,266	0.60	1.50	4,228	0.6	1.5
Biodiversity preservation	1,957	0.28	0.69	1,956	0.28	0.7
Utility rent	23,536	3.33	8.30	23,295	3.32	8.28
Land lease	238,701	33.73	84.18	236,973	33.74	84.25
Regular rental	2,305	0.33	0.81	2,286	0.33	0.81
Deepening	335,233	47.36	100.00	333,249	47.45	100
Direct sales	131,235	22.78	27.97	160,363	22.83	28.01
Proof of origin	71,482	10.11	2.40	70,573	10.05	12.33
Organic farming	29,567	4.18	5.13	29,341	4.18	5.13
Hypoallergenic agriculture	39,556	5.59	6.86	39,182	5.58	6.84
Landscape painting	8,816	1.25	1.53	8,816	1.26	1.54
Farm-processed food	265,765	37.55	46.11	264,170	37.61	46.15
Regrounding				298,542	42.51
Combined activity				298,542	42.51
Total farm	707,776	100.00		702,360	99.23

Source: FARP (2013).

A relevant example, Villa Capreracia, a wine farm located in Livorno, offers agricultural tourism activities enabling visitors to experience and sell products mainly produced from wine. The farm improved the quality and direct bottling of the wine that it produces and processes. It promotes added value through direct sales; it has adopted a family labour system that emphasizes women’s roles and has redeveloped human resources by developing new knowledge and expertise and fixed assets, for example by reconstructing facilities and introducing bottling facilities. Such reformation of the farm strengthened its regrounding, deepening and broadening activities. As a result, the local economy was revitalized through the increasing tourism demand and employment opportunities for the local community. Additionally, the regionality of the products was strengthened. These activities were accompanied by government support, such as vocational education and investment assistance (Jung et al., 2014).

Table 3.3 Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) of Villa Capreracia

1) Contents
Broadening	Deepening	Regrounding
Agricultural tourism Linkage between the products and the area	- Improved wine and bottling quality - Farm processing - Direct sales	- Mobilization and use of resources - Reorganized the family labour system (emphasizing women’s role) - Reconstruction of facilities - Introduction of bottling facilities
2) Effects and Government support
Public good	- Area-related quality increase - Increased tourism demand - Increased employment opportunities - Reinforced women’s role
Internalization of non-products	- Premium and high-quality wine - Increased added value through direct sales - Added value generation through agricultural tourism
Government support	- Job training - Investment support

Note: The farm area is vineyard (11 ha), olives (2 ha) and other fruits (4 ha).

Cannas Farm, a ranch located in Tuscany, produces cheese directly from sheep’s milk and sells it directly to consumers, linking its business with agricultural tourism activities and reorganizing human resources and fixed assets. As a result, the local specialities are diversified and the local economy and the community are revitalized through the increased value added. Public support, job training, public relations and investment assistance were provided by the government (Jung et al., 2014).

Table 3.4 Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) of Cannas Farm

1) Contents
Broadening	Deepening	Regrounding
- Agricultural tourism - Introduction of a new occupational pattern in the shepherd community	- High-quality cheese production - Direct sales	- Negotiate with family for independent partial management of the flock - Develop new knowledge and professional skills - Regrounding of family labour - Broadening of processing facilities - Reconstruction of farm buildings
2) Effects and Government support
- Public goods	- Diversification of local resources - Maintenance of local value added - Linkage between the quality and the local image - Improving the reputation of pastoral activities and communities
- Internalization of non-products	- Premium price for direct-sales products - Income generation from agricultural tourism
- Government support	- Job training - Promotion - Investment support

Source: Jung et al. (2014).

Florida Farm, an organic farm located in Tuscany, adopted the ecological farming method by newly organizing the farm landscape and converting it to organic farming linked with agricultural tourism activities. Its human resources and fixed assets were reorganized for this purpose. As a result, the rural landscape was improved, high-quality local products were produced and new regional knowledge was created. For this, the EU’s fallow subsidies and organic/landscape management incentives provided support (Jung et al., 2014).

Table 3.5 Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) of Florida Farm

1) Contents
Broadening	Deepening	Regrounding
- Agricultural tourism - Introduction of a new occupational pattern in the shepherd community	- Conversion to organic farming	- Adaptation of ecological farming - Farm landscape regrounding - Development of new knowledge and professional skills - Regrounding of family labour - Reconstruction of farm buildings
2) Effects and Government support
- Public goods	- Improvement of the landscape - Creation of new regional knowledge - Production of high-quality products
- Internalization of non-products	- Premium price of organic products - Agricultural tourism income
- Government support	- The EU fallow support - Organic farming and landscape management incentives

Source: Jung et al. (2014).

Lastly, Tardeli farm, a ranch located in Tuscany, rebuilt abandoned pastures, which used to be owned by the local municipality, to improve the landscape and animal welfare in conjunction with the provision of agricultural tourism activities for consumers. To this end, human resources

Table 3.6 Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) of Tardeli Farm

1) Contents
Broadening	Deepening	Regrounding
- Agricultural tourism - Local government land lease	- Direct sales to small businesses	- Conversion of some livestock to beef production - Farm strategy changes - Development of new knowledge and professional skills - Regrounding of family labour - Reconstruction of farm buildings
2) Effects and Government support
- Public goods	- Restoration of abandoned grassland - Landscape improvement through grazing - Promotion of animal welfare - Creation of new regional knowledge
- Internalization of non-products	- Agricultural tourism income
- Government support	- LEADER programme of the EU

Source: Jung et al. (2014).

and fixed assets were reorganized, and, as a result, the agricultural tourism income, landscape and animal welfare were improved. These activities received public support as part of the EU’s LEADER programme (Jung et al., 2014).
Through this approach, various commercial agricultural products and services are produced, along with public goods. Typical examples include increased employment and tourism demand in the local economy, an improved regional landscape and environment, an expanded role of women in the community through their strengthened position and the creation of local knowledge. In addition, the internalization factors of yet-to-be commercialized non-products that create newly added value are premiumization through organic and high-quality production, an increase in the ratio of farmers’ income through direct sales and the generation of value added through agricultural tourism.
Lastly, the public support for such multifunctional agricultural activities of farmers includes vocational education, investment support, public relations marketing, environmental direct payment and the EU’s rural development policy.

[1] 2012 CNI and EU Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) field trip interview documents (interviewer: Hyunhee Jung).

[2] Part of Seoul, Korea, which is about 605.28 km2.

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

Multifunctional agriculture in Netherland(case study).pdf

0.70MB

다원적 기능과 다기능 농업의 차별성

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 11:52:44 +0900

농업의 다원적 기능와 다기능 농업은 명확하게 구분됩니다. 농업의 다원적 기능는 여러 산출물을 가질 수 있는 농업의 수많은 이점으로 정의되며 따라서 여러 사회적 목표를 한 번에 달성하는 데 기여할 수 있습니다(OECD, 2001). 다기능 농업는 농업 생산 활동 이외의 경제 활동으로 정의된다(VNG, 2011).

Table 2.2 Differences between MFA and MOA

MOA/MFA	Concepts and definition	Examples
Multifunctionality of Agriculture (MOA)	Social effects by economic activities in agriculture (OECD, 2001)	Landscape, Clean air, History, Flooding prevention, Culture,
Multifunctional Agriculture (MFA)	Economic activities beyond agricultural production (VNG, 2011)	Care farm, direct selling, natural management, eco-experience

다기능 농업에 대해 말할 때 먼저 개념을 정의해야 한다. 다기능성에 관한 사회경제적 문헌은 이 개념에 대한 몇 가지 정의를 제공하고 동일한 현상을 설명하기 위해 다른 용어를 사용한다. 이 많은 정의는 주제에 대한 연구를 방해하고 예를 들어 적절한 문헌 검색을 방해하기 때문에 기존 정의에 대한 개요를 제공하고 최종적으로 자신의 관점을 표현한다(Huylenbroeck et al., 2007).
농업의 다원적 기능는 넓은 의미에서 농업기업이 제공하는 4가지 기능을 포함한다. 녹색 기능은 무엇보다도 조경 관리 및 조경 편의시설 유지, 야생동물 관리, 야생동물 서식지 조성 및 동물 복지, 생물다양성 유지, 영양소 재활용 개선 및 탄소 흡수원 제한으로 구성됩니다. 농업으로 창출할 수 있는 기타 공공 혜택은 파란색 서비스이며 물 관리, 수질 개선, 홍수 조절, 물 수확 및 (풍력) 에너지 생성을 포함한다. 세 번째 종류는 노란색 서비스(Yellow Services)라고 불리며 농촌의 응집력과 활력, 분위기와 개발을 위한 농업의 역할을 말하며, 문화 및 역사적 유산을 이용하고, 지역 정체성을 만들고, 사냥, 농업 관광 및 농업 엔터테인먼트를 제공한다. 마지막으로, 많은 저자들은 식량 안보 및 안전과 같이 농업이 생산하는 백색 기능을 인정한다(Aldington, 1998; Dobbs and Pretty, 2001; Harwood, 2003; Moyer and Josling, 2002; Jongeneel and Slangen, 2004).
많은 저자들이 다기능 농업에 대해 다른 해석을 내놓았다. Hediger(2004)에 따르면 농업은 식량과 섬유질을 공급하는 주요 기능을 넘어 사회에 다양한 비시장 산출물을 제공하는 경제 활동이라고 설명한다. 다기능 농업는 지역 자원을 활용하고 소비자와 생산자 사이에 새로운 연결 고리를 구축하려고 노력하면서 영토에 더 많이 포함된 다른 농업 시스템을 설명하는 사회적 및 공간적 관점의 방법이다(Wilson, 2001; Renting et al., 2003; van der Ploeg 및 Roep, 2003). 어떤 의미에서 이 견해는 농촌 공간 및 전체 농식품 시스템과 관련하여 공급과 수요 측면을 모두 연결된다. Wilson(2004)은 농업에서 생산주의에서 탈생산주의로의 전환 이후 추가 전환을 반영하기 때문에 체제로서의 다기능성의 맥락에서 설명한다(Huylenbroeck et al., 2007). 분석 개념으로서 다기능 농업는 하나의 활동이 다른 출력을 가질 수 있다는 사실을 나타낸다. 따라서 이는 경제 활동(밀 경작과 같은 단일 활동 또는 식품 생산과 같은 그룹 활동)과 관련되는 반면, 다각화는 다양한 경제 활동(예: 식품 생산 및 관광)이 동일한 관리 단위 내에서 결합됨을 의미한다( 농장 또는 농업 부문의 경우). 다중 활동은 한 개인 또는 그룹(농민 또는 농촌 기업가)이 다양한 활동(예: 농업 및 비농업)에 관여한다는 사실을 의미한다(Huylenbroeck et al., 2007). 이러한 경제활동은 농업 생산활동의 경계를 넘어선 새로운 경제활동으로 농업 관련 기업과 도시민을 연결해주는 역할한다.
요약하면 농업의 다원적 기능은 농업 생산 활동이나 농촌 공간에서 발생하는 외부 효과이며, 외부 효과는 비현실성과 소비자로부터의 비독점성을 특징으로 한다. 따라서 이 효과는 누구나 결제 없이 사용할 수 있다. 한편 다기능 농업는 농업의 다원적 기능를 경제적 소득으로 전환하는 프로그램 또는 실질적인 활동이다.

원문 : https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/13

Difference between Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture

3.3 Differences between MFA and MOA MOA and MFA are clearly distinguished. MOA is defined as the numerous benefits in agriculture which may have multiple outputs and accordingly may contribute to the achievement of several societal objectives at once (OECD

multifunctionality.tistory.com

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

(pdf) Difference between Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of a

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 11:45:09 +0900

3.3 Differences between Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture
Multifunctionality of agriculture and Multifunctional agriculture are clearly distinguished. Multifunctionality of agriculture is defined as the numerous benefits in agriculture which may have multiple outputs and accordingly may contribute to the achievement of several societal objectives at once (OECD, 2001). Multifunctional agriculture is defined as economic activities beyond agricultural production activities (VNG, 2011).
Table 2.2 Differences between Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture

MOA/MFA	Concepts and definition	Examples
Multifunctionality of Agriculture (MOA)	Social effects by economic activities in agriculture (OECD, 2001)	Landscape, Clean air, History, Flooding prevention, Culture,
Multifunctional Agriculture (MFA)	Economic activities beyond agricultural production (VNG, 2011)	Care farm, direct selling, natural management, eco-experience

When speaking about Multifunctional agriculture, it needs first to define the concept. The socio-economic literature on multifunctionality provides several definitions for this concept and uses different terms to describe the same phenomenon. Since this multitude of definitions hampers the research on the topic, impeding for example the search for appropriate literature, it gives an overview of the existing definitions and finally expresses an own viewpoint (Huylenbroeck et al., 2007).
In the broadest sense, Multifunctionality of agriculture includes four kinds of functions provided by agricultural enterprises. The green functions consist, amongst others, of landscape management and the upkeep of landscape amenities, wildlife management, the creation of wildlife habitat and animal welfare, the maintenance of biodiversity, improvement of nutrient recycling and limitation of carbon sinks. Other public benefits that can be created by agriculture are the blue services and contain water management, improvement of water quality, flood control, water harvesting and creation of (wind-) energy. A third kind is called yellow services and refers to the role of farming for rural cohesion and vitality, ambience and development, exploiting cultural and historical heritages, creating a regional identity and offering hunting, agro-tourism and agro-entertainment. Finally, many authors acknowledge the white functions produced by agriculture, such as food security and safety (Aldington, 1998; Dobbs and Pretty, 2001; Harwood, 2003; Moyer and Josling, 2002; Jongeneel and Slangen, 2004).
Many authors give a different interpretation of Multifunctional agriculture. Following Hediger (2004), the concept accounts that agriculture is an economic activity that, beyond its primary function of supplying food and fibre, provides various non-market outputs to society. Multifunctional agriculture is a way in social and spatial view to describe a different farming system that is more territorially embedded, making use of local resources and trying to build a new link between consumers and producers (Wilson, 2001; Renting et al., 2003; van der Ploeg and Roep, 2003). In a sense, this view links both the supply and demand side by relating it to the rural space and the whole agro-food system. Wilson (2004) speaks in this context of multifunctionality as a regime as it reflects a further transition after the shift from productivism to post-productivism in agriculture (Huylenbroeck et al., 2007). As an analytical concept, Multifunctional agriculture refers to the fact that one activity can have different outputs. It is thus related to an economic activity (either a single activity like the cultivation of wheat or a group of activities like food production), while diversification means that different economic activities (e.g. food production and tourism) are combined within the same management unit (in case of the farm or the agricultural sector). Pluri-activity refers to the fact that one person or a group (farmers or rural entrepreneurs) are involved in different activities (e.g. farming and non-farming) (Huylenbroeck et al., 2007). These economic activities are new economic activities that transcend the boundaries of agricultural production activities, and thereby serve as a connection between other agricultural-related companies and city dwellers.
To summarize, Multifunctionality of agriculture is an external effect that occurs in agricultural production activities or rural space, and the external effect is characterized by non-realness and non-exclusivity from consumers. Therefore, this effect can be used by anyone without payment. Meanwhile, Multifunctional agriculture is a program or some practical activities that convert the Multifunctionality of agriculture into economic income.

4. Conclusion
Agricultural activities produce external effects, such as the Multifunctionality of agriculture. In 2001, the OECD specified the Multifunctionality of agriculture as the numerous benefits in agriculture which may have multiple outputs and accordingly may contribute to the achievement of several societal objectives at once. This definition of the Multifunctionality of agriculture defines agriculture’s positive externalities, such as environmental goods and environmental preservation, as an additional form of production. Research on this multifunctionality has taken place since the 2000s. However, despite its non-rivalness and non-excludability, it has been failing in the market. Here, it suggest Multifunctional agriculture policies utilizing the Multifunctionality of agriculture as a viable solution to market failures alongside the existing subsidy and direct payment policies.
Multifunctional agriculture, a policy that utilizes the Multifunctionality of agriculture, was first suggested by van der Ploeg and Roep in the Netherlands in 2003. Multifunctional agriculture was defined as a policy that transforms the Multifunctionality of agriculture into one or more service activities. It was suggested that the agricultural market failures can be saved by implementing Multifunctional agriculture policies that transform the external effects of the Multifunctionality of agriculture into economic effects.
In this chapter, the theory and characteristics of Multifunctionality of agriculture and Multifunctional agriculture are clearly distinguished, and the relationship between the two is on the same line. The market failure caused by Multifunctionality of agriculture can be or possibly resolved by the farmers themselves, and it shows that agriculture should not end with simple agricultural production but should be developed as a spatial industry.

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트18.pdf

0.19MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트19.pdf

0.01MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트20.pdf

0.10MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트21.pdf

0.01MB

다기능 농업의 기능과 효과

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 11:39:51 +0900

그림 2.5는 IAASTD(2008a)가 제시한 농업의 역할과 기능 사이의 유기적 관계를 보여준다. Van der Ploeg and Roep(2003)의 다기능 농업 기본 이론은 regrounding, deepening, broadening으로 표현되지만 구체적인 기능이나 효과는 설명되지 않는다. 정(2014)은 IAASTD(2008)의 사회적, 환경적, 경제적 효과의 관계를 바탕으로 다기능 농업의 기능을 설명하였다.
다기능 농업의 원래 관점에서 그 효과는 경제, 사회 및 환경에 미치는 영향으로 구분할 수 있다. 다기능 농업는 경제적 측면에서 다각화, 사회적 측면에서 향상된 관계, 환경적 측면에서 지속 가능성을 의미한다.
첫째, 다기능 농업는 농산물의 부가가치를 높이는 활동을 통해 경제적 효과를 발휘한다. 유기농식품, 슬로우·전통식품 등 기존 식품과 신상품의 차별화, 가공·조리활동, 직판 등 농민 소득증대 활동 등이다. 또한 비식품(서비스)의 새로운 시장 창출을 통한 경제적 효과가 있으며, 농촌의 다기능성 촉진을 통해 농업 및 농촌 관광, 교육/체험, 휴양/치유 서비스 시장 등의 시장을 활성화한다. 한 가지 유의할 점은 비식품(서비스) 시장이 식품 시장과 밀접하게 연결되어 있다는 점이다. 즉, 비식품(서비스)과 식품시장이 밀접하게 연결되어 있다는 것은 농산물, 가공품, 식품 등을 관람객에게 직접 판매하는 것을 의미하고, 이를 체험하는 관람객은 이를 다른 사람들에게 홍보하게 된다. 이러한 활동은 농촌경제의 경제활성화로 이어지며, 이는 (1) 농산물 중심의 지역경제 부가가치 증대와 (2) 취약계층을 중심으로 한 지역경제의 새로운 일자리 창출로 나눌 수 있다. 여성과 노인과 같은 지역사회의 다기능 농업의 사회적 효과는 대부분 환경과 관련이 있는데 농업을 통해 농촌의 사회문화를 유지하는 효과와 비농업인의 농업활동 체험을 통한 레크리에이션, 휴식, 교육의 효과로 나눌 수 있다. 농촌 공동체를 유지하는 것은 농촌 공동체 정신, 경제 및 전통 문화를 유지하는 것을 포함한다. 농촌 지역은 휴가지의 도시 인구를 위한 레크리에이션과 정신 장애 및 특정 그룹의 중독을 치료하기 위한 휴식 및 요법을 제공한다. 다기능 농업 프로그램을 통한 교육은 어릴 때부터 일반 대중에게 농업과 식량의 가치를 알리는 데 도움이된다. 이러한 사회적 효과는 개인과 정부가 공동으로 지불하는 형태의 새로운 준공공 서비스 시장을 창출할 수 있다. 즉, 대부분의 지불은 국민건강보험, 공교육, 사회보장과 같은 사회보장제도의 형태로 이루어지고 나머지는 사적 시장에서 개인이 지불한다(Jung et al., 2014).
다기능 농업의 환경적 효과는 사회적 효과와 마찬가지로 실질적으로 환경재로 작용하며, 그 중 일부는 상품 및 서비스 시장에서 프리미엄 역할을 한다. 일반 농업, 특히 재래식 농업은 부정적인 외부 효과가 있는 것으로 알려져 있다. 긍정적인 효과를 극대화하면서 부정적인 외부 효과로 인한 부작용을 최소화하기 위한 노력이 필요한 것이다. 특히 이러한 환경적 영향은 경제적, 사회적 개선에 근본이다. 이러한 노력을 통해 농촌의 다기능성은 전반적으로 유지될 수 있으며, 이는 농업 활동으로 인한 기후 변화 및 지구 온난화 영향을 줄이면서 생물 다양성과 수자원 및 토양 자원을 유지하는 것과 같은 지속 가능성으로 이어질 수 있다(IAASTD, 2009; Jung, 2014).

Figure 2.5 The inescapable interconnectedness of agriculture’s roles and functions

Source: IAASTD (2008).

다기능 농업의 전략적 측면과 효과적인 측면을 결합함으로써 그림 2.5와 같이 농촌 지역 농업의 지속 가능한 발전 방향을 구성할 수 있다.다기능 농업의 목적은 농업 생산이나 식량 생산의 취약성에서 벗어나 농업 및 농촌 지역을 다중 사용 공간으로 재정의하고 국가 및 농촌 지역의 경제적, 사회적 및 환경적 영향과 함께 가치 사슬을 형성할 수 있도록 하는 것이다.

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트16.pdf

0.10MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트17.pdf

0.07MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트18.pdf

0.19MB

원문 : https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/11

Multifunctional agriculture functions and effects

3.2 MFA’s functions Figure 2.5 shows the organic relationship between the role and the functions of agriculture presented by the IAASTD (2008a). Van der Ploeg and Roep’s (2003) basic theory of MFA is represented by regrounding, deepening and broadening

multifunctionality.tistory.com

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

(pdf) Multifunctional agriculture functions and effects

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 11:34:01 +0900

3.2 Multifunctional agriculture’s functions

Figure 2.5 shows the organic relationship between the role and the functions of agriculture presented by the IAASTD (2008a). Van der Ploeg and Roep’s (2003) basic theory of Multifunctional agriculture is represented by regrounding, deepening and broadening, but no specific functions or effects are explained. Jung (2014) described the functions of Multifunctional agriculture based on the relationship of the IAASTD’s (2008) social, environmental and economic effects.

From the original perspective of Multifunctional agriculture, its effects can be distinguished into those on economy, society and environment. Multifunctional agriculture means diversification in economic terms, enhanced relations in social terms and sustainability in environmental terms.

First, Multifunctional agriculture exerts an economic effect through activities promoting the added value of agricultural products. These include the differentiation of existing food from new kinds of products, such as organic food and slow and traditional food, and activities that promote farmers’ income, such as processing/cooking activities and direct sales. It also has an economic effect through the creation of new markets for non-food products (services) and vitalizes markets, such as the agricultural and rural tourism, education/experience and recreation/healing service markets, through the promotion of rural multifunctionality. One point to bear in mind is that the non-food (service) market is closely linked to the food product market. In other words, more closely linked non-food (service) and food product markets means more direct selling of agricultural products, processed goods and food to visitors, and visitors experiencing these will promote them to others. These activities lead to the economic vitalization of the rural economy, which can be divided into (1) an increase in the local economic added value focusing on agricultural products and (2) the creation of new jobs in the local economy, mainly embracing vulnerable groups of the community, such as women and the elderly (Huylenbroeck et al., 2007).

The social effects of Multifunctional agriculture are mostly related to the environment, which can be divided into the effects of maintaining the social culture of rural areas through agriculture and the effects of recreation, relaxation and education through non-agricultural people’s experience of farming activities. Maintaining rural communities includes maintaining the rural community spirit, economy and traditional culture. Rural areas provide recreation for the urban population in vacation destinations as well as relaxation and therapies to cure mental disorders and the addictions of certain groups. Education through Multifunctional agriculture programmes helps to inform the general public about the value of agriculture and food from a young age. These social effects can create a new quasi-public service market in the form of payments made jointly by individuals and the government. In other words, most payments are made in the form of social security systems such as national health insurance, public education and social security, and the rest are made by individuals in the private market (Jung et al., 2014).

The environmental effects of Multifunctional agriculture, like the social effects, substantially act as environmental goods, some of which play a premium role in the commodity and service markets. General agriculture, especially conventional agriculture, is known to have negative externalities. Efforts are needed to minimize the adverse effects caused by negative externalities while maximizing the positive effects. In particular, these environmental effects are fundamental to economic and social improvement. Through such efforts, rural multifunctionality can be maintained in general, which can lead to sustainability, such as maintaining biodiversity and water and soil resources while reducing the climate change and global warming impacts resulting from agricultural activities (IAASTD, 2009; Jung, 2014).

Figure 2.5 The inescapable interconnectedness of agriculture’s roles and functions

Source: IAASTD (2008).

By combining the strategic and effective aspects of Multifunctional agriculture, we can structure the sustainable development direction of agriculture in rural areas, as shown in Figure 2.5.

The purpose of Multifunctional agriculture is to redefine agricultural and rural areas as multi-use spaces, away from the fragility of agricultural production or food production, and enable them to form a value chain with the economic, social and environmental effects of state and rural areas.

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

Reference : A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea:Beyond 6th Ind

References Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271–279. Aguglia, L., Henke, R. and Salvioni, C. (

multifunctionality.tistory.com

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트16.pdf

0.10MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트17.pdf

0.07MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트18.pdf

0.19MB

다기능 농업 (Multifunctional agriculture)의 정의 개념 이론

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 11:03:56 +0900

1994년 UR 타결 후 WTO가 창설되면서 농업의 비교역적 기능인 다원적 기능(Multifunctionality of agriculture)이 농산물 시장 개방을 주장하는 수출국의 입장에 대응한 수입국들의 자국 농업 보호 논리로 강조되면서부터 생산의 결합성(jointness in production) 이슈로 인해 농업생산행위와 다원적 기능이 결합되지 않았다고 주장한 burrell(2001)과 농업과 분리되어 있는 가치를 추정하고자 한 OECD(2001), smith (2000), kwon(2004), 정현희(2008)와 같은 연구가 진행되면서 농업의 다원적 기능에 대한 관심이 증폭되었다.

In 1998 the European Union funded a study (UE IMPACT Study) aiming at underlying the extent of diversification in EU farms. From that moment, numerous studies have been carried out on this topic (Marinelli and Menghini, 1996).

2003년에는 LEADER 프로그램이 완료되면서 미래 농업과 농촌개발을 어떻게 할 것인가에 대한 과학적이고 정책적인 논쟁 과정에서 기존에 농업의 가치추정에 머무르지 않고, 다원적기능을 활용하는 논의가 등장하였다. 이는 농업을 단순 식량과 섬유를 생산하는 고전적 역할을 하는 것만이 아닌 재생가능한 자원의 관리, 경관과 생물다양성 보전, 농촌사회의 사회경제적 생존에 기여하는 다양한 활동들로 정의된다(Renting et al. 2009; Hajanlka and Alsjos, 2009; Van Huylenbroeck and Durand, 2003).

다기능 농업(MFA)의 개념은 유럽 및 네덜란드에서 주로 적용되고 있으며 농업과 농촌이 농업 생산 활동을 넘어서는 경제활동으로 정의하고 있다(2011, VNG). 또한 농업의 외부효과(externality)를 활용하여 농업과 다른 서비스를 하나 이상 제공하는 것을 다기능 농업(MFA)으로 정의하기도 한다(2012, Hans Hurni). 과거 생산 중심적 산업에서 탈피하여 농산업에서 파생되는 여러 다기능성 혹은 양의 외부효과(externality)를 서비스 형태로 농가 소득사업으로 전환하는 것이라 할 수 있으며, 농업의 기초적인 기능인 식량 생산을 넘어 생물다양성 회복, 환경정화, 어메니티 복원, 문화유산 활용, 식량안보 등 과거 농업 분야에서 크게 주목받지 못했던 여러 분양의 사회적 요구에 부합하는 농업이라고 할 수 있다(Belletti G. 2002). 이는 농업의 외부효과(externality)인 다기능성을 농업의 소득사업으로 전환하는 것으로 농업 생산 활동과 환경과의 밀접한 관계를 의미하며, 서비스 산업이라 할지라도 농업과 이질적이지 않고 유기적인 가치사슬(Value Chain)과 같은 농업 형태라 할 수 있다(정현희 외 2013).

이러한 다기능 농업(MFA)은 환경과 문화, 그리고 농촌개발을 통합하기 곤란한 식량생산체제의 한계를 극복하기 위해 농업에 대한 변화된 관점에 기반을 두고 있다(Potter, 2002; Dobbs and Pretty, 2004). 또한 농업의 상품화는 물론 새로운 기업가적 활동을 통한 다양한 생태적 서비스를 통해 농가의 이익을 증진하기 위한 것이다(Wilson, 2007; Jordan and Warner, 2010). 농업의 다원적 기능과 같은 긍정적인 농업의 외부효과(externality)를 활용하는 것으로 농업의 시장실패를 농가의 내생적인 활동으로 제거하는 하는 것이며, 외부적으로는 내생적 활동으로 충족되지 않는 농가소득창출과 농업농촌의 지속가능하고 환경 보전을 위한 농업 직불금 제도의 타당성을 확립해 나갈 수 있는 방안이다.

The classification of Multifunctional agriculture is based primarily on the concepts outlined by van der Ploeg and Roep (2003): a framework that accentuates diversification explicitly toward Multifunctional agriculture, with multifunctional diversification, extending beyond the limits of typical multi-crop or multi-livestock production of conventional agriculture. In addition to the core business of traditional agricultural activities, the main idea is that rural development and performance improvement can be achieved through three alternative strategies of deepening, broadening, and re-grounding, which are applicable to the expansion of farm business activities and can simultaneously be grouped as new activities, markets, and managerial solutions (Finocchio and Esposti, 2008).

Fig(1) : Van der ploeg's "Value Triangle in Modern Agriculture"

source : Van der Ploeg et al. 2003

Deepening mainly refers to the integration of new unconventional activities into the conventional agricultural system, such as the reorganization of production with more complex and integrated practices, the innovation of the products, and the enhancement of the qualitative aspects. These activities typically add value to agriculture, such as direct dealing or processing of agricultural products.

Broadening mainly refers to the development of non-food production activities that reflect new market requirements and could possibly create a new income source. An example is the use of farming structures as farm holidays (e.g., on-farm activities, care farm activities) (Baldock and Beaufoy, 1993; Renting et al., 2009).

Re-grounding mainly concerns all non-agricultural activities that are complementary to the main agricultural ones. The purpose is to provide alternative employment options. It is the most widely used strategy as it involves more extensive forms of integration between farms and the local environment (e.g., maintenance of gardens, production of animal feed, silviculture), in achieving natural services (Menghini et al., 2014).

영문원본 : https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/9

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

Multifunctional agriculture definition

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:56:16 +0900

3.1 Multifunctional agriculture’s  definition
In 1998, the EU funded a study (the EU IMPACT study) aiming to investigate the extent of
diversification in the EU farms. Since then, numerous studies have been carried out on this topic
with  the  same  purpose. In  2003, with  the  completion  of  the  LEADER  programme,  the
discussion on utilizing the Multifunctionality of agriculture appeared during a scientific and political argument about the
future development of agriculture and rural areas. This discussion proceeded to Multifunctional agriculture and
defined agriculture as not just fulfilling the classical role of producing foods and textiles but
also engaging in the management of regenerative resources, the preservation of the landscape
and biodiversity and various activities that contribute to the social and economic survival of
rural society (Van Huylenbroeck and Durand, 2003; Renting et al., 2009).
The concept of Multifunctional agriculture is mainly applied in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, and is
defined as economic activities beyond agricultural production activities (VNG, 2011). It is also
defined as utilizing the externalities of agriculture to provide agricultural and one or more other
services (Hurni, 2012). It can be described as a shift from the past production-oriented industry
to rural income generation with multifunctionality derived from the service industry functions
of farming. Beyond the fundamental food production function of agriculture, which is the main
difference from Multifunctionality of agriculture, Multifunctional agriculture corresponds to the social demand for various types of agriculture
that have not been widely noted in the past, such as biodiversity restoration, environmental
clean-ups, multifunctional restoration, cultural heritage utilization and food security (Belletti,
2002). This is the transformation of multifunctionality, an external effect of agriculture, into an
income-generating business  of  agriculture,  which  features  a  close  relationship  between
agricultural  production  activities  and  the  environment  and  even  incorporates  the  service
industry as a new agricultural form (Jung et al., 2014).
Multifunctional agriculture is based on a changed perspective on agriculture to overcome its limitations as a simple
food production system, which challenges it to integrate the environment, culture and rural
development (Potter, 2002; Dobbs and Pretty, 2004). It is also designed to promote the interests
of farming households through various ecological services  involving new entrepreneurial
14activities as well as the commercialization of agriculture (Wilson, 2007; Jordan and Warner,
2010). By utilizing positive externalities, such as the Multifunctionality of agriculture, the government can eliminate the
market failures related to the externalities of agriculture through endogenous activities which
are utilizing externality such as echo-experience of farming households, and by establishing the
sustainable farming direct payment systems for environmental preservation.

Figure 2.4 Van der Ploeg’s Multifunctional agriculture as base for rural development
Source: Van der Ploeg and Roep (2003).
The classification of Multifunctional agriculture is primarily based on the concepts outlined by van der Ploeg and
Roep (2003): a framework that accentuates diversification explicitly towards Multifunctional agriculture, with
multifunctional diversification, extending beyond the limits of the typical multi-crop or multi-
livestock production of conventional agriculture. In addition to the core business of traditional
agricultural activities, rural development and performance improvement can be achieved
through the three alternative strategies of deepening, broadening and regrounding, as shown in
Figure 2.4 These strategies aid the expansion of farm business activities and can simultaneously
be grouped as new activities, markets and managerial solutions (Finocchio and Esposti, 2008).
Of the three strategies, deepening mainly refers to the integration of new unconventional
activities into the conventional agricultural system, such as the reorganizing of production with
more complex and integrated practices, the innovation of products and the enhancement of the
15qualitative aspects. These activities typically add value to agriculture, such as direct dealing or
processing of agricultural products.
Broadening mainly relates to the development of non-food production activities that reflect
new market requirements and could create a new income source. An example is the use of
farming facilities as farm holidays (e.g., on-farm activities and care farm activities) (Baldock et
al., 1993; Renting et al., 2009).
Regrounding mainly concerns all the non-agricultural activities that are complementary to
the main ones. The purpose of regrounding is the mobilization and use of resources. Here one
can identify a process that might be summarized as re-grounding (van der Ploeg 1999). That is,
the farm enterprise is grounded in a new or different set of resources and/or involved in new
patterns of resource use. It is the most widely used strategy as it involves more extensive forms
of integration between the farms and the local environment (e.g., the maintenance of gardens,
production of animal feed and silviculture) in providing natural services (Menghini et al., 2014).

Source : Jung, H.H. 2022, A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea: Beyond 6th Industrialization, Kyoto University Doctoral dissertation.

Reference link https://multifunctionality.tistory.com/8

Reference : A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunc

Dr. JHH — Tue, 27 Dec 2022 09:20:35 +0900

References
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference
methods  for  valuing  environmental  amenities,  Journal  of  Environmental  Economics  and
Management, 26, 271–279.
Aguglia, L., Henke, R.  and Salvioni, C. (Eds) (2009) Multifunctional  agriculture: Entrepreneurial
behaviors and strategies in the search for diversification, Study & Recherche INEA, Edizioni
Scientifiche Italiane.
Ahn, D. M., Son, J. D. and Kim, M. S. (2005b) Rurality and preferences of rural landscapes in Korea,
Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning, 11(3), 43–52. [안동만 외 (2005)  농촌경관의
농촌다움과 선호도 평가 연구, 농촌계획학회, 11(3), 43–52.]
Ahn, Y. S., Kim, E. J., Kim, Y. and Seo, C. H. (2005)  Monetary  valuation of the  sociocultural
commonweal functions from the rural communities in Korea, Korean Rural Sociological Society,
15(1), 175–213. [안윤수 외, 농촌의 사회문화적 공익기능 가치 평가, 농촌사회학회, 15(1),
175–213.]
Aldington, T.J. (1998) Multifunctional Agriculture: A Brief Review from Developed and Developing
Country Perspectives, unknown status. FAO Agriculture Department, Internal Document.
Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G. and Bennett, G. (1993) Nature Conservation and New Direction in The EC
Common  Agricultural  Policy,  Institute  for  European  Environmental  Policy  (IEEP),
London/Arnhem.
Belletti, G. (2002) The Socio-economic Impact of Rural Development Policies: Realities and Potentials
Project, EU Fair CT4288, Brussels.
Bishop, R. and Heberlein, T. (1979) Measuring values of extra market goods: Are indirect measures
biased?, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(5), 926–930.
Bloemen  M.,  S.  Ludtke,  (2002)  Meervoudig  grondgebruik  in  detail.  Alterra,  Wageningen  UR,
Wageningen.
Bohoman, M., Cooper, J., Mullarkey, D., Normile, M. A., Skully, D., Vogel, S. and Young, E. (1999)
The Use and Abuse of Multifunctionality, Economic Research Service/USDA.
Burrell, A. (2001) Multifunctionality and agricultural trade liberalization, Agricultural Economics and
Rural Policy, 16(2), 77–95.
Cameron, T. A. and James, M. D. (1987) Efﬁcient estimation methods for ‘close-ended’ contingent
valuation surveys, Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(2), 269–276.
Cho, S. J. et al. (2002) Finding of Rural Amenity Resources (RAR) and Development of Site-Applied
RAR Planning Techniques with Community Participation Model, Korean Ministry of Agriculture.
[조순재 (2002)  주민참여계획모델에 의한 농촌어메니 티 자원 발굴 및 설계기술 현장적용
연구, 농림기술과제 보고서.]
Ciriacy-Wantrup,  S.  V.  (1947)  Capital  returns  from  soil-conservation  practices,  Journal  of  Farm
Economics, 29, 1181–1196.
Dagevos H., G. Overbeek, J. Vader, (2004) Consuming rural goods and services, a consumer-oriented
comparative analysis, Landbouw Economisch Instituut (LEI), rapport7.04.08,Den Haag.
Davis, R. K. (1963) The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the Maine Woods,
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Deelstra, T., (2001) Multifunctional land use; an opportunity for urban agriculture in Europe. Urban
Agriculture Magazine, July 2001.
100Dobbs, T. L. and Pretty, J. N. (2004) Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and multifunctionality,
Review of Agricultural Economics, 26(2), 220–237.
Dobbs,  T.L.,  Pretty,  J.N.  (2001)  The  United  Kingdom’s  Experience  with  Agri-Environmental
Stewardship Schemes: Lessons and Issues for the United States and Europe, Brookings; Colchester
(South Dakota State University; University of Essex). Related online version (cited on 23 May
2007).
Dominguez-Torreiro,  M.  and  Solino,  M., (2011)  Provided  and  perceived  status  quo  in choice
experiments:  Implications  for  valuing  the  outputs of  multifunctional  rural  areas, Ecological
Economics, 70(12):2523–2531
FARP (2013) Multifunctional Agriculture. ISSN-1598-5687.
Fazzi, L. (2011) Social co-operatives and social farming in Italy, Sociologia Ruralis, 51(2), 119–136.
Finocchio, R. and Esposti, R. (2008) Determinants of farm diversification and interaction with the CAP.
An  application  to  FADN  of  Marche  region,  12th  Congress  of  the  European  Association  of
Agriculture Economics (EAAE), Italy.
Freeman III, A. M. (2003) The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd ed., Resources
for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Geweke, J., (1989) Baysian inference in Economic model using Monte Carlo integration, Econometrica
57, pp.1317-1339.
Gordijn,  H.,  (2003)  Ruimtelijke  planning  van  het  milieu.  NAi  Uitgevers  Rotterdam/Ruimtelijk
Planbureau, Den Haag.
Haab, T. C. and McConnell, K. E. (2002) Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Economics
of Non-Market Valuation.
Habiforum, (2001) Floating land and salted meat, ideas on multifunctional us of space and water retention
as spatial function combinations. www.habiforum.nl. Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het.
Hajivassiliou, V. and D. Mcfadden, (1998) The method of simulated scores for the estimation of LCD
models, Econometrica 66, pp.863-896.
Hanemann, W. M. (1985) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation information with discrete response
data: Reply, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(4), 1057–1061.
Hanemann, W. M., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B. J. (1991) Statistical efficiency of double bounded
dichotomous choice contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4),
1255–1263.
Hanley,  N.,  Wright,  R.  E. and  Adamowicz,  W.  (1998) Using choice  experiments  to  value  the
environment, Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 413–428.IAASTD (2008) Summary for
Decision Makers.
Harwood,  R.R.,  (2003)  Sustainable  Agriculture  on  a  Populous  Industrialized  Landscape:  Building
Ecosystems’  Vitality  and  Productivity,  in  Food  Security  and  Environmental  Quality  in  the
Developing World, (Eds.) Lal, R., Hansen, D., Uphoff, N., Slack, S., Boca Raton, FL (Lewis
Publishers/CRC Press).
Hediger, W., (2004) On the economics of multifunctionality and sustainability of agricultural systems,
90th EAAE Seminar: Multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets, October 2004, Rennes,
France, conference paper.
Henkens, R., J.K. van Raffe, (2002) Groen-Blauwe dooradering van plattelandsgebieden.
Jang, H. E. (2012) A Study on Production·Consumption Style of Traditional Fermented Tea in Modern
Korea, PhD thesis, WonKwang University. [장효은, 한국  근대  발효차의  생산방식과  소비형태
101연구, 원광대학교  박사학위논문.]
Jeon, Y. O. (2003) The Direction of Agricultural Amenity for Agricultural Economic Activity, SERI.
[전영옥  (2003) 농촌활성화를  위한  농촌어메니티  정책의  방향, SERI, 이슈페이퍼.]
Jongeneel, R.A., Slangen, L.H.G., (2004) Multifunctionality in agriculture and the contestable public
domain: theory and evidence about on-farm and off-farm activities in the Netherlands, in Sustaining
Agriculture and the Rural Environment: Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality, (Ed.) Brouwer,
F., Advances in Ecological Economics, pp. 183–203, Cheltenham (Edward Elgar).
Jordan, N. and Warner K. D. (2010) Enhancing the multifunctionality of US agriculture, Bioscience,
60(1).
Jung, H. H., (2020), Estimating the social value of multifunctional agriculture (MFA) with choice
experiment. Agric. Econ. –  Czech, 66: 120-128.
Jung, H. H. (2014) Valuing amenity attributes of farm village using choice experiment – Valuing rurality,
Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning, 20(4), 243–252. [정현희 (2014)  농촌마을
어메니티 자원의 속성별 가치평가-농촌다움의 가치평가, 농촌계획학회, 20(4), 243–252.]
Jung,  H.  H.,  Huh,  N.  H.  and  Lee,  K.  R.  (2014)  Multifunctional  Agriculture  and  Multifunctional
Agriculture Development Policy, CNI. [정현희 외 (2014) 농업의 다기능성과 다기능 농업 정책,
충남연구원 (CNI), 전략과제.]
Kang, H. J. (2007) Discussing Trends of Multifunctionality of Agriculture, KREI, OECD, 87. [강혜정
(2007) OECD 농업의  다원적  기능  논의  동향, KREI, 세계농업  87.]
Keane, M., (1994) Acomputationally practical simulation estimator for panel data, Econometrica 62,
pp.95-116.
Kim, K. Y. (2006) The estimation of WTP for agricultural landscape conservation – Case of Gyeonggi
Province, Korea Environmental Policy and Administration Society, 14(2), 37–55. [김광임 (2006)
농촌 경관보존에 대한 지불의사액 추정-경기도를 중심으로-.]
Kim, N. J. (2004) A special issue for tourism development and resources chapter: Research articles;
policy orientations for rural tourism: A consideration of the rural amenity concept and components
of  tourism  phenomenon,  Journal  of  Tourism  Sciences,  28(1),  263–281.  [김남조 (2004)
농촌어메니티 개념과 관광현상 구성 요소를 이용한 농촌관광정책의 방향, 한국관광학회지,
28(1), 263–281.]
Kim, S. B., Lee, S. Y., Jung, N. S., Lee, J. M., Cho, S. J. and Lee, J. J. (2004) Standardized surveying
method of rural amenity resources with database normalization technique, Journal of the Korean
Society of Rural Planning, 10(4). [김상범 외 (2004)  자료정규화를 통한 농촌어메니티자원
조사표의 표준화, 한국농촌계획학회, 10(4).]
Kim, S. S. and Oh, S. I. (2003) Valuing multifunctionality of agriculture, KREI, 26(2), 1–13. [김수석,
오세익  (2003) 농업의  다원적  기능에  대한 가치평가, 한국농촌경제연구원, 26(2), 1–13.]
Kim, S. S., Yang, B. H., Jin, H. Y., Shin, H. T., Lim, H. O. and Kang, S. K. (2014) Measuring the
economic benefits of establishing Saemangeum Arboretum, Journal of Agriculture & Life Science,
48(5), 35–43. [김수승 외 (2014) 조건부가치측정법 (CVM)을 이용한 새만금 수목원 조성의
경제적 편익추정, 농업생명과학연구, 48(5), 35–43.
Kim, T. K., Huh, J. N. and Yang, C. Y. (2012) Concept of the 6th sixth industrialization of agriculture
and how to start it, KREI Focus, 69, 1–29. [김태곤 외 (2012) 농업의 6 차산업화 개념설정과
창업방법, KREI, 농정포커스, 69, 1–29.]
Knickel, K., H. Renting, (2000) Methodologicaland conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality
and rural development, Sociologia Ruralis 40, 512-528.
102Korean Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Krinsky, I. and Robb, A. L. (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities, Review of
Economic and Statistics, 68, 715–719.
Kuhlman T. et al., (2003) Simulating agricultural land use change in the Netherlands. Paper presented at
the international workshop‘Transition in agriculture and future land use patterns’, 1-3 December,
2003, Wageningen.
Kwon, O. S. (2003) Estimating the WTP for the non-GMO agriculture products: A contingent valuation
study,   Korean   Journal   of   Agriculture   Economics,   44(2),   111–131.   [권오상,   (2003)
이용한
관한
소비자
가상가치평가법을
수용성에
유전자변형제품의
계량분석,
한국농업경제학회, 44(2), 111–131.]
Kwon, O. S. (2005) Random utility models and the value of national parks in Korea, Environmental and
Resource  Economics  Review,  14(1),  51–77.  [권오상 (2005)  확률효용모형 분석을 통한
국립공원의 경제적 가치 평가, 자원 환경경제학연구, 14 (1), 51–77.]
Kwon, O. S. (2007) Environmental Economics, 2nd ed., Park Young.
Kwon, O. S. and Yun, T. Y. (2004) Multifunctional value of rice farming, Korea Agricultural Economics
논농업의
경관가치평가,
Association,     45(2),     235–261.     [권오상,     윤태연,     (2004)
한국농업경제학회, 45(2), 235–261.]
Kwon, O. S., Lim, Y. A. and Kim, W. H. (2007) Economic values of recreational water: Rafting on the
Hantan  River,  Korean  Resource  Economics  Association,  16(3),  427–451.  [권오상 외 (2007)
수자원의 휴양가치분석: 한탄강 레프팅을 사례로, 한국환경경제학회, 16(3), 427–451.]
Lee, H. J. (2009) Estimating the Value of Multiple Destination Trips, Thesis, SNU. [이혜진, (2009)
다목적지  여행의  경제적  가치평가, 서울대학교, 박사학위  논문.]
Louviere, J. J. and Woodworth, G. G. (1993) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or
allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data, Journal of Marketing Research, 20,
350–367.
Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Wait, Stated Choice method. Analysis and application, Cambridge
University press, Cambridge, 2000.
Maier, L., Shobayashi, M., (2001) Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework, Paris (OECD
Publications Service).
McConnell, K. E. (1990) Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for
contingent valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18, 19–34.
Menghini,  S.,  Sottini,  V.  A.,  Marinelli,  N.,  Merlo,  B. and Fabbrizzi,  S.  (2014)  Multifunctional
diversification for the Italian wine producers: The state of the art in the adoption of deepening
strategies, Academy of Wine Business Research, 8th International Conference, Germany.
Moyer, W., Josling, T., (2002) Agricultural Policy Reform: Politics and Process in the EU and US in the
1990s, Global Environmental Governance, Aldershot; Burlington, VT (Ashgate).
Novikova, A., Rocchi, L. and Vaznonis, B. (2019) Valuing agricultural landscape: Lithuanian case study
using a contingent valuation method, Sustainability, 11(2648).
OECD (1994) The Contribution of Amenities to Rural Development, OECD, Paris.
OECD (1999) Cultivating Rural Amenities – An Economic Development Perspective, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2001) Multifunctionality: Toward an Analytical Framework, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2014) Economic Surveys; Korea.
Oh, Y. G., Cho, S. J., Choi, J. Y., Im, S. B., An, T. M., Lee, J. J. and Lee, D. K. (2007) Rural amenity
resources survey, Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning, 13(1), 1–9.
103Oostindie  H.,  (2015)  Family  Farming  Futures,  Agrarian  pathways  to  multifunctionality:  flows  of
resistance, redesign and resilience, Wageningen Graduate School of Science (WASS).
Park, C. S., Jeon, Y. O. and Joh, Y. K. (2002) An analysis of their importance degree and ordinal
correlation of rural resources for the rural amenity, Korea Planners Association, 37(6), 21–35.
[박창석 외 (2002)  농촌어메니티에 기초한 농촌자원 중요도 평가 및 순위적 관계 분석,
대한국토도시계획학회, 37(6), 21–35.]
Park, K. C. (2016) An exploratory study on the introduction of the basic income program for farmers,
Journal of Agriculture Extension & Community Development, 23(1), 73–87.
Park, M. H., Lee, M. H., Kim, S. Y. and Ahn, B. I. (2008) A Strategy To Stabilize the Domestic Market
and To Increase the Competitiveness of Korean Green Tea Industry, KREI. [박문호 외, 녹차
수급안정 및 경쟁력 제고 방안, 한국농촌경제연구원.]
Potter, C. (2002) Multifunctionality as an agricultural and rural policy concept, In: Brouwer, F. (Ed.),
Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment: Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality,
Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.
Randall, A., Ives, B. C. and Eastman, C. (1974) Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental
improvements, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1, 132–149.
Regeringsbeleid, (2002) Stad en Land in een nieuwe geografie, maatschappelijke veranderingen en
ruimtelijke dynamiek. SDU uitgeverij, Den Haag.
Renting, H., Rossing, W. A., Groot, J. C., van der Ploeg, J. D., Laurent, C., Perraud, D., Stobbelaar, D.
J. and Van Ittersum, M. K. (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture: A review of conceptual
approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework, Journal of Environmental
Management, 90, 112–123.
Romstad, E., Rorstad, P. K. and Soyland, V. (2002) Multifunctional Agriculture: Implications for Policy
Design, Agricultural University of Norway.
Sakai, K. (1998) Practical Ideas beyond Environmental, AMR.
Samuelson P. A. (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure, Review of Economics and Statistics,
36(4), 387–389.
Sangkapitux C, Suebpongsang P, Punyawadee V, Pimpaoud N, Konsurin J, Neef A., (2017) Eliciting
citizen preferences  for  multifunctional agriculture in the  watershed,126 A. TIENHAARA ET
AL.areas of Northern Thailand through choice experiment and latent class models. Land Use Policy.
67:38–47.
Schimmenti, E., Daddi, G., Asciuto, A., Borsellino, V., Gesaro, M. and D’Acuisto, M. (2016) Explorative
study  of  multifunctional  agriculture  in  a  Sicilian  inland  area,  Italian  Review  of  Agricultural
Economics, 71(1), 423–434.
Shin, E., Hufschmidt, M., Lee, Y., Nickum, J. E. and Umetsu, C. (1997) Valuating the Economic Impacts
of Urban Environmental Problems: Asian Cities, working paper 13, UNDP/UNCHS(Habitat)/World
Bank.
Train, K. E., (2003) Discrete choice method withsimulation, Cambridge university press
Van der Ploeg, (1999) Perspectieven voor verbrede plattelandsontwikkeling. Essay over theoretische
invalshoeken en illustratieve toepassing op Waterland en Beemster. LEI rapport 4.99.13, Den Haag
Van  der  Ploeg,  H.  Renting,  (2000)  Impact  and  potential:  a  comparative  review  of  Europeanrural
development practices, Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 529-543.
Van der Ploeg, J. and Roep, D. (2003) Multifunctionality and rural development: The actual situation in
Europe, In: van Huylenbroeck, G. and Durand, G. (Eds), Multifunctional Agriculture. A New
104105
Paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, 37–54.
Van Huylenbroeck, G. and Durand, G., (2003) Multifunctionality and Rural Development: A General
Framework.
Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vandermeulen, V., Mettepenningen, E., Verspecht, A. (2007) Multifunctionality
of agricultrue: A review of definitions, Evidence and instruments, Living Reviews in Landscape
Research, 1(3).
Vereijken P.H, (1999) Vraag naar Multifunctionele Landbouw. Staring Centrum DLO, rapport643.1.
Wageningen.
Vereijken P.H. et al., (1999) Programmastudie multifunctionele landbouw. Dienst Landbouwkundig
Onderzoek, Wageningen
VNG (2011), Multifunctionele landbouw is als begrip geintroduceerd om aan te geven dat landbouw en
landbouwbedrijven meer doen dan landbouwproductie.
Willig, R. (1976) Consumers’ surplus without apology, American Economic Review, 66(4), 589–597.
Wilson, G. A. (2007) Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective, CABI.
Wilson,   G.A.   (2004),   “The   Australian   Landcare   movement:   towards   ‘post-productivist’   rural
governance?”, Journal of Rural Studies, 20(4): 461–484, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.03.002. 2.
Wilson,  G.A.,  (2001)  From  productivism  to  post-productivism  ...  and  back  again?  Exploring  the
(un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture”, Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, 26(1): 77–102, doi:10.1111/1475-5661.00007. 2, 5.1
Yoo. H., I., (2019) lclogit2: An enhanced module to estimate latent class conditional logit models, The
stata Journal, vv(ii), pp.1-20.
Yoo. H., I., (2020) lclogit2: An enhanced command to fit latent class conditional logit models, The stata
Journal, 20(2)
Young R. A. (2005) Determining the Economic Value of Water: Concepts and Methods, Resources for
the Future, Washington.
Yrjola, T. and Kola, J. (2004) Consumer preference regarding multifunctional agriculture, International
Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 7(1), 78–90.

(pdf) Market failure by multifunctionality of agriculture and for eliminating and developing by adopting multifunctional agriculture

Dr. JHH — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:52:55 +0900

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트10.pdf

0.18MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트11.pdf

0.24MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트12.pdf

0.21MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyon_파트13.pdf

0.16MB

Valuing Multifunctional agriculture and Multifunctionality of agriculture in South Korea beyond_파트9.pdf

0.04MB

농업의 다원적 기능은 긍정적 외부효과로 인해 시장실패를 발현한다. 시장실패는 비경합성, 비배타성으로 인해 소비자는 비용을 지불하지 않고 경제적 가치를 소비하게된다. 그렇지만 소비자는 이러한 행위를 알지 못한다. 다기능 농업은 농업의 다원적 기능을 경제효과로 전환하기 위한 활동이다. 다원적 기능의 가치를 다기능 농업을 통해 비용을 지불하고 소비하게 함으로 다원적 기능의 경제적 가치를 동시에 소비하게 하는 것이다.

2.1 Market failure and externalities of the Multifunctionality of agriculture

In a free-market economy, the market price is an essential determining factor for the producer, indicating the extent to which the production should continue (Kwon and Yun, 2004). A socially optimal level of production can be achieved when the output of the product is determined according to the market price signal. If distorted market prices are delivered to the producers, eventually, market failure will occur even though the producers made rational decisions based on the market information.

Products with the character of environmental material (environmental goods) can experience market failure through the distorted distribution of the market, and, unlike commodities that can be kept under total ownership, environmental material can be consumed without a payment (non-excludability), and its consumption cannot be stopped (non-rivalness) (Kwon, 2007). The multifunctionality arising from agricultural production activity has these characteristics too, thereby leading to market failure.

Actual market production and
demand (a)

Positive external effect (externality) (b)

Negative external effect (externality) (c)


	- Landscape function - Historical and cultural function - Natural environmental function - Community activities - Ecosystem Conservation (biodiversity) - Carbon absorption	- Pesticide spraying - Destruction farmland - Livestock manure emissions - Single-crop mass cultivation - Urbanization - Carbon emissions

Figure 2.1 Market failure in agriculture due to multifunctionality

Source: Kwon (2007, p. 79, Figure 4-3).

Externalities are generated when the ownership lacks excludability, and, in agriculture, there are positive and negative externalities. If there is no externality, the social optimum is reached at point Qp , where the agricultural product demand curve Dp and the personal marginal cost curve MC intersect, as shown in Figure 2.1 (a). Figure 2.1 (b) indicates the positive externality caused by the Multifunctionality of agriculture. Agriculture generates not just agricultural products but also positive externalities, which can be utilized by anybody due to their non-excludability. As shown in the figure, the agricultural product should be produced in the amount of Qp if positive externalities were not taken into account, where the agricultural product demand curve Dp and the marginal cost curve MC meet, However, if the positive externalities DH were taken into account by society or consumers, the consumer could reach the social optimum at Q* , which is larger than Qpmentioned above . This situation leads to market failure.

Figure 2.1 (c) presents the opposite case to positive externalities, explaining the negative externalities. The farm’s marginal cost curve MC does not accord with the cost curve of the entire society, the social marginal cost curve moves to MC' , which is higher than the personal marginal cost curve due to the environmental destruction caused by the farm. In this situation, the farm’s desirable output is Qp , while the desirable output by the entire society is Q* , much less than Qp . This can hinder not only the socially optimal cost but also the multifunctionality and farm income as a result of people’s avoidance of rural villages due to the environmental destruction.

As shown, market failure occurs due to externalities in agriculture. If the negative externalities are more significant than the positive externalities, this market failure will rationalize the failure in the fairness of experience activities, tourism and social investment based on rurality. However, the continuous occurrence of rural villages’ negative externalities would cause a crisis for farms, rural villages and the country. Thus, the policy must maximize the positive externalities and minimize the negative externalities.

2.2 Market failure elimination through multifunctionality

Kwon (2007) theoretically explained the cause of market failure and proposed three methods to solve this problem in legal, institutional and administrative ways.

The most popular and straightforward way to remove the market failure of agriculture’s positive externalities is government’s direct subsidy based on the environmental improvement cost per unit area of agricultural production. Though the size of this kind of grant is hard to determine, there is ongoing research to establish a standard for the valuation of the Multifunctionality of agriculture.

Figure 2.2 shows a general theory for eliminating market failure through positive externalities. Where, Dp is the consumer demand curve excluding the Multifunctionality of agriculture, and DH is the demand curve including Multifunctionality of agriculture. If the externalities were taken into account, the demand and supply curve proposed earlier, makes supply Qp , not the optimal social supply Q* , which leads to a decrease in producers’ output and market failure. When the government pays a subsidy or direct payment with the per unit amount of the social welfare cost S to the producer, the marginal cost curve MC for the producer will move to MC' , and then the producer’s optimal output becomes the socially optimal Q* and the market failure can be eliminated.

Figure 2.2 General method of Market failure elimination

Figure 2.3 A new theory for Market failure elimination utilizing Multifunctionality of agriculture

Meanwhile, in this study, a new way of eliminating market failure is shown in Figure 2.3. In this figure, D* is the demand curve that farmers themselves can eliminate market failures through business activities such as the Multifunctional agriculture program when the overall market failure of agriculture by Multifunctionality of agriculture is DH . The market failure occurred because the existing method to eliminate market failure assumed that there was no compensation for the Multifunctionality of agriculture or positive externalities. Then, it is the theory that farmers can directly solve as much (or more/less) as MFA* corresponding to D* among the market failure S + MFA* from net production DP to net production with externality DH with an income activity that utilizes Multifunctionality of agriculture. This is a new theory, and it suggests that the consideration for compensation for S or MFA* can be solved with programmes such as Multifunctional agricultur. This is similar to the idea of paying an admission ticket and enjoying the scenery.

Multifunctional agricultur’s methods of converting multifunctionality into producer’s economic income include farm relaxation, autism treatment and care and rehabilitation for social misfits. These economic and social effects should exist as positive externalities derived from agriculture, and it is difficult to expect economic success in the region where the negative externalities occur. For instance, a devastated rural environment will not provide an excellent service for patients or elderly people who want recuperation. Furthermore, even some economic damages will occur when livestock faeces build up or pesticide spraying diminishes the will to consume agricultural produce.

Thus, the farmers are paid the economic income MFA* from Multifunctional agricultur activities in addition to the government subsidy S for social optimum Q* can be realized, Multifunctional agricultur will be one of solving methods and internalization methods to reduce or remove the market failure in agriculture by farmers themselves. This also eliminates the social distortion effect, moral laxity and the violation of free trade regulations.

From this view of point, Rural and agricultural activities must unfold in the direction of maximizing agriculture’s positive externalities, and the basic premise must be activities that improve rural village environments, including resource circulation, eco-friendliness and agricultural diversification.

출처 : Jung, Hyunhee

Abstrat: Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture

Dr. JHH — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:41:18 +0900

A Valuation Study on Multifunctionality of Agriculture and Multifunctional Agriculture in South Korea:

Beyond 6th Industrialization

Abstract

Due to the global warming, environmental pollution and global competition in agricultural sector, the multifunctionality of agriculture (MOA) is attracting worldwide attention, and environment-preserving agriculture and sustainable agricultural development are becoming major policy issues around the world.

Korea concluded FTA with several countries after the financial crisis in 1998. As a result, the domestic industrial economy has been revitalized, but international competition for agricultural products is intensifying, the gap between agriculture and industry is widening, and the increase in the extinction of villages is causing a decrease in the agricultural food self-sufficiency rate. The Korean government has been promoting local food consumption promotion, the 6th industrialization, and a quality certification system since 2000 to solve these problems in agriculture. Since the Park’s administration (2013~2017), 6th industrialization has been enacted and promoted until now, but 6th industrialization is biased toward economic and income aspects of agricultural production, processing, and distribution and there is a limit to the efforts to grow the Multifunctionality of agriculture of nature and environment, history and culture, landscape and community recovery in agriculture.

This study is an economic valuation research on multifunctionality of agriculture (MOA) in rural villages and multifunctional agriculture (MFA), for proposing practical ways of comprehensive rural development utilizing Multifunctionality of agriculture in rural villages that can balance economic income with other Multifunctionality of agriculture. The application of economic value evaluation is to suggest the importance of each attribute and a method for agricultural economic activities beyond agricultural production such as MFA and try to clarify the usefulness and direction of implementation of MFA

Specifically, Chapter 1 describes the background and research tasks of this study. In Chapter 2, theoretical considerations were presented on the expected effects in connection with the function and effects of the theory MFA on the nature of public goods or environmental goods. Chapter 3 compares and analyses the EU's multifunctional agriculture and Korea's 6th industrialization policy through policy content and case introduction. It was clear that the 6th industrialization policy in Korea oriented toward economic income-led. Meanwhile, agricultural producers had a weak awareness of Multifunctionality of agriculture, thus the tendency to protect the environment and carry on the tradition was weak. Chapter 4 summarizes the methodological theory of valuation methods for environmental goods such as Multifunctionality of agriculture. As a result of comparing several evaluation methods, such as contingent valuation method (CVM) and choice experiment (CE), the CE method was judged to be an appropriate method for the economic value evaluation of this study.

Following the preliminary study above, Chapters 5 and 6 are the part of the empirical study of economic valuation. In Chapter 5, the CE technique was applied to evaluate the Multifunctionality of agriculture. For analysis, Multifunctionality of agriculture functions of agriculture were classified, and representative functions were extracted. In order to apply the stratified sampling technique, a survey was conducted in which a hypothetical representative Multifunctionality of agriculture was presented and answered for general citizens at Seoul Station and Seoul Bus Terminal, where people from all over the country gather. As an analysis method for the survey result, conditional logit and latent class logit (LCL) models were applied and estimated. As a result, the value was estimated in the order of nature and environment, history and culture, public activity, and landscape. As a result of the analysis of LCL and conditional logit, it was found that there was heterogeneity in the model.

In Chapter 6, it was found that there is a value for Multifunctionality of agriculture, and the value of MFA that can be utilized was estimated. This can show under what conditions meaningful economic activity is possible when promoting MFA. The conditions for promoting MFA were extracted from a total of 11 attributes and 60 types according to van der Ploeg's theory. A survey was conducted same as chapter 5 at Seoul Station and Seoul Bus Terminal by asking which combination is more attractive to the general citizen when visiting rural areas. Conditional logit analysis and probit model were applied as analysis methods for the survey results. As a result, there was no absolute difference in the coefficient values, and the significance and value of each attribute were also the same. The reason for performing these two analyses is to solve the heterogeneity problem that occurs in the conditional logit analysis and to verify the model’s appropriateness. According to the analysis results, implications were interpreted that rural visitors were highly interested in the nature and environmentally friendly areas and the attributes of rural landscapes that can be directly experienced when visiting MFA rural areas. About the facilities, it was found out that they would prefer wood to other materials and to stay at a hotel in the vicinity than to do something to be able to experience the countryside, and to stay on a farm stay or camping.

Based on the above analysis, Chapter 7 made the following conclusions and policy recommendations. South Korea's sixth industrialization policy has a strong economic orientation of increasing income and has the characteristic of neglecting Multifunctionality of agriculture such as environmental protection. In order to simultaneously increase the income of agricultural farmers and utilize the Multifunctionality of agriculture, it is necessary to promote the EU’s MFA or environmentally friendly 6th industrialization to South Korea. There are these kinds of demand among the public. It is strongly desired that the Korean government expand the vector and contents of the measures toward the Multifunctionality of agriculture such as environmental protection, utilizing the best use of the existing sixth industrialization promoting system.

다기능 농업과 다원적 기능 연구 약어(Abbreviations of multifunctional agriculture and multifunctionality of agriculture )

Dr. JHH — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:59:23 +0900

다기능 농업과 다원적 기능에 대한 연구를 시작하기 앞서서 연구에 사용된 약어(abbreviations)를 정리한다.

본 연구는 다원적기능(multifunctionality of Agriculture)와 다기능 농업(multifunctional agriculture)를 명확히 구분하고 있다. 유럽지역의 연구자 중에서는 다원적 기능과 다기능 농업을 혼용하여 사용하고 있는 경우가 많은데, 다원적 기능과 다기능 농업은 명확히 다르다. 다기능 농업에 대한 연구를 하기 위해서는 다원적 기능과 구분하는 것이 선행되어야 연구가 산으로 가지 않는다. 이 둘의 개념 차이는 다음번에 논하기로 한다.

Abbreviations

ADHD		Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
BDN		Broadening
CAP		Common Agriculture Policy (EU)
CE		Choice Experiment
CNI		Chungnam Institute
CRM		Contingent Ranking Method
CS		Compensation Surplus
CV		Compensation Variation
CVM		Contingent Valuation Method
DPN		Deepening
EU		European Union
EV		Equivalent Variation
FADN		European Farm Accountancy Data Network
FAO		Food and Agriculture Organization
IAASTD		International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
KEI		Korea Environmental Institute
KREI		Korea Rural Economic Institute
LEADER		Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l’Économie Rurale
MFA		Multifunctional Agriculture
MOA		Multifunctionality of Agriculture
MWTP		Marginal Willingness to Pay
NVA		National Values Assessment
OECD		Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
R&D		Research and Development
RGN		Regrounding
SNU		Seoul National University
UR		Uruguay Round
WTO		World Trade Organization
WTP		Willingness to Pay
WUR		Wageningen University

공간농업경제연구

무안군 노지 스마트팜 (스프링쿨러, 워터펌프) 자동화 시범 적용 연구 사업