Next Article in Journal
Green Trade and Cultural Innovation: Examining the Impact on GTFP and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in OECD Countries
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Green Food Consumption Intentions Among Chinese Generation X: Integrating Environmental Values and Self-Identity into the Theory of Planned Behavior
Previous Article in Journal
Advanced Sensor Technologies in CAVs for Traditional and Smart Road Condition Monitoring: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Quantitative Analysis of Agricultural Carbon Emissions and Absorption from Agricultural Land Resources in Shaanxi Province from 2010 to 2022
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 19
10.3390/su16198338
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Planning for Sustainable Agri-Food Production: Factual or Fictional? An Example from Iceland

by
Salvör Jónsdóttir
* and
Karl Benediktsson
Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland, Askja, Sturlugata 7, 102 Reykjavík, Iceland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(19), 8338; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198338
Submission received: 23 August 2024 / Revised: 22 September 2024 / Accepted: 23 September 2024 / Published: 25 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Research on Agriculture and Food Systems Landscape towards Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The concept of sustainability has been widely recognized as a pivotal objective for future growth. Therefore, it is imperative to incorporate the principles of sustainability into policies and plans, particularly in land use and agri-food production, sectors often associated with negative environmental impacts. Addressing all three pillars of sustainability—environmental, economic, and social—is essential, within the contexts of agri-food production and land use. Consequently, sustainable rural development is also critical. This study utilizes Iceland as a case to examine whether and how sustainability goals are translated from national policies to municipal plans, which represent the governance level closest to implementation. The research employs content analysis of national policies and municipal plans, utilizing grounded theory to code the content. The findings indicate that while the concept of sustainability is embedded in Icelandic policies and goals, there is a tendency to overlook the economic and social dimensions. Additionally, the study reveals a limited application of sustainability principles in rural development and agri-food production. Recognizing the “wicked” nature of sustainability, which complicates its implementation, is crucial for advancing from goal setting to effective action.

1. Introduction

The process of sustainable development and the ideal state of sustainability are primary objectives in managing human activities globally, yet they are recognized as “wicked problems” that present significant challenges to both assessment and achievement [1,2,3,4]. Sustainable development has been promoted in planning for decades [5], yet studies have shown little progress towards stronger sustainability as the coordination of sustainability principles may still be inadequate [6]. Balancing the environmental, economic, and social pillars that are central to sustainability still seems hard to reach.
Agriculture remains the predominant source of food worldwide, but its current agro-industrial methods present hurdles across all three pillars of sustainability. Agriculture and food production are considered among the main sources of climate change [7,8]. In parallel, rural communities have experienced the adverse effects of contemporary agri-food and market systems that prioritize economies of scale. With escalated demand for increased food production, economies of scale, both internal and external, have become dominant in agri-food production. The consolidation into fewer and larger farms, however, poses significant challenges to the social sustainability of rural communities. This trend does not necessarily lower the cost of food as large-scale agricultural enterprises may prioritize maximizing shareholder profits over reducing food cost for consumers [9]. This unsustainable trend necessitates a reevaluation of the existing agri-food system to ensure the adherence to all three pillars of sustainability [10]. These challenges are integral to broader efforts towards food system reform, necessitating consideration of all facets of sustainable development [11,12].
Several criteria have been defined for sustainable agriculture [3], yet due to the variety in agriculture and “wickedness” of sustainable development, it may be impossible to develop a universal definition [13]. In recent decades, research and policies in rural development have transitioned from a focus on modernization to the adoption of sustainable farming systems [14]. Under the latter paradigm, rural development has been described as “an active structural and behavioural change in the rural economy that raises its competitive capabilities and resilience in the face of cost price squeezes, sustainability and vulnerability” ([10] p. 124). Furthermore, it has been emphasized that rural development is intricately linked to environmental governance in the context of climate change [15]. The viability of rural areas is closely associated with agriculture and food production, thereby encompassing all three pillars of sustainability.
Planning legislation provides governing bodies with significant authority over land use and agricultural practices along with relevant policies as their coordination is an integral part of land use or spatial planning. From there, a roadmap for future development should emerge. This requires professional capabilities of coordination along with political will to allocate the necessary resources [16]. However, while land use policy integration and food system planning have gained traction, particularly since the early 21st century, sustainable rural development remains inadequately incorporated into agri-food production strategies [3,17].
Policies, plans, and strategies need not only address the issues at stake, but their content and structure must also be clear. Policy elements, goals, strategies, and provisions must be evident if implementation is to be expected. This may be challenging when “wicked problems” like sustainability have been declared an official global goal, yet the greater need is to translate them clearly into policies and plans.
To scrutinize the translation of sustainable land use, agriculture, and rural development objectives into national and local policymaking and planning, Iceland serves as a case study in this article. Planning legislation is robustly established in the country, with sustainable development serving as its guiding principle. Several approaches exist for evaluating policies and plans [18,19,20,21]. In this study, their quality is investigated by analyzing their internal characteristics and vertical coordination. The study seeks to address the following questions:
  • To what extent do national plans and policies, and municipal plans, in Iceland support sustainable rural development and sustainable agri-food production?
  • To what extent is there coherence between national and municipal strategies concerning sustainable rural development and agri-food production?

2. Rural Land Use, Policy, and Planning in Iceland

Iceland’s location and geographical features shape its land use and agri-food production. Only around 25% of the country is located below 200 m above sea level and large portions are mountainous. The climate is defined by its northerly location as well as the Gulf Stream. Weather conditions can thus be unstable, windy, and rainy. The summers are short and cool, but winters are milder than the latitude would indicate. The soil is typical of active volcanic areas and prone to erosion [22].
Agriculture in Iceland has been dominated by animal husbandry and rangelands cover 61% of the entire country [23], but grazing of sheep has been criticized for inadequate management [24]. Cultivation of land has mainly been for haymaking to feed the animals, although hardy vegetables are also grown outdoors. It is estimated that arable land is about 6% of the total land area, but only 1.6% is currently cultivated [25]. Agri-food production meets the national needs in milk and egg consumption, and around 90% of meat consumption is locally produced. However, only 43% of consumed vegetables are produced domestically and only 1% of grains [26].
Regarding implementation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, Iceland released its Voluntary National Reviews to the United Nations in 2019 and 2023. Amongst the current focus areas are infrastructure and regional development issues, as well as food, land, and water [27,28], or issues strongly related to agri-food production and rural development. The population in rural areas has been steadily declining since the start of urbanization during the last quarter of the 19th century, and in 2022 less than 5% of the population lived in rural areas [29,30].
Sustainable development has in fact been one of the leading goals of the Icelandic planning legislation since 1997 [31] and, accordingly, of plans and national policies for decades. The definition of sustainable development in the planning legislation describes it as: “Development that meets the needs of the present without reducing the possibilities of generations to meet their needs. This means that the pursuit of economic affluence must go hand in hand with the protection of the environment and the basic quality of the earth.” [32] The definition has its roots in the Brundtland commission’s definition from 1987 [33], but focuses even more on the environmental pillar. It does mention the economic pillar, stating that the pursuit of economic prosperity must go hand in hand with environmental protection, but leaves out the social pillar of sustainability [32].
The Icelandic planning system is joint responsibility of the national government and municipalities (Figure 1). A “National Planning Policy” (NPP) is determined by the Minister for Infrastructure, including planning for the central highlands, while mandatory municipal plans and division plans fall under the authority of local governments. Regional plans are optional, except for the capital area. Municipal plans are required to align with the NPP; however, if a local government finds this unacceptable, a “reasoned exclusion” can be filed with the National Planning Agency (NPA). The planning legislation and planning ordinance dictate the content of municipal plans, ensuring adherence to the goals of the planning legislation. Additionally, national policies exist in several sectors that relate to municipal plans and the NPA sets guidelines on which ones to apply in municipal planning [34]. Moreover, the municipal plan should include the local government’s objectives for future development, as well as policies on land use, community development, and environmental issues [32,35]. The planning system is traditionally focused on land use; yet, according to the planning legislation’s aim, plans should also address economic and social issues. Fiscal planning has, however, never been part of the planning process. Therefore, implementation may have to be secured through municipal budgets or other means. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a mandatory part of the planning process [32], and in the legislation on SEA from 2006, society was defined as part of the environment [36]. However, in new legislation that came into force in 2021, the environment is not defined [37]. Neither social nor fiscal impact assessment are part of the Icelandic planning system.
While municipal land use planning is mandatory, only the most populous municipalities run their own planning departments. Rural municipalities hire consultants to prepare the plans. Municipal planning is overseen by the NPA, which provides guidelines for local governments and their consultants [32]. As part of that, NPA issues lists of national policies it recommends municipalities to consider in their planning. The list is not updated every year, but the one used in this study dates from 2014 and includes policies on climate, sustainability, tourism, culture, marine issues, and more [34]. The 20 national policies included in the study are those addressing sustainability, rural development, and land use (Table A1). The planning process requires public participation, and the NPA and other national institutes are consulted as well. After the local government approves the plan, it is sent to the NPA for final evaluation and approval and subsequently receives a binding status.
No official agricultural policy existed in Iceland until 2023 [38], and its impacts remain undetermined. However, according to the Act on Agriculture [39], agricultural subsidy contracts are made between the Government of Iceland and the Icelandic Farmers Association. These contracts are approved by Parliament, funded through the state budget, and greatly influence agriculture and food production. The contracts are binding and grounded in the Act on Agricultural Products [40] where production is guaranteed in lieu of payments to farmers. Besides the contracts, high tariffs on imported food protect domestic production of swine and poultry. According to the OECD, levels of agricultural support in Iceland continue to be among the highest of all OECD member countries [41].
Although the subsidy contracts only address a few agricultural categories, agriculture is defined broadly in Icelandic legislation. Within the Farmers Association are 11 subdivisions, including forestry farmers and fur farmers [42]. The contracts consist of a general framework, and then subcontracts that address sheep, dairy, and horticultural farming. The contract on sheep farming is partly linked to sustainable land use, overseen by the Soil Conservation Service [40]. However, the application of those payments has been heavily criticized for not adequately guaranteeing environmental sustainability [43].

3. Materials and Methods

This study reviewed the content of Icelandic national policies and rural municipal plans regarding sustainable agri-food production and rural development. All municipal plans, and the national policy documents, are prepared in Icelandic. However, some of the latter have been translated to English. The study spans the period from 2012 through 2022. National policies (20 documents) relevant to land use planning, as well as agricultural subsidy contracts (seven documents) for the period, were coded and analyzed (Table A1), as were all municipal plans for rural municipalities that were approved during the study period (31 plans, Figure 2, and Table A2). The study analyzed how sustainable rural development and agri-food production had been addressed in the documents, as well as the conformity between national polices and municipal plans.
The agricultural subsidy contracts reviewed date from 2010 to 2021 [44,45,46,47]. An amendment made to the contracts in 2021 set an ambitious goal of carbon neutrality before 2040, as well as increased support for horticultural and organic farming [47]. The contracts are not part of the policy documents recommended by the NPA. However, because of their significance for rural development, land use, and agri-food production, they were included in the study and coded accordingly.
The first food policy for Iceland was presented by the National Government in 2020 [48]. However, it was never approved in Parliament and was thus not included in this study.
The 31 municipal plans analyzed are from around the country and vary in size both regarding area and number of inhabitants. Their areal size varies from 148 km2 to 6280 km2 and the population size from 53 to 10,834 inhabitants (at the time of plan approval). The more populated municipalities include urban areas or villages; yet, in all municipalities, agricultural land is a substantial part of the lowland’s planned land use, and agriculture is listed as one of the occupations.
All the documents were read and systematically coded according to grounded theory, using Atlas.ti.24 software [49,50,51,52]. The coding focused on the policy sections of the planning documents: vision and goals, policies, strategies, and provisions. In addition to general discussion of agriculture and rural land use, mentions of sustainability, rural development, and agri-food production were especially noted. Quotations here refer to a part of the text, or a whole paragraph, that can be labeled with several codes. When the codes are grouped, code categories emerge (Table 1). Five code categories pertinent to the research question, agriculture, food production, land use (or land use planning in the case of the municipal plans), rural development, and sustainability, hereafter called core code categories, were compared and analyzed. Moreover, national policies and municipal plans were coded for vision and goals, policies, strategies, and provisions.

4. Results

4.1. National Policy Documents

The policy documents (Table A1) were diverse. Many exhibited a sectoral focus, resulting in an unsurprising lack of comprehensive coverage across all five core code categories, whereas others had a wide focus that could be expected to address all the core categories.
All but two of the policy documents, dating from 2003 and 2010, addressed one or more of the five core categories. Sustainability is the most prevalent category, addressed in fifteen policies, while food production is significantly the least addressed of the core categories and mentioned in only four documents. Only two policies, or the “Iceland 2020–Advance for the Labor Market and Society” [53] and “Strategic Regional Plan 2018–2024” [54], address all five core categories.
The aim of the analysis of core code categories was to determine how many of them were addressed in close proximity or derived from one quotation. This analysis indicates how strongly the core categories are linked in the text. When the core categories were compared, the result showed very few instances of proximity. The most frequent were those of sustainability and land use, and agriculture and land use (Figure 3). On the other hand, food production was never mentioned in proximity with either land use or rural development (Figure 3).
The categories agriculture, food production, and sustainability, intertwined within a singular context, which was in the document “Iceland 2020—Advance for the Labor Market and Society” [53], in a section concerning social objectives. It articulated the imperative for sustainable food production, predicated upon local resources such as fertilizers, fodder, and energy. Only two intersections were found of sustainability, agriculture, and land use. This convergence is in the NPP, where one of the primary objectives was stated as “Sustainable use of agricultural land.” It further elucidated that land use planning for agricultural purposes should support diverse and economically viable practices in harmony with ecological conditions. Furthermore, the NPP was the only national policy that addressed protection of good-quality agricultural land, although without specifically mentioning food production [55].
Although the code category climate does not relate directly to the research question, it is of course important in the context of sustainability. Only nine national policy documents explicitly addressed climate change. Analysis of these policies revealed that only the “Climate Policy” (2007) and the “Climate Strategy” (2021) contained instances where climate and agriculture intersected, with a total of nine such instances where it was stated that pollution from agriculture was high and should be reduced. Climate and land use overlapped in seven quotations that all belonged to the climate policy documents from 2007, 2010, and 2021 [56,57,58], addressing carbon sequestration that could be achieved by revegetation, forestry, or wetland restoration.
The elements, vision, goals, strategy, and actions formulated within the national policy documents were also coded. As may be expected in national policies, goals and strategies were the most applied elements. Sustainability stood out among the core code categories as being the most frequently quoted goal, although it became less noticeable as the elements got closer to action or in documents relating to the implementation phase of policies, where sustainability is not at all mentioned.

4.2. Agricultural Subsidies Contracts

During the study period, three framework contracts delineating the general operational framework for agriculture were made, in 2010, 2012, and 2016 [44,45,46]. Additionally, three sectoral contracts were adopted for cattle, sheep, and horticultural farming [59,60,61], in conjunction with the 2016 framework contract. An amendment was made to the 2016 framework contract in 2021 [47]. All seven documents were coded and analyzed (Table A1).
The primary concern in the agricultural subsidies contracts is payment for agricultural production. However, all framework contracts addressed all core categories, although no quotation included all five categories. Sustainability was referred to in conjunction with land use in all three framework contracts and the sectoral contracts from 2016 for sheep farming. The only intersection between sustainability and agriculture was through the economic perspective that agriculture should provide livable wages for farmers. Surprisingly little attention was paid to food production, although all framework contracts stated that consumers’ preferences needed to be observed and met.
Climate was not referred to in the contracts from 2010 and 2012, but appeared in the framework contract from 2016, where it was reasoned that potential mitigation measures against climate change could strengthen rural economic development. In the 2021 amendment to the contract, climate was referred to frequently in connection with agriculture and asserted that agriculture should be carbon-neutral by 2040, although food production is not mentioned in that context. Additionally, the amendment stated that farmers’ knowledge of climate issues, carbon release, and carbon sequestration should be increased.
While the sectoral contracts did not specifically mention food production, the sheep farming contract addressed rural land use, rural development, and sustainability. The 2021 amendment to the framework contracts did not explicitly mention land use, but it did cover food, rural development, and sustainability.

4.3. Municipal Plans

Planning in Iceland has traditionally been focused on land use and physical planning, as reflected in the legislation. The 2010 Planning Act states that land use should be guided by the economic, social, and cultural needs of the citizens, and their health and safety. Moreover, it asserts that sustainable development should be the leading goal of planning [32].
The 31 municipal plans were coded, and codes grouped into categories parallel to the national policy documents and agricultural subsidy contracts. Municipal plans are more comprehensive and detailed than national policies, and thus more codes and code groups were formed. As an example, a few code categories were formed for each agriculture and sustainability. However, comparison can still be made to the national policies by looking at the broad categories pertaining to the research question i.e., agriculture, food production, land use, rural development, and sustainability (Figure A1).
All the municipalities addressed agriculture in their plans and the coding resulted in three agricultural categories: agriculture general, agricultural land protection, and sustainable agriculture. The most common of those by far is agricultural land protection (Figure A2). Towards the end of last century, increased building of recreational homes and non-agricultural related homes, along with government-supported forestry, had fueled concerns about loss of agricultural land [62]. As mentioned earlier, the NPP (approved in 2016) stated that good-quality agricultural land should be protected. The analysis showed that the NPP’s message regarding this was indeed transferred into the municipal plans: all plans approved after its release included agricultural land protection. However, despite the emphasis on agricultural land protection, there is relatively little emphasis on sustainable agriculture or sustainability in relation to agriculture (Figure A2).
As previously noted, employment in the agricultural sector has declined in Iceland during recent decades. While all 31 municipalities have considerable areas of agricultural land, their inhabitants’ reliance on agriculture for income varied greatly, where some municipalities reported minimal to no income derived from agricultural activities. The highest proportion of income from agriculture was 27.7% (Figure A3), but three municipalities reported no income from agriculture in the year their plan was approved. Despite this, two of those listed agriculture as one of their main economic activities in their plans [63,64]. This could be explained by the generally low income from agriculture, especially sheep farming, but it also showed the importance of agriculture in rural societies, regardless of often meagre income. When emphasis on agricultural land protection was compared to percentages of income from agriculture in the municipality (in the year the plan was approved), it showed very little or no apparent relationship between the two (Figure A3). Those municipalities that had the highest income from agriculture did not necessarily emphasize agricultural land protection, whereas others that did not seem to rely on agriculture as income displayed full intentions for protecting agricultural land. The reason was not evident from the documents. However, it could be noted that some of the municipalities with extensive areas of prime agricultural land were in regions where the competition for land for other uses, especially second home development, forestry, or tourism, is high, and agricultural land protection may thus not have had strong political support.
Although agriculture was listed as one of the land use categories and as an occupation in the municipalities studied, six municipalities did not address food production at all. Only four municipalities addressed food production, sustainability, agriculture, and rural development in proximity, or in the same quotation (Figure 4). The limited emphasis placed on food was noteworthy. However, that was also the case with national policies.
A certain association was evident between how often food production was addressed in the municipal plans and their proportional income from agriculture. The municipality addressing food production most frequently was where proportional income from agriculture was highest. Additionally, of the six municipalities not referring to food production, three did not report any income from agriculture, and the other three reported very little.
The categories food production, agriculture, and land use planning overlapped in sventeen quotations, from ten plans. The overlap occurred mainly in relation to agricultural land protection and classification, stating that good agricultural land should be protected for food production. Quotations including both food production and rural development referred to issues such as the encouragement of value-added food production or tourism-related food production. However, when it came to sustainability, there was very little overlap with food production (Figure A2), but overlap occurred most frequently in relation to the protection of natural resources necessary for food production such as water.
Rural land has traditionally been delineated as agricultural land in plans, but gradually recreational areas (vacation homes) and forestry have increased as rural land use. Other land uses, such as tourism services, are not taking up much rural space but may have positive impacts on rural economic development. The land use planning category was of course prominent in municipal plans and can thus be expected to intersect with the other categories. It is therefore surprising that sustainable agriculture and land use planning only intersected twice, although it should be noted that the former is a very small code category.
Rural development in Iceland has been considered intertwined with agriculture, and governmental acts on agriculture are therefore regarded as acts on rural development [65]. The number of rural residents has been declining in tandem with the trend towards fewer and larger working farms. Out of the 31 plans, a total of 158 codes were labeled as rural development. Most of the codes concerned employment, but others allowed for uses that might add extra income to traditional farming, such as agro-tourism or light industry.
All municipal plans addressed sustainability to some extent, as it is the overarching objective for plan making set in the Planning Act. In their goal settings, the municipalities frequently refer to environmental sustainability; a typical main goal stated “Resources and natural systems will be utilized in a sustainable manner, ensuring that the needs of future generations and the integrity of ecosystems are integral considerations in the decision-making process” [66]. Only three municipalities refer to all three pillars of sustainability in their goal setting, but most often sustainable development is referred to as a general term, without explanations or without describing what changes are needed in the community to achieve sustainability. The NPP instructed sustainable use of agricultural land, and this resonated in the municipal plans: all except two included sustainable land use in their text. It is noteworthy that only eleven quotations included sustainable agriculture within the whole cohort and never in the context of food production. Sustainable land use, on the other hand, was more common in quotations and was linked to agricultural land protection through thirteen quotations, but to food production in only eight quotations (Figure A2), and three times in connection to water protection. Sustainable land use and rural development overlapped in thirteen quotations, where it was stated that sustainable use of land is important for strong agriculture, as well as the protection of natural resources. One municipality distinguishes itself by featuring the greatest number of references to sustainability, particularly in the realm of sustainable land use. Situated in a remote and mountainous region, where agricultural activities—primarily sheep farming—have been diminishing, this municipality may garner greater political backing for emphasis on sustainable land use, compared to regions facing more intense agriculture and higher demand for land use diversification, such as residential development.
Climate was addressed in a policy context in fourteen municipalities (Figure A4), and all but one mentioned forestry as a method for carbon sequestration. Eight of those also mentioned land reclamation for carbon sequestration. Only one municipality mentioned climate especially in relation to agriculture, stating that greenhouse gases should be reduced from agricultural land use. Climate issues were never addressed in the context of food production.
When the text was analyzed and core code categories (agriculture, food production, land use planning, rural development, and sustainability) compared further, it turned out that the five groups overlapped in only three quotations deriving from three municipal plans. These three quotations all address the importance of agricultural land for food production and employment, and that land should be used in a sustainable way (Figure 4). There is a strong overlap between agriculture and rural development in the plans, reflecting the significant role agriculture has played in rural development in Iceland. However, when the two are compared with sustainability, the overlapping quotations drop from sixty-two to eight, and those with food production drop to four. Agriculture and land use planning have the strongest overlap between any two code groups (71 quotations); yet, when compared to rural development, the number of quotations drops to fourteen, and with food production the number drops to four. The results showing that all the core categories only overlap in three quotations showed the little attention these issues combined receive in the plans.
The municipal plans were also coded regarding the different policy stages, from vision to action or provisions. The common elements within the planning process are vision, goals, policy, strategy, and action plan/provision. As stated earlier, the municipal plans should include the goals and policy of the local governments for the future development of the municipality. Despite the NPA’s general guidance for municipalities, their approach to planning differed. Only eleven municipalities stated their vision for the future, whereas all but one stated their goals.
Figure 5 shows three selected code categories and the frequency of their quotation within the policy elements. Sustainable land use was the category most frequently used as the goal in the plans, but agricultural land protection was a common goal as well. Moreover, the latter was the category that had the strongest likelihood of being implemented, as agricultural land protection was frequently mentioned in relation to actions or provisions. Flexible use of agricultural land, where nonagricultural development was allowed for without changing the delineated land use, was also coded and analyzed regarding the policy elements. As could be expected, no municipality declared flexible use of agricultural land as its vision, but this evolved through the different policy elements, and eighteen municipalities allowed for flexibility in agricultural land provisions in a total of 59 quotations. An example was where residential development for up to five homes on agricultural land was allowed, or where nonagricultural development such as light industry was allowed on agricultural land without changing the delineated land use [67,68]. An example could also be found where the policy was to protect agricultural land. Yet, when it came to provision for agricultural land, division of farms into up to five 20 ha units, including a residential home on each one, was allowed [69].
Implementation of goals is contingent not only on their incorporation into policy documents, but also on the understanding and participation of both governing bodies and the public. Thus, political will and public comprehension are crucial for effective plan implementation. However, only two municipalities underscored the necessity of disseminating knowledge regarding sustainable land use and agriculture [70,71].
All 31 municipal plans were prepared by consulting groups, from a total of twelve consulting firms, on behalf of the local governments. Notably, ten of these plans were developed by the same firm, resulting in identical formulation of goals or provisions appearing in different plans produced. All municipalities address sustainability, as prescribed in the Planning Act. A single plan stands out for most sustainability quotations (Figure A5), although here it seems that the consultants’ style played a role, rather than an extreme focus on sustainability in the municipality, since nothing else points to that direction. Besides this case, there was minimal variation in the emphasis on core categories across the municipalities.
Two national policies, the National Strategy for Sustainable Development and the Strategic Regional Plan 2010–2013, addressed all three pillars of sustainability [72,73]. The Planning Act addresses economic, social, and environmental concepts in its goals. However, sustainable development is defined in the legislation with a focus on the environmental pillar, mentioning the economic pillar but leaving out the social aspect [32], even though it is central to sustainability [2].
Sustainable agriculture is not part of national policies, although the NPP mentions that agricultural land should be used in a sustainable manner. Sustainability is mentioned in the agricultural subsidy contracts, most frequently in correlation to land use, but only once in connection with agriculture and twice with food production (Figure A1). Sustainable agriculture is referred to only in seven municipal plans, and in different policy elements, from goals to provisions. On the other hand, sustainable land use was a common goal in municipal plans.
Climate issues are addressed in nine of the national policies, primarily in the specific climate policies where land use also gets attention. Climate issues are not visible in municipal plans until 2015 but included in the policies of the most recent plans.
Rural development in the context of sustainability is only mentioned in two national policies, the NPP and the Strategic Regional Plan 2018–2024, in both as part of their goals. The agricultural subsidy contract from 2016 includes a special agreement that emphasizes increased sustainability of rural areas where food production could play a role.
Agricultural land protection is included in all but one municipal plan, and even in municipalities where agriculture is not a substantial part of the economy (Figure A3). However, all but six municipalities acknowledge flexible use of agricultural land as well.
The analysis of the policy documents indicates a lack of substantial support for the integration of sustainable rural development and agri-food production in national policies (Figure 3) and very limited support in municipal planning (Figure 4). The sector-specific national policies, such as the National Transportation Plans, are not designed to encompass all the core code categories, but, in contrast, comprehensive policies like the National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Strategic Regional Plans, and the NPP are expected to do so. However, none of the national policies fully integrate all core code categories within a single quotation.
Despite their comprehensiveness, municipal plans exhibit an overlap across all core code categories in only four instances. Nonetheless, the analysis suggests that municipal plans offer greater support for sustainable agri-food production and rural development than the national policies they are supposed to reflect.

5. Discussion

In this study, we investigated to what extent national plans and policies, and municipal plans, in Iceland support sustainable rural development and sustainable agri-food production, and whether there is coherence between national and municipal strategies concerning those issues.
The analysis of the policies and plans revealed that sustainability is a prominent goal in national policies and carried through to municipal plans. However, the concept is not clearly defined in the national documents. While sustainable development is universally referred to as development towards the harmonization of the environmental, social, and economic pillars, the social pillar, being highly dependent on cultural and local context, has remained less addressed in policies and plans than the other two pillars. The incomplete definition of sustainable development in the planning legislation will make its complex implementation even harder.
The lack of planning for sustainable agriculture is noteworthy since agriculture operates within the natural environment, has shaped rural communities, and is considered their main occupation. The goals for sustainable land use may, however, be the authorities’ reaction to the criticism that overgrazing is largely to blame for land degradation [24].
Despite the universal reference to sustainable development in goal setting, the closer the process comes to implementation, the greater the emphasis on sustainable development dwindles. This is no surprise, as sustainability has the characteristics of a “wicked problem” that is thus hard to implement. As such, embedding sustainability into policy provisions, which are often closely tied to practical use, presents significant difficulties. Nonetheless, it could be emphasized that provisions are intended to promote sustainability and support policymakers in adhering to their goals. However, the current situation raises questions about the use of the term sustainability in goal setting and political discourse.
The protection of agricultural land has become increasingly prominent in land use planning, as recommended in the NPP. However, food production may not have received an equivalent emphasis. Additionally, the focus on agricultural land protection may not align with the municipality’s revenue derived from agricultural activities (Figure A3). Moreover, most local governments may have wanted to integrate flexibility into their plans and thus decided to not put too much emphasis on protecting land from uses other than agriculture. Landowners’ wishes may also have impacted the plans’ outcomes, although that is not revealed in the planning documents. Division of agricultural land into smaller units did not seem to decrease over the period studied: in the next three years after the NPP was approved, over 500 new lots were established on agricultural land per year [74].
Food production has very little presence in the national policies analyzed, but it should be noted that the first National Food Policy was approved by Parliament only in 2023 [75], along with the first Agricultural Policy [38]. This shows increased governmental interest in agri-food production, but it still must be effectively coordinated with sustainable land use in municipal planning. Iceland is unlikely to become a critical source of agri-food on an international scale, yet Iceland’s resources, such as water, have however become sought-after, and Iceland has experienced international interest in land acquisition [76,77]. However, the geographic isolation of the country makes it important, from a food security point of view, to have as much access to local products as possible. Land use policies for food production are formulated within rural communities, and agricultural subsidy contracts are established between farmers and the national government. However, most consumers reside in urban areas. To ensure effective coordination of agricultural practices and food consumption, there is a need for cohesive efforts in policymaking and implementation at multiple levels of governance.
Traditionally, municipal plans in Iceland do not include fiscal planning. This fact may thwart the implementation of otherwise ambitious plans. The decoupling of fiscal planning from land use planning presents significant challenges for achieving sustainable rural development. The existing agricultural subsidy contracts within the governmental system could be aligned with the NPP and rural municipal planning to address this issue. Sustainable development can serve as an overarching goal; however, without the inclusion of the economic pillar, the stability of the developmental framework is at risk.
As previously noted, the responsibility for municipal planning rests with local governments, although due to insufficient staffing within rural governments, private consultants are frequently engaged to fulfill this role. Given the growing involvement of private consultants in public planning, their role has been examined extensively [78,79,80,81]. While there is a consensus that private consulting can be necessary and provide essential services to communities, it concurrently undermines local capacity to address planning issues [78]. This discrepancy may adversely affect the implementation phase of the plans.
Our study has presented a comprehensive analysis of policy and planning documents from central and local governments in Iceland to evaluate their support for sustainable rural development and sustainable agri-food production. Notably, the scope of this study did not extend to the assessment of policy implementation or outcomes. The execution of policies and plans is frequently delegated to individuals who have not participated in their formulation. In cases where policy elements lack clarity, this ambiguity affords bureaucrats and politicians the opportunity to make adjustments during the implementation phase [82,83,84]. Despite this limitation, our study elucidates how the design of a policy or plan can endorse a concept while simultaneously revealing how an initial goal may weaken throughout the policy process, transitioning from vision or goal to specific provisions (Figure 5). Future research is warranted to investigate the implementation of policies aimed at protecting high-quality agricultural land for food production, or to determine if such land is being subdivided for other land uses.
The study does not address the effect of the market, but undeniably it has great impact on land use, agricultural systems, and food systems [3]. The impact of the market on the implementation of policies and plans is unavoidable, unless strong measures are taken in the policies to the contrary, including fiscal mechanisms.
The availability of reliable data and clear definitions related to agriculture in Iceland is inadequate. Presently, there are no reliable data on the extent of land used for agricultural purposes, nor on the sustainable use of agricultural land or the potential of ecosystems [85]. While the Act on Soil Conservation [86] provides a definition of sustainable land use, it is limited to environmental sustainability. Despite efforts to account for the carbon footprint of food production, the current lack of reliable data on Icelandic environmental performance, including carbon emissions and sequestration, hinders effective accounting [87]. This further limit effective policymaking.
National-level coordination of policies on agri-food production, food consumption, land use, and climate issues, along with fiscal compliance, should be considered in future research and policymaking. Moreover, national policies need to be structured to effectively facilitate their translation into municipal plans.
Legislation has put emphasis on the environmental pillar of sustainable development, limiting the focus on economic and social aspects. Municipal plans should improve livability, and they can create favorable conditions through infrastructure and services. Coordinating municipal and fiscal planning may enhance this process. Economic incentives or perceived benefits from development proposals can influence local government decision-making, but fiscal impact assessments can enable decision-makers to draw reliable conclusions. Without an economic component in the planning, market forces are likely to have a greater influence. Moreover, the lack of social or equity aspect in planning disables the sustainability concept even further.

6. Conclusions

This case study of Icelandic policies and plans reveals limited support for sustainable rural development and agri-food production, despite the presence of mandated, albeit superficial, sustainability goals.
Sustainability is a “wicked problem” and its three pillars need to be managed to achieve stronger outcomes [3]. A lack of precise definitions impedes effective management and implementation; undefined terms cannot be expected to be achieved. Comprehensive knowledge among decision-makers, consultants, and the public is essential for effective implementation, as understanding is a prerequisite for action. Sustainable land use must be defined and measured using reliable data, which are also critical for effective policymaking. In the absence of reliable data, existing resources should be utilized, while concurrently supporting further research.
Policies and plans are developed through democratic processes that necessitate comprehensive knowledge and a shared understanding among all stakeholders. The endorsement of politicians is essential. However, successful implementation also requires the active participation of those impacted by the policies. Policies and plans should be anchored in overarching visions and objectives, and supported by empirical evidence and reliable data. Implementation strategies must be either embedded within the policy framework or articulated in practical action plans. Lack of consistent progression from goal setting to actionable steps undermines the credibility of the goals.
For effective planning of sustainable agri-food production, it is essential to coordinate policies and plans across multiple levels of governance and sectors. Within the context of rural development and agri-food production, sustainability and the process to manage its development must be clearly defined and articulated during the planning process to ensure relevance of the concept for those responsible for implementation. Provisions must align with sustainability goals, and these goals must be attainable to avoid rendering sustainability as merely an idealistic concept.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J. and K.B.; methodology, S.J.; formal analysis, S.J. and K.B.; data curation, S.J.; writing—original draft preparation, S.J. and K.B.; writing—review and editing, S.J. and K.B.; visualization, S.J. and K.B.; supervision, K.B.; project administration, K.B.; funding acquisition, S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The principal author, S.J., receives funding from The Doctoral Grants of The University of Iceland Research Fund, RSJ2023. No other forms of funding were received.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on application to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the University of Iceland for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. National policies (1–20) and agricultural subsidy contracts (A–D) included in the study, listed in chronological order.
Table A1. National policies (1–20) and agricultural subsidy contracts (A–D) included in the study, listed in chronological order.
NameNotes
1Soil conservation policy 2003–2014 [88]Replaced 2022
2Iceland’s Climate Change Strategy [56]Replaced 2021
3Policy on Biological Diversity [89]Active
AAgricultural subsidy contracts 2011–2012 [44]2011–2016
4Climate action plan [57]Replaced 2020
5Nature conservancy plan [90]Active
6National Strategy for Sust. Development [72]Active
7Strategic regional plan 2010–2013 [73]Replaced 2014
8National Tourism Plan 2011–2020 [91]
9Iceland 2020: labor market and society [53]Slow enactment [92]
BAgricultural subsidy contracts 2013–2017 [45]2011–2016
10Plan for enhancing the green economy [93]Slow enactment [94]
12National Electronic Communications Plan [95]Replaced 2019
11National Transportation plan 2011–2022 [96]Replaced 2016
13Strategic regional plan 2014–2017 [97]Replaced 2018
14National Planning Policy 2015–2026 [55]Replaced 2024 [98]
CAgricultural subsidy contracts 2017–2026 [46]Renewed 2024
C1Agreement on the operating environment for the sheep sector 2017 [60]
C2Agreement on the operating environment for the cattle sector 2017 [59]
C3Agreement on the operating environment for horticultural producers 2017 [61]
15National Transportation plan 2015–2018 [99]Replaced 2019
16Strategic regional plan 2018–2024 [54]Replaced 2022
17National Transportation plan 2019–2033 [100]Replaced 2020
18National Electronic Communications Plan [101]Active
19National Transportation plan 2020–2034 [102]Active
DAgricultural subsidy contracts amendment [47]Renewed 2024
20Iceland’s Climate Change Strategy [58]Active
Table A2. Municipal plans included in the study, ranked in chronological order according to year of plan approval.
Table A2. Municipal plans included in the study, ranked in chronological order according to year of plan approval.
MunicipalityYear Appr.
1Mýrdalshreppur2012[103]
2Skorradalshreppur2012[104]
3Árneshreppur2013[63]
4Langanesbyggð2013[70]
5Skútustaðahreppur2013[105]
6Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður 2014[71]
7Húnaþing vestra2014[106]
8Fljótsdalshreppur2014[107]
9Rangárþing eystra 2015[108]
10Helgafellssveit2015[109]
11Hörgársveit2015[110]
12Hrunamannahreppur 2018[111]
13Breiðdalshreppur2018[112]
14Snæfellsbær2018[69]
15Bláskógabyggð2018[113]
16Flóahreppur2018[114]
17Kjósarhreppur 2018[115]
18Rangárþing ytra2019[116]
19Eyjafjarðarsveit2019[117]
20Eyja- og Miklholtshreppur2019[118]
21Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur2020[119]
22Súðavíkurhreppur2020[66]
23Vesturbyggð2021[120]
24Grundarfjarðarbær 2021[121]
25Fjarðabyggð2022[122]
26Fjallabyggð 2022[64]
27Sveitarfélagið Skagafjörður2022[123]
28Sveitarfélagið Ölfus2022[67]
29Sveitarfélagið Árborg2022[68]
30Ásahreppur2022[124]
31Grímsnes- og Grafningshreppur2022[125]
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a1
Figure A1. Core code categories overlap in (a) national policy documents, (b) agricultural subsidy contracts, and (c) municipal plans.
Figure A1. Core code categories overlap in (a) national policy documents, (b) agricultural subsidy contracts, and (c) municipal plans.
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a1
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a2
Figure A2. Municipal plans; all code categories pertinent to the research question.
Figure A2. Municipal plans; all code categories pertinent to the research question.
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a2
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a3
Figure A3. Quotations including agricultural land protection, and income from agriculture as percentage of total income in the municipality for the same year. (Source for agricultural income [126]). Municipalities are listed on the x-axis in chronological order by the year the plan was approved (names in Table A2).
Figure A3. Quotations including agricultural land protection, and income from agriculture as percentage of total income in the municipality for the same year. (Source for agricultural income [126]). Municipalities are listed on the x-axis in chronological order by the year the plan was approved (names in Table A2).
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a3
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a4
Figure A4. Quotations including climate, forestry, and land reclamation. Municipalities are listed on the x-axis in chronological order by the year the plan was approved (names in Table A2).
Figure A4. Quotations including climate, forestry, and land reclamation. Municipalities are listed on the x-axis in chronological order by the year the plan was approved (names in Table A2).
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a4
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a5
Figure A5. Quotations including sustainability. Municipalities are listed on the x-axis in chronological order the plan was approved (names in Table A2).
Figure A5. Quotations including sustainability. Municipalities are listed on the x-axis in chronological order the plan was approved (names in Table A2).
Sustainability 16 08338 g0a5

References and Notes

  1. Brønn, C.; Brønn, P.S. Sustainability: A wicked problem needing new perspectives. In Business Strategies for Sustainability; Borland, H., Lindgreen, A.V., Maon, J., Ambrosini, F., Beatriz, V.P.-F., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Janker, J.; Mann, S. Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: A critical review of sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 1671–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jónsdóttir, S.; Gísladóttir, G. Land use planning, sustainable food production and rural development: A literature analysis. Geogr. Sustain. 2023, 4, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rittel, H.W.J.; Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Berke, P.R.; Conroy, M.M. Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2000, 66, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Conroy, M.M.; Wilson, J.P. Are We There Yet? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2024, 90, 274–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Toensmeier, E.; Mehra, M.; Frischmann, C.; Foley, J. Farming Our Way out of the Climate Crisis; Project Drawdown: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ikerd, J. The Economic Pamphleteer: Economies of scale in food production. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2023, 12, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marsden, T. Mobilities, Vulnerabilities and Sustainabilities: Exploring Pathways from Denial to Sustainable Rural Development. Sociol. Rural. 2009, 49, 113–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. European Environment Agency. Rethinking Agriculture; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Danmark, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  12. IPES-Food. Who’s Tipping the Scales? The Growing Influence of Corporations on the Governance of Food Systems, and How to Counter It; IPES-Food: Brussels, Belgium, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  13. Velten, S.; Leventon, J.; Jager, N.; Newig, J. What Is Sustainable Agriculture? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lu, Y.; de Vries, W.T. A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Rural Development Research. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Arora-Jonsson, S.; McAreavey, R. From crisis to sustainability: The politics of knowledge production on rural Europe. Sociol. Rural. 2023, 63, 771–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stead, D.; Meijers, E. Spatial Planning and Policy Integration: Concepts, Facilitators and Inhibitors. Plan. Theory Pract. 2009, 10, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pothukuchi, K.; Kaufman, J.L. The Food System: A stranger to the planning field. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2000, 66, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Berke, P.; Godschalk, D. Searching for the Good Plan A Meta-Analysis of Plan Quality Studies. J. Plan. Lit. 2009, 23, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Guyadeen, D.; Seasons, M. Evaluation Theory and Practice: Comparing Program Evaluation and Evaluation in Planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2018, 38, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shahab, S.; Clinch, J.P.; O’Neill, E. Impact-based planning evaluation: Advancing normative criteria for policy analysis. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2019, 46, 534–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Stevens, M.R. Evaluating the Quality of Official Community Plans in Southern British Columbia. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2013, 33, 471–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arnalds, Ó. The Soils of Iceland; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  23. Stefánsson, J.H.; Þorvaldsdóttir, S.; Hauksdóttir, I.; Þórarinsdóttir, E.F.; Marteinsdóttir, B.; Brink, S.H. Kortlagning beitarlanda sauðfjár á Íslandi (e. Mapping Sheep Grazing Areas in Iceland); Landgræðslan: Hvanneyri, Iceland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  24. Arnalds, Ó. Ástand lands og hrun íslenskra vistkerfa (e. Land Degradation in Iceland); Landbúnaðarháskóli Íslands: Hvanneyri, Iceland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Þorvaldsson, G.Þ.; Sveinsdóttir, G.L.; Jónsdóttir, S. Leiðbeiningar um flokkun landbúnaðarlands með tilliti til hæfni til ræktunar (e. Guidelines on Agricultural Land Classification with Regard to Arability); Atvinnuvega- og nýsköpunarráðuneytið: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sturludóttir, E.; Sveinbjörnsson, J. Fæðuöryggi á Íslandi (e. Food Security in Iceland); Landbúnaðarháskóli Íslands: Hvanneyri, Iceland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  27. Government of Iceland. Voluntary National Review. Iceland 2019; Government of Iceland, Prime Minister’s Office: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  28. Government of Iceland. Voluntary National Review. Iceland 2023; Government of Iceland, Prime Minister’s Office: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  29. Byggðastofnun. Íbúafjöldi sveitarfélaga og byggðakjarna (e. Population of Municpalities and Towns). Available online: https://public.tableau.com/views/ibuafj_sveitarf-byggdakj/ibuafjoldi?:language=en-US&:sid=&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link (accessed on 14 March 2024).
  30. Statistics Iceland. Population—Key Figures. Available online: https://statice.is/stat-bank (accessed on 14 March 2024).
  31. Skipulags- og byggingarlög nr. 73/1997. (e. Planning and Building Act nr. 73/1997).
  32. Skipulagslög nr. 123/2010. (e. Planning Act nr. 123/2010).
  33. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  34. Skipulagsstofnun. Skipulagsmál á Íslandi 2014. Lykilmælikvarðar og fyrirliggjandi áætlanir (e. Planning in Iceland 2014. Key Measurements and Policies); Skipulagsstofnun: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  35. Skipulagsreglugerð nr. 90/2013. (e. Planning Ordinance nr. 90/2013).
  36. Lög um umhverfismat áætlana nr. 105/2006. (e. Act on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Expired Sept. 1, 2021).
  37. Lög um umhverfismat framkvæmda og áætlana nr. 111/2021. (e. Act on Environmental Impact Assessment and on Strategic Environmental Assessment).
  38. Þingskjal nr. 1930/2022–2023. Þingsályktun nr. 21/153 um landbúnaðarstefnu til ársins 2040 (e. Parliamentary Resolution on Agricultural Policy until 2040).
  39. Búnaðarlög nr. 70/1998. (e. Act on Agriculture nr. 70/1998).
  40. Búvörulög nr. 99/1993. Búvörulög nr. 99/1993 (e: Act on Agricultural Products).
  41. OECD. Iceland. In Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2023: Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bændasamtök Íslands. (e. The Icelandic Farmers Association). Available online: https://www.bondi.is/ (accessed on 12 April 2024).
  43. Arnalds, O. Development of Perverse Environmental Subsides for Sheep Production in Iceland. Agric. Sci. 2019, 10, 1135–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands. Samningur um verkefni samkvæmt búnaðarlögum nr. 70/1998 og framlög ríkisins til þeirra á árunum 2011 og 2012 (e. Contract According to the Act on Agriculture no. 70/1998 and the National Government’s Contribution in 2011 and 2012); Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands. Samningur um verkefni samkvæmt búnaðarlögum nr. 70/1998 og framlög ríkisins til þeirra á árunum 2013 og 2017 (e. Contract According to the Act on Agriculture no. 70/1998 and the National Government’s Contribution in 2013 and 2017); Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands. Rammasamningur 2017–2026 (e. Framework Contract 2017–2026); Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands. Samkomulag um breytingar á rammasamningi um almenn starfsskilyrði landbúnaðarins frá 19. febrúar 2016 (Amendment on the Framework Contract 2017–2026); Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stjórnarráð Íslands. Matarauðlindin Ísland. Matvælastefna Íslands til ársins 2030 (e. Iceland’s Food Policy until the Year 2030); Stjórnarráð Íslands: Lækjargata, Iceland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bowen, G.A. Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qual. Res. J. 2009, 9, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Richards, C.; Farrokhnia, F. Optimizing Grounded Theory for Policy Research: A Knowledge-Building Approach to Analyzing WTO E-Commerce Policies. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2016, 15, 1609406915621380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sebeelo, T.B. The Utility of Constructivist Grounded Theory in Critical Policy Analysis. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2022, 21, 16094069221090057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J.M. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  53. Forsætisráðuneytið. Ísland 2020—Sókn fyrir atvinnulíf og samfélag. Þekking, sjálfbærni, velferð (e. Iceland 2020—Advance for the Labor Market and Society); Forsætisráðuneytið: Lækjargata, Iceland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  54. Þingskjal nr. 1242/2017–2018. Þingsályktun nr. 24/148 um Stefnumótandi byggðaáætlun fyrir árin 2018–2024 (e. Parliamentary Resolution on a Strategic Regional Plan for the Period 2018–2024).
  55. Þingskjal nr. 1027/2015–2016. Þingsályktun nr. 19/145 um landsskipulagsstefnu 2015–2026 (e. Parliamentary Resolution on a National Planning Policy for the Period 2015–2026); 16 March 2016.
  56. Ministry for the Environment. Iceland’s Climate Change Strategy; Ministry for the Environment: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  57. Umhverfisráðuneytið. Aðgerðaáætlun í loftslagsmálum (e. Climate Action Plan); Umhverfisráðuneytið: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources. On the Path to Climate Neutrality. Iceland’s Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategy; Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands. Samningur um starfsskilyrði nautgriparæktar (e. Agreement on the Operating Environment for the Cattle Sector); Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands. Samningur um starfsskilyrði sauðfjárræktar (e. Agreement on the Operating Environment for the Sheep Sector); Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands. Samningur um starfsskilyrði framleiðenda garðyrkjuafurða (e. Agreement on the Operating Environment for Horticultural Producers); Ríkisstjórn Íslands og Bændasamtök Íslands: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  62. Jónsdóttir, S. Landbúnaðarland í skipulagsáætlunum (e. Agricultural land in Land Use Plans); Skipulagsstofnun: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  63. Árneshreppur; Benedikt Björnsson. Aðalskipulag Árneshrepps 2005–2025; 2013.
  64. Fjallabyggð; Teiknistofa arkitekta. Aðalskipulag Fjallabyggðar 2020–2032; 2022.
  65. Government of Iceland. Screening Report Iceland, Chapter 11—Agriculture and Rural Development; Government of Iceland: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  66. Súðavíkurhreppur; Verkís. Aðalskipulag Súðavíkurhrepps; 2020.
  67. Sveitarfélagið Ölfus; Efla. Aðalskipulag Sveitarfélagsins Ölfuss 2020–2036; 2022.
  68. Sveitarfélagið Árborg; Efla. Aðalskipulag Árborgar 2020–2036; 2022.
  69. Snæfellsbær; Hús og Skipulag. Aðalskipulag Snæfellsbæjar 2015–2031; 2018.
  70. Langanesbyggð; Teikn. Aðalskipulag Langanesbyggðar 2007–2027; 2013.
  71. Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður; Gláma-Kím; VSÓ Ráðgjöf. Aðalskipulag Sveitarfélagsins Hornafjarðar 2012–2030; 2014.
  72. Ministry for the Environment. Welfare for the Future, Iceland’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Priorities 2010–2013; Ministry for the Environment: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  73. Þingskjal nr. 1328/2010–2011. Þingsályktun nr. 23/139 um stefnumótandi byggðaáætlun 2010–2013 (e. Parliamentary Resolution on a Strategic Regional Plan for the Period 2010–2013).
  74. Þingskjal nr. 467/2020–2021. Frumvarp til laga um breytingar á jarðalögum, nr. 81/2004 (e. Proposed Bill for Changes for Act on Land nr. 81/2004).
  75. Þingskjal nr. 1913/2022–2023. Þingsályktun nr. 20/153 um matvælastefnu til ársins 2040 (e. Parliamentary Resolution on Food Policy until 2040).
  76. China’s Huang Nubo Seeks Iceland Land for Eco-Resort. BBC. Available online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14714524 (accessed on 30 August 2011).
  77. Hafstað, V. Ratcliffe to Invest Billions in Northeast Iceland. Iceland Monitor. Available online: https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2021/06/16/ratcliffe_to_invest_billions_in_northeast_iceland/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
  78. Wargent, M.; Parker, G.; Street, E. Public-private entanglements: Consultant use by local planning authorities in England. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2020, 28, 192–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Loh, C.G.; Norton, R.K. Planning Consultants and Local Planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2013, 79, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bragaglia, F.; Parker, G. The role and significance of planning consultants as intermediary-actors: Between and amongst government, civic society and the market. Int. Plan. Stud. 2024, 29, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Loh, C.G.; Arroyo, R.L. Special Ethical Considerations for Planners in Private Practice. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2017, 83, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nakamura, R.T. The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research. Rev. Policy Res. 1987, 7, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nowlin, M.C. Theories of the Policy Process: State of the Research and Emerging Trends. Policy Stud. J. 2011, 39, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sabatier, P.A. (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  85. Arnalds, Ó. Mold ert þú: Jarðvegur og íslensk náttúra (e. Earth You Are: Soil and Icelandic Nature); Iðnú Útgáfa: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  86. Lög um landgræðslu nr. 155/2018. (e. Act on Soil Conservation nr. 155/2018).
  87. Hallsdóttir, B.S.; Gíslason, S. Mat á kolefnissporolefnisspori matvælaframleiðslu á Íslandi (e. Assessment of the Carbon Footprint of Food Production in Iceland); Matvælaráðuneytið: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  88. Þingskjal nr. 1448/2001–2002. Þingsályktun nr. 26/127 um landgræðsluáætlun 2003–2014 (e. Parliamentary Resoulution no. 26/127 on Soil Conservation 2003–2014).
  89. Umhverfisráðuneytið. Líffræðileg fjölbreytni: Stefnumörkun Íslands um framkvæmd samningsins um líffræðilega fjölbreytni (e. Biological Diversity: Iceland’s Policy on the Implementation of the CBD); Umhverfisráðuneytið: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  90. Þingskjal nr. 654/2009–2010. Þingsályktun nr. 3/138, um náttúruverndaráætlun 2009–2013 (e. Parliamentary Resolution no. 3/138, on the Nature Conservation Program 2009–2013).
  91. Þingskjal nr. 1657/2010–2011. Þingsályktun nr. 34/139 um ferðamálaáætlun 2011–2020 (e. Parliamentary Resolution no. 34/139 on the Tourism Plan 2011–2020).
  92. Þingskjal nr. 1212/2011–2012. Svar forsætisráðherra við fyrirspurn Magnúsar Orra Schram um sóknaráætlunina Ísland 2020 og stöðu verkefna á ábyrgðarsviði ráðuneyta (e. Prime Minister’s Response to Inquiry on Iceland 2020).
  93. Parliamentary Committee on the Strengthening of the Green Economy. The Strengthening the Green Economy in Iceland; Althingi: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  94. Þingskjal nr. 1343/2018–2019. Svar forsætisráðherra við fyrirspurn frá Oddnýju G. Harðardóttur um eflingu græns hagkerfis (e. Prime Minister’s Response to Inquiry on the Strengthening the Green Economy in Iceland).
  95. Þingskjal nr. 593/2012–2013. Þingsályktun nr. 4/141 um tólf ára fjarskiptaáætlun fyrir árin 2011–2022 (e. Parliamentary Resolution no. 4/141 on the Twelve-Year Telecommunications Plan for the Years 2011–2022).
  96. Þingskjal nr. 1630/2011–2012. Þingsályktun nr. 48/140, um samgönguáætlun fyrir árin 2011–2022 (e. Parliamentary Resolution no. 48/140, on the Transport Plan for the Years 2011–2022).
  97. Þingskjal nr. 1083/2013–2014. Þingsályktun nr. 21/143 um stefnumótandi byggðaáætlun 2014–2017 (e. Parliamentary Resolution on a Strategic Regional Plan for the Period 2014–2017).
  98. Þingskjal nr. 1724/2023–2024. Þingsályktun nr. 16/154 um landsskipulagsstefnu fyrir árin 2024–2038 ásamt fimm ára aðgerðaáætlun fyrir árin 2024–2028. (e. Parliamentary Resolution on a National Planning Policy for the Period 2024–2038 along with Action Plan for the Years 2024–2028).
  99. Þingskjal nr. 1801/2015–2016. Þingsályktun nr. 65/145 um fjögurra ára samgönguáætlun fyrir árin 2015–2018 (e. Parliamentary Resolution no. 65/145, on the Transport Plan for the Years 2015–2018).
  100. Þingskjal nr. 928/2018–2019. Þingsályktun nr. 11/149, um samgönguáætlun fyrir árin 2019–2033 (e. Parliamentary Resolution no. 11/149, on the Transport Plan for the Years 2019–2033).
  101. Þingskjal nr. 1688/2018–2019. Þingsályktun nr. 32/149 um stefnu í fjarskiptum fyrir árin 2019–2033 (e. Parliamentary Resolution no. 32/149 on Telecommunications Plan for the Years 2019–2033).
  102. Þingskjal nr. 1944/2019–2020. Þingsályktun nr. 41/150 um samgönguáætlun fyrir árin 2020–2034 (e. Parliamentary Resolution no. 41/150, on the Transport Plan for the Years 2020–2034).
  103. Mýrdalshreppur; VSÓ Ráðgjöf. Aðalskipulag Mýrdalshrepps 2012–2028; 2012.
  104. Skorradalshreppur; TGJ. Aðalskipulag Skorradalshrepps 2010–2022; 2012.
  105. Skútustaðahreppur; Teiknistofa arkitekta. Aðalskipulag Skútustaðahrepps 2011–2023; 2013.
  106. Húnaþing Vestra; Landmótun. Húnaþing vestra—Aðalskipulag 2014–2026; 2014.
  107. Fljótsdalshreppur; Landmótun. Fljótsdalshreppur Aðalskipulag 2014–2030; 2014.
  108. Rangárþing eystra; Teiknistofa arkitekta. Aðalskipulag Rangárþings eystra 2012–2024; 2015.
  109. Helgafellssveit; TGJ. Aðalskipulag Helgafellssveitar 2012–2024; 2015.
  110. Hörgársveit; Landmótun. Hörgársveit Aðalskipulag 2012–2024; 2015.
  111. Hrunamannahreppur; Steinsholt. Hrunamannahreppur, Aðalskipulag 2016–2032; 2018.
  112. Breiðdalshreppur; Teiknistofa arkitekta. Aðalskipulag Breiðdalshrepps 2018–2030; 2018.
  113. Bláskógabyggð; Steinsholt. Bláskógabyggð, Aðalskipulag 2015–2027; 2018.
  114. Flóahreppur; Efla. Flóahreppur, Aðalskipulag 2017–2029; 2018.
  115. Kjósarhreppur; Efla. Kjósarhreppur, Aðalskipulag 2017–2029; 2018.
  116. Rangárþing ytra; Efla. Rangárþing ytra, Aðalskipulag 2016–2028.
  117. Eyjafjarðarsveit; Landslag. Eyjafjarðarsveit, Aðalskipulag 2018–2030; 2019.
  118. Eyja-og Miklholtshreppur; Alta. Aðalskipulag Eyja- og Miklaholtshrepps 2018–2038; 2019.
  119. Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur; Efla. Aðalskipulag Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahrepps; 2020.
  120. Vesturbyggð; Landmótun. Aðalskipulag Vesturbyggðar 2018–2035; 2021.
  121. Grundarfjarðarbær; Alta. Aðalskipulag Grundarfjarðarbæjar 2019–2039; 2021.
  122. Fjarðabyggð; Alta. Aðalskipulag Fjarðabyggðar 2020–2040; 2022.
  123. Sveitarfélagið Skagafjörður; VSÓ Ráðgjöf. Aðalskipulag Sveitarfélagsins Skagafjarðar 2020–2035; 2022.
  124. Ásahreppur; Efla. Aðalskipulag Ásahrepps 2020–2032; 2022.
  125. Grímsnes- og Grafningshreppur; Efla. Aðalskipulag Grímsnes- og Grafningshrepps 2020–2032; 2022.
  126. Byggðastofnun. Tekjur einstaklinga eftir svæðum 2008–2022 (e. Incomes of Individuals 2008–2022). Available online: https://www.byggdastofnun.is/is/utgefid-efni/maelabord/tekjur (accessed on 1 February 2024).
Sustainability 16 08338 g001
Figure 1. Command structure of the Icelandic planning system. The NPA oversaw the NPP until 2023 when the planning legislation was changed and the responsibility for the making of the NPP moved directly under the Ministry for Infrastructure. Decisions on division plans and development permits can be appealed to a Board of Appeal.
Figure 1. Command structure of the Icelandic planning system. The NPA oversaw the NPP until 2023 when the planning legislation was changed and the responsibility for the making of the NPP moved directly under the Ministry for Infrastructure. Decisions on division plans and development permits can be appealed to a Board of Appeal.
Sustainability 16 08338 g001
Sustainability 16 08338 g002
Figure 2. Municipalities included in the study.
Figure 2. Municipalities included in the study.
Sustainability 16 08338 g002
Sustainability 16 08338 g003
Figure 3. National policy documents: Proximity of core code categories, sustainability, agriculture, food production, rural development, and land use. n = total number of quotations that fall within the core code category.
Figure 3. National policy documents: Proximity of core code categories, sustainability, agriculture, food production, rural development, and land use. n = total number of quotations that fall within the core code category.
Sustainability 16 08338 g003
Sustainability 16 08338 g004
Figure 4. Municipal plans; sustainability, agriculture, food production, rural development, and land use planning. n = total number of quotations that fall within the core code category.
Figure 4. Municipal plans; sustainability, agriculture, food production, rural development, and land use planning. n = total number of quotations that fall within the core code category.
Sustainability 16 08338 g004
Sustainability 16 08338 g005
Figure 5. Municipal plans. Number of quotations per plan element within three selected code categories.
Figure 5. Municipal plans. Number of quotations per plan element within three selected code categories.
Sustainability 16 08338 g005
Table 1. Number of documents analyzed, quotations, codes, and code categories.
Table 1. Number of documents analyzed, quotations, codes, and code categories.
Number of:DocumentsQuotationsCodesCode Categories
National policies2041237633
Agricultural subsidy contracts720515717
Municipal plans311005123646
Total581622
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jónsdóttir, S.; Benediktsson, K. Planning for Sustainable Agri-Food Production: Factual or Fictional? An Example from Iceland. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198338

AMA Style

Jónsdóttir S, Benediktsson K. Planning for Sustainable Agri-Food Production: Factual or Fictional? An Example from Iceland. Sustainability. 2024; 16(19):8338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198338

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jónsdóttir, Salvör, and Karl Benediktsson. 2024. "Planning for Sustainable Agri-Food Production: Factual or Fictional? An Example from Iceland" Sustainability 16, no. 19: 8338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198338

APA Style

Jónsdóttir, S., & Benediktsson, K. (2024). Planning for Sustainable Agri-Food Production: Factual or Fictional? An Example from Iceland. Sustainability, 16(19), 8338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198338

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop