La collecte d'information du recensement sur la phiriactivite agricole ou sur 1'<< agriculture a temps partiel >>, comme on l'appelait au debut, acommence aussi tot que dans les annees trente aux Etats-Unis et dans les annees quarante au Canada. Depuis, les chercheurs ne se sont pas

contentes de rapporter les statistiques descriptives de base, ils ont effectue des enquetes detaillees des diverses sources non agricoles sur le revenu familial global, sur les types d'emplois a l'exterieur de la ferme et sur les motivations sous-jacentes. Quoique l'interet pour le sujet ait quelque peu diminue, une analyse plus approfondie des menages pluriactifs est justifiee, particulierement a la himiere de la restructuration et du depeuplement ruraux et de la << crise agricole >>. Les specialistes en sciences humaines ont suivi des pistes divergentes sur la nature de la phiriactivite; cependant, phisieurs de ces travaux sont lies aux concepts des collectivites rurales durables (CRD), comme les strategies adaptatives, la diversification et la resilience. Dans cet article, l'auteur explore l'utflite de l'analyse des CRD pour interpreter la presence, la persistance, les formes et fonctions variees de pluriactivite darts les menages agricoles canadiens.

ACADEMIC INTEREST IN PART-TIME FARMING dates back to the 1930s (Fuguitt, 1961). The literature has since undergone important trans formations with regard to concepts, empirical constructs and analytical frameworks. However, researchers continue to explore the implications of "families gaining their living both from wages and from the land" (Melvin, 1954: 281). This statement evidences a long-standing preoccupation with livelihood diversification among farm households. The search for comprehensive interpretations of pluriactivity stands in sharp contrast to earlier misconceptions and faulty assumptions about part-time farming. Authors increasingly recognize that pluriactivity is not restricted to marginal or "inefficient" agricultural operations; rather, it has become the "norm" (Fuller, 1991: 34). Research on pluriactivity has waned somewhat of late, but further investigation is warranted in light of rural restructuring, farm depopulation and the "farm crisis."

Pluriactivity in the Global Economy: Capitalism, Crisis and Adjustment

Several facets of pluriactivity are intertwined with the debate over the fate of family farming in advanced capitalist economies, or what is commonly termed the "agrarian question" (see McLaughlin, 1998). Simply put, large, commercial enterprises are presumed to capitalize on efficiencies of scale that will spell the demise of smaller, "pre-capitalist" forms of production. Much of the related discourse stems from Marx's ([1867] 1912: 14) writings on "the economic law of motion of modern society" and its relevance to the development of agriculture under capitalism, for example, the separation of property ownership and labour, the accumulation of capital, and the proletarianization of the peasantry. Friedmann (1978: 559) has contributed to this exchange of ideas through the examination of family farms in the world market and the concept of "simple commodity production," that is, when "the ownership of the enterprise and the provision of labor are combined in the household." She contends that, by 1935, the commercial production of wheat was primarily "organized through household rather than wage labor" (Friedmann, 1978: 547) due, in part, to agricultural mechanization and co-operative relations among farm households.

Friedmann (1978: 556) discusses differences between capitalist and household production that are pertinent to the analysis of pluriactivity, most notably "objective" (e.g., production costs) and "subjective conditions" (e.g., commitment to the survival of the farm enterprise). She argues that whatever surplus remains after the "renewal of means of production" belongs to the farm household for the purposes of "flexible" personal consumption (Friedmann, 1978: 562). So, under conditions of intense competition, family members can regulate consumption in ways that facilitate the sustainability of the agricultural operation. This discussion owes something to Chayanov's notion of "self-exploitation" (Thorner, Kerblay and Smith, 1966: 6) in that it bears on the household dynamic operating between labour allocation and consumptive behaviour. Elsewhere, Friedmann (1986: 188) suggests that "non-capitalist interests," such as the preference for a particular "way of life," can lead farm households to persevere in spite of loss-generating activities or to "subsidise unprofitable enterprises through wages earned outside." Other authors have commented on the non-utilitarian bases of such actions, that is, value-based as compared to economic rationality (Newby, Rose, Saunders and Bell, 1981: 39). Although Friedmann (1986) conflates economic and social issues, she contends that decisions around personal and productive consumption can operate as survival strategies for both the farm family and the family farm. Bryceson (2000: 310) raises a related point concerning the redirection of household labour to "non-agrarian" work in order to capitalize the production process and to provide "a more reliable stream [of income] than would be likely from sole reliance on agriculture."

Many researchers have analysed the socio-economic ramifications of the industrialization and intensification of agriculture within global food regimes. Considerable attention has been focussed on the increasing concentration and specialization of agriculture, along with the bifurcation of "very large commercial farms and small part-time operations" (Brooks, Stucker and Bailey, 1986: 394). On occasion, discourse on the dualistic structure of agriculture has merged small- and part-time farming, thereby reinforcing the stereotypic view that pluriactivity is indicative of less productive or "inefficient" operations. Notwithstanding such misconceptions, there is ample research that demonstrates the presence of pluriactivity across various sizes, revenue or capital asset classifications, and types of agricultural operations (e.g., Bessant, 2000; Statistics Canada, 2004), albeit to varying degrees. In addition, the progressive integration of rural and urban economic sectors has fostered interchanges of farm and non-farm labour, income-generating activities and consumption patterns. This trend is evident in the increasing participation of farm households in off-farm employment and the growing number of farm workers that has accompanied the intensification of agricultural production (see Filson, 2004a). However, it is the conception of pluriactivity as "a stable component of the farm structure and a relatively permanent lifestyle" (Albrecht and Murdock, 1988: 34) that is the primary focus of this paper.

Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL) Analysis: Origins and Relevance

Rural social scientists of varying disciplines have discussed pluriactivity and, as a result, the academic literature offers diverse and sometimes fragmentary insights into this complex phenomenon. Kinsella, Wilson, de Jong and Renting (2000: 483) suggest "More theoretically founded criteria are needed in order to reach a better understanding of the implications of different strategies for the long-term impact and dynamics of pluriactivity." Their work and that of other authors (e.g., Diaz and Gingrich, 1989) situates pluriactivity within the context of household livelihoods analysis. The following discussion extends this line of inquiry by first reviewing conceptual and empirical research on pluriactivity and then examining a Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL) (1) interpretation of its presence, persistence and diversity among small-and medium-sized farm operations. Although there are varied approaches to analysing rural livelihoods (see Carney, 2002), several versions consider the "asset status" of "individuals and households as fundamental to understanding the options open to them, the strategies they adopt for survival, and their vulnerability to adverse trends and events" (Ellis, 2000: 28). SRL analysis encompasses a broad spectrum of interrelated factors, structures and processes that impact rural people's lives. The utility of this perspective stems from "systems thinking," "integration," and "holistic" analysis (Filson, 2004b: 78) that, when combined with micro- and macro-level processes, yields a more comprehensive view of pluriactivity.

Part of the rationale for the present application of an SRL approach can be found in Vorley's (2001; 2002) discussion of the effects of globalization on sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods. Based on work by Reimer (1996) and Davila-Villers (1997), Vorley (2002: 9) contends that the restructuring of global food markets and power relations has led to the differentiation of "three rural worlds." Rural Worlds 1 and 3 designate contrasting images of highly competitive, embedded and integrated agricultural entrepreneurs, on the one hand, and producers characterized by "fragile entitlements," a combination of subsistence and commodity production, and diverse livelihoods, on the other (Vorley, 2001: 2). Rural World 2 is particularly relevant to this paper insofar as it comprises both the "family farmers" and the "landed peasantry" of North and South nations (Vorley, 2001: 2). Further, Vorley (2002: 10) argues that "low levels of capitalisation," weak integration with downstream businesses, and fewer assets, coupled with the cost-price squeeze, have created a situation of "declining returns and increased risks from agricultural commodity production" in which pluriactivity is the norm. He goes on to suggest that "[w]hat peasants and family farmers have in common looks increasingly more consequential than what separates them" and that global market volatility and competition are generating "fractured livelihoods" among both groups (Vorley, 2002: 10-11).

Figure 1 displays several main themes in the literature: a) the changes in terminology; b) the analysis of multiple indicators; c) the development of part-time farming typologies; and d) the investigation of differential motives. These varied lines of analysis underscore the complexity of pluriactivity; yet, all revolve around the farm household unit. Figure 1 illustrates how various avenues of inquiry into pluriactivity can be linked to the farm household through SRL concepts and processes:

* Livelihood strategies: comprise a mixture of activities "that seek to increase ... income flows and stocks of assets ('accumulation strategies'), to spread risk through livelihood adjustments or income diversification ('adaptive strategies'), to minimise the impacts of livelihood shocks ('coping strategies') and, in extremis, to prevent destitution and death ('survival strategies')" (Devereux, 1999: 8).

* Diversification: constitutes the process whereby households (and individual members) construct diverse portfolios of activities, assets and opportunities for the sake of survival and/or accumulation (Ellis, 1998: 1).

* Resilience: relates to vulnerability contexts and household livelihood adaptability, for example, the ability to absorb change, to cope with stress, and to recover from shock(s). Resilience can take the form of diverse responses such as "avoidance, repartitioning, resistance or tolerance mechanisms" (Scoones, 1998: 6).

* Sustainability: concerns the "continuity in the very long term of the capacity of a system to reproduce itself or expand over time" (Ellis, 2000: 125). Although sustainability is commonly defined in terms of social, economic, environmental and institutional dimensions (Ashley and Carney, 1999), its application to livelihood systems is decidedly ecological in nature.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The following sections make the case that these and other related aspects of livelihoods analysis undergird much of the research on pluriactivity and that an SRL framework engenders a more integrated understanding of the interplay between micro- and macro-level factors affecting farm households (i.e., internal processes and structural externalities).

Conceptual and Methodological Considerations

Changing Terminology

The concepts used to describe this unique intersection of farm and nonfarm sectors have changed markedly over the past half-century. Fuller (1976: 40) initially defined three core terms as follows: "Apart-time farm is a land holding unit that provides less than a full year's work, a part-time farmer is one who holds an additional job to that of farming, and part-time farming, in the pure sense, occurs when a part-time farm is operated by a part-time farmer." He later called attention to the presumption that any operator who pursued off-farm work was a part-time farmer, even though the agricultural enterprise "could be anything but part-time" (Fuller, 1990: 362). Buttel and Larson (1982: 273) note that misconceptions and stereotypes have influenced the interpretation of part-time farming, for example, treating it as an "unimportant phenomenon" or viewing it primarily as a response to farm financial need. The expression part-time farming continues to connote (albeit inaccurately) small, marginal, or "inefficient" operations.

The 1980s and early 1990s represented a period of intense inquiry into the nature and extent of pluriactivity within Canadian agriculture. The examination of historical data trends indicated that off-farm employment was not restricted to smaller enterprises; rather, it cut across various sizes and types of farm operations. These findings led some researchers to question tacit assumptions about the motivational and structural bases of pluriactivity, which in turn contributed to the search for alternative interpretations. During the mid- to late-1980s, researchers began to use the term multiple jobholding in place of part-time farming. Although this new concept was relatively free of the stereotypic views associated with earlier language, it too posed limitations insofar as it referred narrowly to salaried or wage-based employment. Multiple jobholding was subsequently reconceptualized into pluriactivity in order to accommodate a wider range of activities and income sources, for example, off-farm wages or salaries, self-employment, work on other farms, on-farm activities (i.e., agricultural or non-agricultural), and investment income (Fuller, 1990: 367).

The shift from part-time farming topluriactivity constituted an effort to more fully represent livelihood diversity and to provide a more comprehensive view of the dynamics operating within the farm production-household unit. Today, the concept pluriactivity enjoys widespread use in academe, although it shares company with several related terms such as "off-farm," "non-farm" and "non-agricultural" income or activities. (2) Pluriactivity is used here to denote situations in which individuals or households combine farm and non-farm employment or revenue streams, regardless of their origin(s) or location(s). In the following sections dealing with census data, operational definitions and theoretical literature, the terminology of the source is used in order to duly reflect the varied discourse on this topic.

Census Definitions and Data Trends (3)

The Dominion Bureau of Statistics (1947) began collecting information about part-time farming as early as 1941. Definitions of key variables have since evolved in conjunction with changes in questionnaire design and data-linkage capabilities. It should be noted that, before 1991, census data was restricted to a single operator per agricultural holding. Despite such limitations, researchers have made use of existing data sources (e.g., census and taxfiler information) to explore the involvement of farm families in off-farm capital and labour markets.

Number of Days of Off-farm Work One commonly cited indicator of pluriactivity has been the number of days per year of (paid) off-farm employment reported by producers. Questions of this type were included in census questionnaires between 1941 and 1991. The analysis of historical data reveals that approximately 35% of census farmers allocated some portion of their time (i.e., at least one day per year) to off-farm activities over this 50-year period (see Fuller, 1991). Bollman and Smith (1988: 191) state that, between 1941 and 1981, the average number of days of off-farm employment grew from 75 to 171 days. In addition, Fuller and Bollman (1992: 252) note that the percentage of operators working 229 or more days off the farm (deemed the equivalent of full-time employment) rose from 4% to 16% between 1941 and 1986.

Neither the 1996 nor the 2001 Canadian Census of Agriculture queried producers about the number of days worked off the farm, although both surveys probed (albeit in different ways) operators' involvement in a) waged or salaried employment and b) other business ventures unrelated to the agricultural operation. Based on the 2001 Census definition, the percentages of farmers engaged in off-farm activities (either working for additional income or operating another business) in 1995 and 2000 were 45.7% and 44.5%, respectively (Statistics Canada, 2001b: Table 11). These statistics evidence an increase in the off-farm employment rate as compared to 37.1% in 1991 (Statistics Canada, 2001b: Table 11), which should be interpreted in light of changing methods of data collection. This trend is indicative of the progressive integration of farm and off-farm sectors reflected in the allocation of household labour to external activities.

Off-farm Contributions to Total Operator and Family Income There is growing interest in the relative proportion (i.e., share) of total farm operator or total family income that is attributable to off-farm sources. Bollman and Smith (1987) have analysed the relationship between the increasing amounts of time or labour allocated to off-farm work and the growing share of income reported from such sources. This line of inquiry sheds light on the interconnectedness of the farm sector with off-farm capital and labour markets. However, wages or salaries represent only one of several categories of off-farm income. Statistics Canada publishes estimates of the amounts of total operator and total family income derived from net farm and off-farm origins. This method of disaggregating total income follows a broad definition of "off-farm income" that includes (Statistics Canada, 2002a: 3; 2002b: 5):

** "off-farm employment income": a) "wages and salaries"; b) "net nonfarm self-employment,"

** "investment income,"

** "pension income," and

** "other off-farm income" (e.g., income stabilization payments).

Off-farm income has grown steadily in importance relative to net farm income for operators and farm families. "In the 1940s, net farm income represented 90% of their [farmers'] total income, but fell as low as 52% by the early 1980s" (Bollman and Smith, 1987: 157). This pattern of increasing reliance on off-farm income is reflected in recent estimates from Statistics Canada's Taxation Data Program. Between 1993 and 2000, off-farm income, calculated as a share of average total operator income, increased from 52.3% to 56.1% (Ministry of Industry, 2001: 11; Statistics Canada, 2002b: 5). In 2000, over one half of operators' average off-farm income (56.3%) was derived from wages and salaries, followed by investment (15.9%) and pension income (14.3%) (Statistics Canada, 2002b: 5). In keeping with the trend identified in operator-based financial data, researchers have noted escalating levels of off-farm income among farm families. In 1965, the overall proportion of family income received from off-farm sources varied between 35% and 54% (depending on the definition of a farm family); by 1989, this range was 54% to 77% (Fuller and Bollman, 1992: 251). A similar pattern is evident between 1990 and 1999, with the percentage of total (average) family income derived from off-farm sources increasing from 67.9% to 73.0% (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2002b: 6). This growing reliance on off-farm income can represent an important aspect of farm household survival (or sustainability) during times of declining net farm incomes and increasing financial stress.

Time and Labour Allocation to On- and Off-farm Activities Historical census information has assisted researchers' efforts to trace farm family members' involvement in diverse employment activities. Bollman and Smith (1988) have used Agriculture-Population Linkage data to explore the distribution of household labour (spouses, children, or other members) across agricultural and non-agricultural pursuits. Information collected via the 1996 and the 2001 Censuses of Agriculture indicates that off-farm participation rates tend to decline as time allocated to the agricultural operation increases. In 1995, 69.4% of operators averaging 20 or fewer hours of weekly on-farm work reported some form of off-farm activity (paid employment or non-farm-related business activity), as compared to only 26.0% of those allocating 40 or more hours per week to the farm enterprise (Cloutier, 2001: 7-8). Further, of the total number of operators involved in off-farm activities in 2000, 40.0% contributed 20 or fewer hours per week, on average, to agricultural pursuits, 34.9% worked 20 to 40 hours, while the remaining 25.1% allocated over 40 hours per week to on-farm activities (Statistics Canada, 200la: Table 7). Cloutier (2001: 7) notes that "Dividing their time between two or more professional activities is common for farmers."

Census information collected over the past 60 years or so points to escalating levels of operator and household involvement in off-farm labour markets. The movement toward household- rather than operator-level analyses of pluriactivity has provided a more comprehensive view of all members' contributions and, in particular, the on- and off-farm activities of farm women (McCoy and Filson, 1996). Further, historical data indicate that a growing share of total operator and total family income is derived from off-farm as compared to net farm sources. These trends illustrate the progressive integration of rural and urban sectors but, more importantly, they reinforce the perception that farm-household sustainability is related to the capacity to diversify on- and off-farm livelihood strategies. This latter issue is noteworthy given that pluriactivity, which was earlier considered a temporary aberration within the global restructuring of agriculture, is now being represented as a relatively stable adaptive strategy supporting family-based farming enterprises.

Part-time Farming Typologies

In the late 1950s, American rural sociologists began to interpret part-time farming "in terms of a variable or set of groups rather than a single category" (Fuguitt, 1961: 40). Early typological research by Donohue (1957: 223) focussed on classificatory factors such as time allocations, commitment to and interest in off-farm work, and "the economic relationship" of the off-farm activity to the agricultural operation. Mage (1976) pursued the task of identifying distinctive part-time farming situations in Ontario using a method that was replicated in Manitoba, some 25 years later, by Bessant (2000). Barlett's (1991) work on this topic (Georgia, USA) is noteworthy in that she typologized several core motivations underlying multiple jobholding (i.e., "paths"). However, Mage (1976: 34) laid the groundwork for constructing typologies based on a combination of objective (i.e., socio-economic characteristics of "the farmer and farm family and structural attributes of the farm") and subjective variables (i.e., "motives, aspirations and needs"). Several oft-mentioned part-time farming situations describe contexts in which:

* individuals pursue off-farm work with the intention of making the transition into "full-time" farming, that is, in order to generate the capital needed to expand the agricultural operation (what Mage [1976: 27] labelled the "aspiring" type);

* operators are obliged to take up off-farm employment due to financial exigencies or aversive conditions in agriculture (Barlett's [1991: 51] "transitional" path);

* farm and off-farm activities are combined in order to support a desired livelihood or "way of life" ( called "farming-working farmers" by Donohue [1957: 223]);

* individuals live on small agricultural holdings or acreages but rely mainly on off-farm income to maintain their household livelihoods--commonly termed "hobby" farmers);

* one or more members of the farm household, typically of retirement or pre-retirement age, work off the farm while downsizing the operation (Bessant's [2000: 272] "small-scale retirement" type).

Recently, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC, 2002a: 3) has proposed a seven-fold farm typology including pension or retirement, lifestyle and low-income categories, as well as small, medium, large and very large operations. Beaulieu and Di Pietro (2003) have applied the AAFC classification system to farm financial data. The authors note the growing share of farm family income derived from off-farm sources but go on to discuss how this general trend varies by farm type. During the 1990s, reliance on off-farm income remained relatively stable, although high, among pension, small, and lifestyle farms, that is, approximately 80%, 90%, and 100%, respectively (Beaulieu and Di Pietro, 2003: 9). Medium-sized operations reported a significant increase (14%) in the proportion of total family income derived from off-farm sources between 1990 and 1999. Off-farm income also increased quite markedly among low-income farms over this same time period (Beaulieu and Di Pietro, 2003: 9).

Typological method has proven useful in identifying commonalities of intention, lifestyle and livelihood among the diverse socio-economic arrangements of pluriactive farm households. Increasing levels of off-farm activity, along with a growing presence across varying farm types, have obliged rural social scientists to explore alternative interpretive frameworks. Research on farm typologies has reinforced the view that pluriactive households "cover a wide range of different adjustment patterns" (Jervell, 1999: 104). Indeed, individuals and households are constantly adjusting their lives and livelihoods to accommodate a myriad of micro- and macrolevel factors that intersect behind and beyond "the farm gate."

Differential Off-farm Employment Motivations

In spite of long-standing interest in off-farm employment, relatively few researchers have explored the broad range of issues motivating pluriactivity. For a large portion of the twentieth century, pluriactivity was, and to some extent still is, considered a response to financial exigencies. Barlett (1986; 1991) was one of the first authors to investigate the complex overlay of economic, personal, career and lifestyle factors influencing individuals to pursue off-farm employment. She discusses the interplay of needs, goals and attitudes in rural families' decisions to combine a farm with outside employment. Barlett (1986: 303) identifies a number of income- and lifestyle-related motivations that represent "an interrelated series of benefits that offset risk, worry, expense, and hard work of farming." Her research has been instrumental in expanding the analysis of pluriactivity to include both economic and lifestyle considerations, that is, "the desire to maintain or supplement family income and a preference for rural living" (Bollman and Smith, 1988: 199).

Bessant and Monu (2001) have extended earlier work on part-time farming motives through a study conducted in southern and central Manitoba. Their research is based on semi-structured interviews with female and male operators of approximately 400 farm households. One aspect of the project involved asking respondents to rate the importance of 18 factors on their decisions to pursue off-farm employment: for example, farm finances, operational constraints and personal goals, as well as occupational, career-related and lifestyle considerations. The authors report that male operators expressed somewhat greater concern over matters of farm financial need than their female counterparts. Farm women, by comparison, ascribed higher levels of importance to career- or lifestyle-related issues such as making use of training or skills, enjoying off-farm work, and paying for children's post-secondary education. However, Bessant and Monu's (2001) findings demonstrate the highly varied and overlapping nature of women's and men's reasons for participating in off-farm labour markets. The diverse motivational bases of pluriactivity are related to the internal functioning of the farm household unit (labour allocation processes and livelihood strategies), the nature of environmental or contextual factors (socio-cultural, economic and political), and the broader issues of diversification and sustainability.

The discussion of differential motives raises the importance of examining "the gender dimensions of livelihood diversity" (Ellis, 2000: 139). Sociologists commonly analyse gender in terms of a range of concepts or processes such as power, decision-making, resource ownership and inequality, all of which are pertinent to the interpretation of pluriactivity. Gender roles are intertwined with individual- and household-level decisions concerning the allocation of labour to farm and non-farm activities. Friedmann (1986) has discussed how women assist the survival of family farming in times of economic downturn or significant competition from capitalist agriculture. On this point, Lobao and Meyer (1995: 575-76) have examined the "gendered patterns of work in the farm enterprise, household, and paid employment" within the Midwestern United States during the 1980s farm crisis. The authors conclude that "the type of response to macroeconomic conditions is contingent on the gendered nature of positions" (Lobao and Meyer, 1995: 601). The SRL framework recognizes that women's and men's livelihood strategies can differ "not only corresponding to gender-defined division of agricultural tasks, but also with respect to domestic roles, cash-earning opportunities, and responsibility for protecting the welfare of children in the face of adverse external events" (Ellis, 2000: 27).

A Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach to Pluriactive Farm Households

Early research on pluriactivity focussed primarily on "main" operators' off-farm work and very often excluded women's and children's contributions to the farm household and the farm operation. Fuguitt (1976: 58) noted this issue some years ago and recommended that pluriactivity be studied within the context of "the farm family as a social and economic unit." The farm household represents "one of the basic units of human social organization" (Clay and Schwarzweller, 1991: 1) and, as such, is central to the interpretation of livelihood strategies. Increasingly, researchers analyse pluriactivity in conjunction with household decision-making and resourceallocation processes (e.g., time, labour and other assets). Diaz and Gingrich (1989) have explored the survival strategies that family members employ in an effort to maintain (or improve) their life conditions and, in the process, sustain the farm operation over time. The focus on the farm (family) household unit generates a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay among internal and external processes, for example, assets, production, consumption, livelihood strategies, and environmental constraints and opportunities.

The central thesis of this paper is that an SRL framework affords an integrated understanding of the many livelihood systems, processes and strategies operating at the farm household level. Table 1 depicts, in general terms, how an SRL approach can be applied to pluriactive farm households in Canadian agriculture. The table is organized around the five main elements of the Department for International Development (DFID) sustainable livelihoods framework (see Carney, 1998). What follows is a brief discussion of the concepts livelihood, diversification, resilience and sustainability, all of which have been used in some form to analyse pluriactivity.

In basic terms, livelihood refers to "a means of gaining a living" or, more specifically, it:</p> <pre> comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term (Chambers and Conway, 1992: 6). </pre> <p>This definition suggests that sustainable livelihoods are achieved by combining available resources and options in the pursuit of diverse adaptive or coping strategies. There is a clear emphasis placed on the ability to adjust to shocks and strains that threaten the survival of the farm household and/or the farm operation. The identification of assets, at either the individual or the household level, is central to livelihoods analysis. Although the following list is not exhaustive, it illustrates the potential range of endowments used to generate livelihood strategies.

* Natural capital: "natural resource stocks," for example, land or soil, water, air, biodiversity and "environmental services" (Scoones, 1998: 7);

* Physical capital: basic infrastructural elements or physical assets such as the buildings, equipment, transportation and technology associated with production processes (Carney, 1998: 7; Ellis, 2000: 32);

* Human capital: "skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health" needed to pursue livelihood strategies (Scoones, 1998: 8);

* Economic or financial capital: "financial resources" such as cash, savings, credit and regular remittances to which households have access (Carney, 1998: 7; Ellis, 2000: 34);

* Social capital: "social resources" derived from relationships, networks, affiliations and associations (Scoones, 1998: 8).

The SRL framework is relevant to the analysis of pluriactive farm households in that it draws attention to a) the array of capital assets available to or provided by all members of the farm household unit and b) the many ways in which these resources can be translated into livelihood strategies and outcomes.

Scoones (1998: 8) observes that "livelihoods are composed in complex ways, with multiple and dynamic portfolios of different activities." This statement implies another core component of livelihoods analysis, that is, diversification. Diversification is not a new concept; for some time now, agricultural economists and rural sociologists have explored the varied bases of on-farm and off-farm diversification. However, Ellis (1998: 2) claims that the notion of diversification as a survival strategy has not found favour within conventional discussions of "sectors, specialisation and transition." He defines rural livelihood diversification "as the process by which rural households construct an increasingly diverse portfolio of activities and assets in order to survive and to improve their standard of living" (Ellis, 2000: 15). Livelihood diversification is noteworthy in that it draws attention to the evolving relationship between non-farm activities or income and structural changes in agriculture. Evans and Ilbery (1993: 945) argue that the restructuring of agriculture has forced family farming units to diversify "activities as part of a survival or accumulation strategy." It is the variety of assets and the complexity of their arrangement that is most pertinent to understanding pluriactivity within farm family households. Loyns and Kraut (1992: 594) describe part-time farming as "a particular form of diversification" or "self-stabilized farm enterprise." Both Fuller (1991) and Ellis (2000) note the importance of understanding the motivations underlying pluriactivity and diversification in terms of necessity or survival versus opportunity or choice. Diversification is not simply a fleeting response to adverse conditions but rather a more broadly based strategy for improving livelihood security and raising living standards. Livelihood diversification, of which income diversification is one component, is closely related to the SRL concepts of vulnerability, resilience and sustainability.

For Chambers and Conway (1992), the sustainability of livelihoods includes two interrelated components. Social sustainability concerns the household's capacity to gain and maintain an adequate livelihood in face of external pressures (i.e., resilience), whereas environmental sustainability relates to the preservation or enhancement of resources supporting one's own and others' livelihoods, now and in the future. "Sustainability is thus a function of how assets and capital are utilised, maintained and enhanced so as to preserve livelihoods" (Chambers and Conway, 1992: 9). Further, Ahmed and Lipton (1997: 7) contend that "Flexibility of households' livelihoods determines the type of strategies that rural households adopt and how they respond to change." Pederson, Lazarus and Nagarajan (2000: 2) have explored the various ways in which Minnesota farmers adjusted to "economic adversity" in the 1990s (e.g., production and price shocks). The authors conclude that producers "altered their production plans in order to diversify their production risks, reduced their operating costs and household expenses, and engaged in off-farm revenue-generating activities" (Pederson, Lazarus and Nagarajan, 2000: 26). This research illustrates the importance of understanding how household responses, asset management and livelihood diversification can impact the survival of family-based agriculture (see Marsden, 1990). Farm operators routinely make adjustments to a wide range of internal and external factors: environmental uncertainties, market volatility, structural disadvantages and diminishing returns. However, the human-familial "costs" associated with maintaining such activities will figure in the long-term sustainability of pluriactive livelihoods and lifestyles.

Concluding Remarks

Structural, technological and economic changes have been identified as major factors "forcing" operators "either to get large, get out of farming, or get off-farm work to survive" (Gebremedhin, 1991: 204). Although this statement offers a somewhat simplistic view of pluriactivity, it points to the complex array of micro- and macro-level structures and processes influencing farm-household livelihood systems. Albrecht and Murdock (1984: 407) state "Developing policies to promote part-time farming may be one of the most effective means of maintaining agricultural production and a viable farm population in an area." Remarks of this sort are not unusual given the ongoing concern over the sustainability of farm households and rural livelihoods. However, Kinsella, Wilson, de Jong and Renting (2000: 482) suggest that the persistence of pluriactivity cannot adequately be interpreted as "an economic adaptation strategy" to aversive conditions in agriculture. Barlett (1986) has expanded the analytical field to include both economic and non-economic motivations such as farm financial need, personal development, career aspirations and family lifestyle considerations. Her work represents pluriactivity as an adaptive livelihood strategy for sustaining the family farm and the rural lifestyle.

Much of the previous research on pluriactivity has proven fragmentary, often focussing on its empirical bases, for example, the historical trends concerning operator involvement in off-farm labour markets or the share of total farm family income derived from off-farm sources. However, the relative presence and persistence of pluriactivity across a widening spectrum of farm operations has provoked the search for a more comprehensive interpretation of this highly complex phenomenon. Pluriactivity was viewed initially as a temporary and somewhat inconsequential by-product of the restructuring of agriculture, most notably in terms of facilitating the transition either into or out of farming. It was equated routinely with small operations that relied on outside income to sustain the agricultural enterprise and the household livelihood. Early linkages to "insufficient" or marginal operations have given way to a much broader understanding of the ubiquity and the relative stability of pluriactive farm livelihoods and lifestyles. The process of reconceptualizingpart-time farming in terms of multiple jobholding and, more recently, pluriactivity, reflects a growing awareness of the range of off- (or non-) farm activities, the diverse asset structures within the farm household, and the importance of analysing pluriactivity in terms of livelihood diversification and sustainability frameworks. Diaz and Gingrich (1989) argue that the concept of (household) survival strategies takes into account the multifaceted nature of human existence. SRL concepts and processes are well suited to the analysis of pluriactivity among Canadian farm households: for example, vulnerability contexts, livelihoods, diversification, resilience and sustainability. In the final analysis, pluriactivity can be examined more thoroughly within the context of a framework that integrates both the internal dynamics and externalities impacting the farm household unit.

Application to Farm Households

* Export markets and international commodity prices

* Changing food preferences and food safety issues

* Losses due to livestock or crop disease

* Seasonal changes in production input costs

* Fluctuating capital needs, lending rates, fiscal matters

* Off-farm employment opportunities

* Availability, cost and quality of land, buildings, machinery and other physical assets for farm operation and household

* Family or non-family-based time and labour costs

* Marketable skills and knowledge

* Access to education, training and health services

* Household decision-making dynamics

* Agricultural policies and programs (e.g., direct transfers, product subsidies, stabilization payments)

* Farm financial lending policies (private and public)

* Farm diversification: product types, manufacturing, value-added processing, marketing strategies, scale or level of intensification/extensification

* Off- (or non-) farm salaried or wage employment

* Self-employment and other entrepreneurial activities

* Household risk management strategies

* Increased total household income

* More resilient, self-sustaining agricultural operation

* Household livelihood and lifestyle security

References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2002a. Characteristics of Canada's Diverse Farm Sector. Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and Minister of Agriculture and AgriFood Canada. http://www.agr.gc.ca/spb/fiap-dpraa/publications/typolog/ pb2109_e.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2003.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2002b. Profile of the 1999 Taxfiler Farm Family Data. Ottawa: Farm Income and Adaptation Policy Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. http://www.agr.gc.ca/spb/fiap-dpraa/publications/txfrm/ 1999tx-prfl/99tx-fam-e.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2003.

Ahmed, I.I. and M. Lipton. 1997. Impact of Structural Adjustment on Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Review of the Literature. Institute of Development Studies Working Paper 62. Brighton: University of Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/ wp/wp62.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec. 2002.

Albrecht, D.E. and S.H. Murdock. 1984. "Toward a human ecological perspective on part-time farming." Rural Sociology, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 389-411.

Albrecht, D.E. and S.H. Murdock. 1988. "The structural characteristics of U.S. agriculture: Historical patterns and precursors of producers' adaptations to the crisis." In The Farm Financial Crisis: Socioeconomic Dimensions and Implications for Producers and Rural Areas. S.H. Murdock and F.L Leistritz (eds.). Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, pp. 2944.

Ashley, C. and D. Carney. 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early Experience. London: Department for International Development. http://www.livelihoods.org/ info/docs/nreade.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2004.

Barlett, P.F. 1986. "Part-time farming: Saving the farm or saving the life-style?" Rural Sociology, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 289-313.

Barlett, P.F. 1991. "Motivations of part-time farmers." In Multiple Job-holding among Farm Families. M.C. Hallbert, J.L. Findeis and D.A. Lass (eds.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, pp. 45-70.

Barrett, C.B., T. Reardon and P Webb. 2001. Nonfarm Income Diversification and Household Livelihood Strategies in Rural Africa: Concepts, Dynamics, and Policy Implications. Working Paper Series. Center for the Study of Inequality, Cornell University. http://www.inequatity.com/publications/working_papers/ Barrett-Reardon-Webb_IntroFinal.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec. 2002.

Beaulieu, S. and L. Di Pietro. 2003. "Canadian farm families more dependent on off-farm income." Vista on the Agri-food Industry and the Farm Community, March, pp. 8-18. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Catalogue No. 21-004-XPB.

Bessant, K.C. 2000. "Part-time farming situations among Manitoba farm operators: A typological approach." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 259-77.

Bessant, K.C. and E.D. Monu. 2001. "Motivational and attitudinal correlates of female and male farm operators' off-farm employment in agro-Manitoba." Prairie Forum, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 107-18.

Bollman, R.D. and P. Smith. 1987. "The changing role of off-farm income in Canada." In Proceedings: Canadian Agricultural Outlook Conference. Ottawa: Agriculture Canada, pp. 155-66.

Bollman, R.D. and P Smith. 1988. "Integration of Canadian farm and off-farm markets and the off-farm work of farm women, men, and children." In The Political Economy of Agriculture in Western Canada. G.S. Basran and D.A. Hay (eds.). Toronto: Garamond Press, pp. 185-202.

Brooks, N.L., T.A. Stucker and J.A. Bailey. 1986. "Income and well-being of farmers and the farm financial crisis." Rural Sociology, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 391-405.

Bryceson, D.F. 2000. "Disappearing peasantries? Rural labour redundancy in the neo-liberal era and beyond." In Disappearing Peasantries? Rural labour in Africa, Asia and Latin America. D. Bryceson, C. Kay and J. Mooij (eds.). London: Intermediate Technology Development Group, pp. 299-326.

Buttel, F.H. and O.W Larson III. 1982. "Political implications of multiple jobholding in U.S. agriculture: An exploratory analysis." Rural Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 272-94.

Carney, D. 1998. "Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach." In Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? D. Carney (ed.). London: Department for International Development, pp. 3-23.

Carney, D. 2002. Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and Possibilities for Change. London: Department for International Development. http://www.livelihoods.org/ info/docs/SLA_Progress.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2004.

Chambers, R. and G.R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: University of Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/dp/dp296.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec. 2002.

Clay, D.C. and H. K. Schwarzweller. 1991. "Introduction: Researching household strategies." In Research in Rural Sociology and Development: Household Strategies. Vol. 5. D.C. Clay and H.K. Schwarzweller (eds.). London: JAI Press Inc., pp. 1-10.

Cloutier, S. 2001. Working Time: How Do Farmers Juggle with It and How Has It Impacted Their Family Total Income? Agriculture and Rural Working Paper Series No. 51. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, Catalogue No. 21-601-MIE. http://www.statcan.ca/ english/research/21-601-MIE/21-601-MIE2001051.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec. 2002.

Davila-Villers, D.R. 1997. "Three Mexicos in the new rural economy--International integration/domestic, disintegration." In NAFTA and the New Rural Economy: International Perspectives. Canadian Rural Restructuring Foundation. ARRG Working Papers Series Number 10. R. Rounds (ed.). Brandon: Rural Development Institute, Brandon University, pp. 1-11.

Department for International Development. 2001. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: DFID. http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html. Accessed 15 March 2004.

Devereux, S. 1999. "Making Less Last Longer': Informal Safety Nets in Malawi. Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 373. Brighton: University of Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/dp/dp373.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2004.

Diaz, P. and P Gingrich. 1989. Survival Strategies in Saskatchewan. Paper presented to the Canadian Association of Rural Studies, Universite Laval, June 1989.

Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 1947. Eighth Census of Canada-1941-Agriculture. Vol. VIII. Part I. Ottawa: Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty and Controller of Stationery.

Donohue, G.A. 1957. "Full-time and part-time farmers' value orientations toward social institutions." Rural Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 221-29.

Ellis, F. 1998. "Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification." The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1-38.

Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Evans, N.J. and B.W. Ilbery. 1993. "The pluriactivity, part-time farming, and farm diversification debate." Environment and Planning A, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp. 945-59.

Filson, G.C. 2004a. "Social implications of intensive agriculture." In Intensive Agriculture and Sustainability: A Farming Systems Analysis. G.C. Filson (ed.). Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 34-50.

Filson, G.C. 2004b. "Developing predictive and summative indicators to model farming systems components." In Intensive Agriculture and Sustainability: A Farming Systems Analysis. G.C. Filson (ed.). Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 67-80.

Friedmann, H. 1978. "World market, state, and family farm: Social bases of household production in the era of wage labor." Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 545-86.

Friedmann, H. 1986. "Patriarchy and property: A reply to Goodman and Redclift." Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 186-93.

Fuguitt, G.V. 1961. "A typology of the part-time farmer." Rural Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 39-48.

Fuguitt, G.V. 1976. "Critique." In Part-time Farming: Problem or Resource in Rural Development. Proceedings of the First Rural Geography Symposium. A.M. Fuller and J.A. Mage (eds.). Guelph: Department of Geography, University of Guelph, pp. 57-62.

Fuller, A.M. 1976. "The problems of part-time farming conceptualised." In Part-time Farming: Problem or Resource in Rural Development. Proceedings of the First Rural Geography Symposium. A.M. Fuller and J.A. Mage (eds.). Guelph: Department of Geography, University of Guelph, pp. 38-56.

Fuller, A.M. 1990. "From part-time farming to pluriactivity: A decade of change in rural Europe." Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 361-73.

Fuller, A.M. 1991. "Multiple job-holding among farm families in Canada." In Multiple Jobholding among Farm Families. M.C. Hallbert, J.L. Findeis and D.A. Lass (eds.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, pp. 31-44.

Fuller, A.M. and R.D. Bollman. 1992. "Farm family linkages to the non-farm sector: The role of off-farm income of farm families." In Rural and Small Town Canada. R.D. Bollman (ed.). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing Inc., pp. 245-67.

Gebremedhin, T.G. 1991. "Off-farm employment participation in Louisiana: An analysis of survey results." In Multiple Job-holding Among Farm Families. M.C. Hallbert, J.L. Findeis and D.A. Lass (eds.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, pp. 203-12.

Jervell, A.M. 1999. "Changing patterns in family farming and pluriactivity." Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 100-16.

Kinsella, J., S. Wilson, F. de Jong and H. Renting. 2000. "Pluriactivity as a livelihood strategy in Irish farm households and its role in rural development." Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 481-96.

Lobao, L. and K. Meyer. 1995. "Economic decline, gender, and labor flexibility in family-based enterprises: Midwestern farming in the 1980s." Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 575-608.

Loyns, R.M.A. and M. Kraut. 1992. "The family farm in the next decade: The positive role of part-time farming." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 591-604.

Mage, J.A. 1976. "A typology of part-time farming." In Part-time Farming: Problem or Resource in Rural Development. Proceedings of the First Rural Geography Symposium. A.M. Fuller and J.A. Mage (eds.). Guelph: Department of Geography, University of Guelph, pp. 6-37.

Marsden, T. 1990. "Towards the political economy of pluriactivity." Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 375-82.

Marx, K. [1867] 1912. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume 1. The Process of Capitalist Production. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company.

McCoy, M. and G. Filson. 1996. "Working off the farm: Impacts on quality of life." Social Indicators Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 149-63.

McLaughlin, P. 1998. "Rethinking the agrarian question: The limits of essentialism and the promise of evolutionism." Human Ecology Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 25-39.

Melvin, B.L. 1954. "The place of the part-time farmer." Rural Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 281-86.

Ministry of Industry. 2001. "Economic overview of farm incomes: All farms." Bulletin Series, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-26. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 21-005-XIE. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/ 21-005-XIE/21-005XIE00101.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec. 2002.

Newby, H., D. Rose, P. Saunders and C. Bell. 1981. "Farming for survival: The small farmer in the contemporary rural class structure." In The Petite Bourgeoisie: Comparative Studies of the Uneasy Stratum. F. Bechhofer and B. Elliott (eds.). London: The MacMillan Press Ltd., pp. 38-70.

Pederson, G., W. Lazarus and L. Nagarajan. 2000. Farm Sustainability and Survival in Minnesota's Red River Valley: Lessons From the Adaptive Strategies of Farmers. Department of Applied Economics, The University of Minnesota. Staff Paper P00-05. http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/mn/p00-05.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2003.

Reimer, B. 1996. A Whole Rural Policy for Canada. Submission to the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources for its Study on Natural Resources and Rural Economic Development by The Canadian Rural Restructuring Foundation. http://nre.concordia.ca/_ftp2004/reports/whole4.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb. 2005.

Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. Institute of Development Studies Working Paper 72. Brighton: University of Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp72.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec. 2002.

Statistics Canada. 2001a. Census of Agriculture 2001. Table 7 Farm Operators by Non-farm Work and Selected Variables, Canada and Provinces, 2001. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95FO355XIE/tables/html/optab07.htm. Accessed 18 Dec. 2002.

Statistics Canada. 2001b. Census of Agriculture 2001. Table 11-- Farm Operators by Number per Farm and Selected Variables, Canada and Provinces, 1991-2001. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95F0355XIE/tables/html/ optab11.htm. Accessed 18 Dec. 2002.

Statistics Canada. 2002a. "Farm families' total income, 1999." The Daily, June 3, pp. 2-3. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry Catalogue No. 11-001E. http://www.statcan.ca/ cgibin/DAILY/daily.cgi?m=06&y=2002&s=monthly. Accessed 20 Dec. 2002.

Statistics Canada. 2002b. "Farm operators' total income, 2000." The Daily, July 3, pp. 4-5. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry, Catalogue No. 11-001E. http://www.statcan.ca/ cgibin/DAILY/daily.cgi?m=06&y=2002&s=monthly. Accessed 20 Dec. 2002.

Statistics Canada. 2004. Total Income of Farm Operators. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-019-XIE/2004004/operators.htm. Accessed 5 Feb. 2005.

Thorner, D., B. Kerblay and R.E.F. Smith. (eds.). 1966. A.V. Chayanov on the Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Vorley, B. 2001. The Chains of Agriculture: Sustainability and the Restructuring of Agri-food Markets. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. http://www.iied.org/docs/wssd/bp_foodag_ftxt.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan. 2005.

Vorley, B. 2002. Sustaining Agriculture: Policy, Governance, and the Future of Family-based Farming. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. http://www.iied.org/sarl/pubs/policieswork.html. Accessed 25 Jan. 2005.

* This manuscript was first submitted in July 2004 and accepted in October 2005. Contact: bessant@brandonu.ca.

(1.) The expression Sustainable Rural Livelihoods is used here rather than Sustainable Livelihoods because of the paper's focus on pluriactive farm households.

(2.) The descriptors "off-farm" and "non-farm" are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature. However, the former term connotes a somewhat narrower classification of income earned or activities carried out, locationally speaking, off the farm (i.e., either agricultural or non-agricultural). "Nonfarm," by comparison, refers more generally to revenue not derived directly from the farm enterprise, for example, wages or salaries, support payments, pension benefits, interest income and auxiliary entrepreneurial activities, regardless of location (see Barrett, Reardon and Webb, 2001: 4-8).

(3.) Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Users are forbidden to copy the data and redisseminate them, in an original or modified form, for commercial purposes without the expressed permission of Statistics Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from Statistics Canada's Regional Offices, its Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1 800 263-1136.

KENNETH C. BESSANT Brandon University

Table 1
Application of a Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL) Framework
to Pluriactive Farm Households

SRL Framework
Component                      Definitional Attributes

Vulnerability   * Comprises an array of situational or environmental
Context           conditions within which households set priorities
                  and establish livelihood goals (e.g., trends and
                  shocks)

                * Impacts "people's asset status and the options that
                  are open to them in pursuit of beneficial livelihood
                  outcomes" (DFID, 2001: Section 2.2)

Livelihood      * Constitute core elements of SRL analysis (Ellis,
Resourcesand      2000)
Assets
                * "Livelihood building blocks" (DFID, 2001: Section
                  2.3)

                * Include social, economic, physical, natural, and
                  social capital endowments that are often combined in
                  the process of gaining an adequate livelihood

Processes       * "Institutions, organisations, policies and
and               legislation that shape livelihoods" (DFID, 2001:
Structures        Section 2.4)

                * Impact access, opportunities, and benefits

                * Represent a critical linkage between micro- and
                  macro-level system interactions

Livelihood      * "Composed of activities that generate the means of
Strategies        household survival" (Ellis, 2000: 40)

                * Can include a range of short-term coping strategies
                  and long-term adaptive strategies

                * Collectively termed a livelihood portfolio

                * Can take varying "pathways" (Scoones, 1995: 9)

Livelihood      * Represent the achievements or outputs of livelihood
Outcomes          strategies (e.g., greater income, improved
                  well-being, reduced vulnerability, and increased
                  sustainability)

Note: SRL framework components derived from the Department for
International Development (DFID, 2001), Ellis (2000) and Scoones
(1998).