Paradoxical territorial management: the case of peri-urban agricultural areas1
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852316662530 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2018, Vol. 84(3) 539–557
Paradoxical territorial
! The Author(s) 2016
Article reuse guidelines:
management: the case of
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020852316662530
peri-urban agricultural areas1
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Solange Hernandez
Aix-Marseille Universite´, France
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to understand the paradoxical practices of territorial
management and to look into ways of supporting the local actors of peri-urban agri-
culture. To do so, we conducted a case study into the policy implemented for the past
25 years by the urban community of the Pays d’Aubagne et de l’Etoile (Bouches-du-
Rhoˆne). Drawing on quantitative analyses of qualitative data, we demonstrate the rele-
vance of these management practices in action. We go on to propose managerial tools
that can be applied in the framework of public action in peri-urban agriculture.
Points for practitioners
The practical uses of the article are: first, to identify and understand the paradoxes, a
recurring source of tension and deadlock in territorial public administration; and,
second, to contribute concrete avenues of reflection and solutions to the territorial
managers faced with these situations, especially in the management of peri-urban
agricultural areas.
Keywords
case study, paradoxical management, peri-urban agriculture, territorial management,
textual statistics
Introduction
For 40 years, rural areas have historically undergone far-reaching transformations
related to changes in agricultural production systems and the phenomena of urban-
isation. This has created an original, hybrid area that seems to exist on the margin, in
between, with characters that are simultaneously urban and rural, often called a grey
area searching for an identity, hovering between disqualification and requalification
Corresponding author:
Solange Hernandez, Aix-Marseille Universite´ (AMU) 21, rue Gaston de Saporta, 13 625 Aix en Provence
Cedex 1, France.
Email: solange.hernandez@univ-amu.fr
540
International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(3)
(Poulot, 2008). This area is often referred to as a vacuum, a land reserve or green
belt, prompted by a metropolitan vision that is far removed from reality, as the
administration of these areas escapes it. These terms reflect the ambivalence of the
thinking that goes into their planning, limiting the emergence of relevant public.
Yet, this area is increasingly seen as a new model of urbanity, an intermediate area or
a third space that is gradually claiming its autonomy from both the city and the
countryside (Poulot, 2008).
Peri-urban agriculture is part of this dynamic. The recognition of the multifunction-
ality of agriculture2 reflects the emergence of new spaces for agricultural activities in
society. Public actors are rallying round as a large number of issues are at stake.
First, food-related issues concern the quantity and quality of food supplies for
the population. In quantitative terms, conventional agriculture is obviously
dominant; however, in qualitative terms, consumers believe that localised agrifood
systems (LAFS)3 offer more trusted brands and guarantees of quality in the wake
of various food scandals (Blanc, 2013; Dubuisson-Quellier, 2008). Yet,
proportionately, most of these are located in peri-urban areas (Samak, 2012).
Second, peri-urban areas are also a hotbed of environmental issues. They are
seen by some as natural areas to be protected. They thus serve as nature reserves
that are useful for current and future generations (Jeanneaux, 2006). Here, envir-
onmental concerns can tie up with the food-related concerns. Indeed, we have
noted that farms located in peri-urban areas are more likely to enrol in LAFS,
although peri-urban agriculture is neither conventional nor alternative by defin-
ition. For example, many initiatives take the form of an Association pour le
Maintien de l’Agriculture Paysanne [Association for the Preservation of Small-
Scale Farming] (AMAP),4 considered as a technical, social and economic innov-
ation (Leroux, 2011). Today, these are thought to number over 1600.5 Whatever
their name, these LAFS are hailed as the answer to some of the perverse effects of
conventional agriculture (long-distance trade, standardisation of products, pollu-
tion of water, air and soil, biodiversity loss) (Deverre and Lamine, 2010: 61).
Third, these areas harbour cross-cutting economic issues relating to the market
(outlets), employment and human capital. Indeed, the evolution of food standards
towards increased consumption of fruit and vegetables, as well as the growth in
consumption of organic products in France since the 1990s, or again the emergence
of movements such as local sourcing of food, are primarily driven by urban popu-
lations and graduates (Blanc, 2013; Samak, 2012). Given that farmers are becom-
ing a rare commodity in densely populated areas, the supply of agricultural
production almost mechanically meets strong demand. In addition, agricultural
activity in these areas can also be considered as a source of varied jobs, while
proximity to an urban centre affords a potential reserve of capital and specific or
innovative skills for peri-urban agriculture (Jarrige et al., 2006).
However, the discussions surrounding these peri-urban agricultural areas do not
always provide local managers with management tools. Our aim is therefore to help
territorial managers to build and drive their actions in this field. We have already
considered the practices of territorial management in terms of the management of
Hernandez
541
paradoxes (Hernandez, 2008, 2011). The latter sets out to reconcile constraints that
are usually considered to be in conflict. This then allows the organisation to enter
into a virtuous cycle where ‘opposing values . . . remain in a state of creative tension
and mutual braking’ (Hampten-Turner, 1992: 36). This is deemed to create a self-
correction, an automatic balancing between contradictory elements.
We believe that paradoxical territorial management can be mobilised in projects
relating to peri-urban agriculture. How can the paradoxical practices of territorial
management support local actors? In other words, what recommendations can be
addressed to managers and stakeholders in peri-urban agriculture?
We illustrate our thinking with the case of an urban community whose histor-
ically agricultural territory has experienced far-reaching urbanisation over the past
three decades. In conjunction with private actors, this public organisation has
developed a proactive agricultural policy over the past 20 years.
The literature review takes stock of the paradoxical approach to territorial man-
agement and explores its relevance in the context of peri-urban agriculture. In the
methodology section, we first present the case study conducted, and then present
the primary and secondary data collated to compile our corpus, analysed through a
combination of textual and statistical analyses. The results confirm the relevance of
this approach and lead us in the discussion to propose paradoxical territorial man-
agement tools at the service of the actors of peri-urban agriculture.
Analysis of the literature: paradoxical territorial management
applied to the management of peri-urban agricultural areas
First, the literature analysis focuses on territorial management, considered from the
point of view of paradoxical management. We then go on to determine the rele-
vance of this approach for the management of peri-urban agriculture.
Strategic territorial management and the paradoxes
Some local public organisations develop strategic tools specific to peri-urban areas.
At this scale, the problems to be managed do not come under a single actor or a
predefined management situation. It calls for a pooling of the commitment and of
the competences. To bring about their projects, these public organisations have
access to management tools and implement territorial management practices. These
practices refer to all the managerial processes that make it possible to implement
and adapt their strategy (Hernandez, 2008, 2010).
We have already emphasised the inherent complexity of the territorial manage-
ment of complex local, public organisations that have many different windows on
their environment and that evolve in paradoxical situations (Hernandez, 2008,
2011). However, a paradoxical situation needs to be analysed with an approach
that takes into account its contradictory elements.
Indeed, the paradox involves the simultaneous presence of contradictory and
mutually exclusive elements operating at the same time and corresponds to the
542
International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(3)
observation that ‘something’ is both the actor and the field of action (Perret and
Josserand, 2003; Quinn and Cameron, 1988). In this sense, it characterises the
action of territorial public organisations.
Paradoxes arise from contradictions and create situations where choice is pro-
hibited. They also have a relativistic character, have an interactional dimension and
follow a dialectical principle (Quinn and Cameron, 1988). All of these character-
istics apply to situations where territorial management practices are mobilised and
their paradoxical dimension is perceived by the territorial managers (Hernandez,
2008, 2011). The next section examines how this approach applies to peri-urban
areas integrating an agricultural dimension.
Five paradoxical...
To continue reading
Request your trial