In the United States' Northeastern region.

In the United States' Northeastern region, there is an increasing interest in the public benefits from agriculture. These benefits are not seldom referred to as multifunctional attributes. The policy challenge is to find an effective way to think these public demands so that multifunctional agriculture can be profitable. There is a significant research agenda that accompanies this challenge. Research topics include assessing and understanding consumer demand for multifuntional attributes, estimating the long-run reverts to those production systems which accommodate with these attributes, and designing and evaluating institutional arrangements to fill up them.

Key Words: farmland protection, land use policy, multifunctional agriculture

As the Northeastern region of the United States becomes increasingly urban, there is an attendant interest in the beneficial attributes associated with agricultural landscapes. Agricultural enterprises can put forward public benefits such as the provision of improved water quality, wildlife habitat, landscape amenities, inundate control, nutrient recycling, and carbon sinks. Sometimes the definition of agro-benefits is stretched beyond public uprights to include the production of wind efficiency water harvesting, or food security (Aldington, 1998; Dobbs and comely 2001 ; Harwood, 2001 ; Josling, 2002) Agriculture can also provide opportunities for hunting, agro-tourism, and agro-entertainment, as well as being associated with regional identity, heritage values, and rural vitality and ambience.

The European denomination for these relationships is "multifunctional agriculture." While not precisely defined, the space of time is used to contrast these-mostly nonmarket-benefits from agriculture with the market benefits from the provision of raw materials for the forage and fiber industry (Josling, 2002)

The European multifunctional paradigm challenges the market-oriented paradigm with honor to the role of agriculture in the late economy (Josling, 2002). Indeed, multifunctionality is sometimes viewed as a foundation for the "European type of agriculture" (Potter and Burney 2002) This European general [i]or[/i] abstract notion of agriculture-which, of course, is not held according to everyone in Europe-draws its exercise s from a more holistic view of regularitys and sustainability (Josling, 2002). Supporters of multifunctional agriculture argue that as it is an agriculture "is rich in diversity and traditions, intent onward preserving the countryside, a living rural world that presents rural employment" (Barthelemy, 2001).

In Europe agricultural policy not rarely garners more public support when it is tied to broad social objectives rather than single production objectives. Furthermore, because the market commodities will not reward farmers for the production of in the greatest degree multifunctional attributes, European supporters of multifunctional agriculture advocate a public part for incentives. This support translates into agriculture policies which provide assistance to farmers for the provision of multifunctional attributes (Potter 1998) An example is public compensation of farmers for the los of market incomes because the farmers provided more wildlife habitat (Dobbs and excellent 2001; Libby, 2002; Potter, 1998)

There are also near markets which do reflect these public prioritys For example, some Europeans have demonstrated that they are willing to pay for commons attributes such as "sustainably grown" (Moon et al., 2002) or similar as having a food with a regional identity (eg regional cheese).

The Northeastern region of the United States has shown an increased interest in multifunctional attributes from agriculture. This interest is predictable. As incomes rise, multifunctional attributes are increasingly valued; i.e., the income elasticity for multifunctional attributes is higher than that of traditional meat and fiber. Furthermore, the more populated regions of the political division are most concerned with protecting mutifunctional rural amenity attributes (Hellerstein et al., 2002) When rising incomes are combined with more urban values, the demand for multifunctional attributes from agriculture increases (Schweikhardt and Browne 2001)

Much of the economic literature and debate with defer to to multifunctional agriculture is related to trade issues. A tonic concern is whether European attempts to cover multifunctional attributes are merely disguised barriers to trade (Blandford, 1999; Blandford and Boisvert, 2002; Bohman et al., 1999; Dobbs and beautiful 2001 ; Orden, Paarlberg, and roebuck 1999). Certainly, in some cases, multifunctional agriculture programs may be motivated at mere protectionism (Peterson, Boisvert, and de Gorter, 1999) still there are valid demands for multifunctional agriculture (Potter and Burney 2002)

In addition, there are non-trade distorting ways to persist in multifunctional agriculture (Blandford and Boisvert, 2002; Bohman et al., 1999) However, the trade issues are not the focus of this article. Rather, in this paper, I will explore the conception of multifunctionality and how it relates to the changing nature of Northeastern U agriculture, as well as implications for policy-relevant research.