C ONCLUSION Although the potential contribution of amenities

as unexploited sources of value for rural development has been recognized for some time (e.g., OECD 1993), the current debates over the proper level and role of subsidies to agricultural activities have lent much greater political importance to it. Accordingly with a given point of view, agriculture’s ability to produce a collection of market and nonmarket goods as its multifunctions provides a justi- fication for continued subsidies as market forces alone would result in a suboptimal supply of the socially valued nonmarket outputs. This point of view is countered by the argument that these socially valued outputs could be provided more effi- ciently with policies targeted specifically for their provision that do not introduce trade distortions or unintentionally promote the negative externalities of agriculture. Our central concern has not been with the relative merits of these arguments. Rather with the fact that the contention has blinded both sides to the true value of the amenity issue: a means of opening dialogue with rural communities over how they can realize their full value to both con- sumers in the market and citizens in the society. If amenity “by-products” can be organized to eclipse the value of the primary activities then arguments for continued agricultural support are less persua- sive. Similarly, investigating taxpayer willingness-

to-pay to secure non-use values of rural environ- ments opens the possibility of public support in an area where family farms are commonly recognized as the most effective and deserving recipients in the promotion of “stewardship.”

The recognition of the contribution of amenities to rural development has recently become much broader owing partly to increased societal demand for open-space; for an authenticity of place defined by the coherent evolution of economic, cultural, and natural systems; or for quality products differ- entiated by place of origin. Thus, if demand is increasing, can markets by themselves effectively provide amenities through time? Or is there a need for policy intervention?

We have suggested two main points. First of all, amenities are fragile resources that resemble many of the factors required for tourism development: i.e., in most of the cases, they require a lively local economy if they are to be preserved and valorized. If the local economy fails, then either opportunities related to amenities will disappear or extraordinary investment in restoration, well beyond ordinary maintenance, may be required in the future in order to assure their preservation and valorization. Thus, while amenities may be seen as a potential resource for development, they may need appropriate rural development policies to be directly and indirectly valorized. These rural development policies should adopt an area-based approach extended far beyond agriculture, away from sectoral subsidies and based on strategic investments that are enabling of new and specific comparative advantages in rural areas. There is an urgent need to demonstrate to rural actors that the amenities that are often produced jointly with other rural activities have inherent value and that demand for these amenities is increasing.

Equally important for the effective supply of amenities is the heightened capability of local governance. The valorization of amenities requires cre- ative, local solutions, explorations of new ventures

Leveraging Amenities for Rural Development: Direction, Dialogue and Negotiation 135

136 Mario Pezzini and Timothy R. Wojan

and, most of all, dialogue among different actors to that ask for more than individuals reacting to incen- jointly solve problems of coordination. This in turn,

tives. Amenities contributing to rural development on the basis of a mutual learning process, requires

will require the commitment of individual actors to an ongoing negotiation of shared commitment

appreciate and extract value from what is a coordi- among local owners of land and the built environ-

nated or collective activity. Trust in these circum- ment, farmers, municipal authorities, NGOs, and

stances is the belief that appropriate behavior will national authorities in charge of cultural heritage,

be reciprocated by others in the relevant commu- agricultural policy, and infrastructure. It requires, as

nity of interest. Rural amenity strategies appear to well, periodic monitoring and assessment. Note

have a strong affinity for partnership-based forms of that the value of rural dialogue goes beyond raising

governance because they often embody the very awareness of a wider range of rural constituents.

local identity that has been vital to the creation of Dialogue is critical to finding solutions to problems

capabilities underlying the development of trust.

C ONCLUSION Although the potential contribution of amenities