1

Rethinking rural futures: qualitative scenarios for reflexive regional

development

Subsequently published as:

Measham, T.G. Darbas, T., Williams R., and Taylor, B. (2012) Rethinking rural

futures: qualitative scenarios for reflexive regional development. Rural Society.

Vol 21(3) pp 176-189 http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/rsj.2012.21.3.176

Keywords: community development, rurality, globalisation, reflexivity

Abstract

A key question for rural regions concerns the extent to which they can shape their own

future. Addressing this issue in any given location inevitably involves defining regional

aspirations in the face of global pressures. To navigate this nexus of endogenous and

exogenous factors, we emphasise the role of informed dialogue in place-specific

contexts, where both the possible contributions of science and the values held by local

participants are openly discussed. In this paper we present an overview of the

theoretical underpinnings of this action research approach, followed by a case study

application in Apollo Bay, Victoria. This case study made use of qualitative scenarios

to underpin discussion regarding the future of the region, in particular reconsideration of

the focus on township expansion for survival. We suggest that evaluation has a strong

role to play in a dialogic research process. Evaluation can bring insights from

participatory scenario development to the surface and can encourage the identification

2

of factors that enabled and disabled learning. The development of our approach raised a

number of issues that are discussed here yet could be fruitfully researched further. The

first is the extent to which place – in terms of amenity, identity and resources –

materially shapes the options for regional development. The second is the role

institutions operating at multiple scales play in addressing those options.

Introduction

The forces of change affecting Australia’s regional communities include the shifting

demographics of in- and out-migration, volatile boom and bust economic cycles, as well

as changing tourism interests and service needs. At the global scale, a suite of issues are

at play. These include urbanisation, the industrialisation of agriculture, climate change

and net population increase. Though the challenges faced by rural communities are well

recognised by both researchers and communities, they continue to reconfigure rural

regions. Theoretical critiques of regional policies have been largely framed in terms of

the shrinking state and prevalence of self-help ideologies, yet it remains to be seen how

these critiques assist rural communities to progress towards regional sustainability.

Furthermore, these exogenous forces of change express themselves at the regional scale

in varied ways. Therefore the flow of people, resources and capital presents distinct

challenges and opportunities for each community, with the effect that some townships

face rapid transition while others stand still or decline.

The extent and complexity of exogenous drivers raises a key question for rural

regions concerning local agency (Gray & Lawrence, 2001). Specifically, to what extent

can regional communities shape their own future to address challenges and harness

opportunities arising from forces that issue from larger scales? In this paper we

3

consider the literature on this issue, which draws attention to the recent dominance in

Australia of neo-liberal policies which have focused on self-help and survival of the

fittest (Cheshire, 2006; Cheshire & Lawrence, 2005; Collits, 2006; Gray & Lawrence,

2001; Lawrence, 2005). Neo-liberal policy, inaugurated by the floating of the Australian

dollar in 1983, has seen the withdrawal of economic and welfare subsidies in favour of

exposure of industries and communities to domestic and international market forces.

Yet it would be misleading to imply that rural communities are entirely at the whim of

global forces. Empirical cases remind us that regional communities demonstrate

determination to realise their own futures. In the face of globalisation, a focus on

comparative advantage – harnessing those characterises which distinguish rural regions

from each other – can be effective. For example, the local initiative taken by the remote

agricultural community of Guyra in northern NSW led to what is known locally as a

‘tomato-led recovery’ (Brien, 2008). Due to the particular climate and elevation of this

region, it was perfectly suited for the development of a five-hectare greenhouse which is

a significant local employer and represents the largest tomato farm of this type in the

country. However, there are limits to the comparative advantage argument. The unique

features of a region may not always serve to their advantage. An alternative emphasis

(which can also be said of the Guyra success story) might build on a location’s history

in a way which is sensitive to regional identity and sense of place (Argent et al., 2009).

The potential for rural regions to respond to exogenous forces by shaping their

future is influenced not only by how global drivers manifest locally but also by local

science questions and the aspirations of local communities, and the capacity of local

institutions to achieve a workable community vision in the face of competing local

priorities and a limited information base. To navigate this nexus of endogenous and

4

exogenous factors, we argue for the importance of informed dialogue where both the

possible contributions of science and the values held by local participants are openly

discussed. By no means do we claim that this approach will resolve all local tensions,

nor guarantee a smooth journey in every case. Rather, we argue that it will help regional

communities to identify, understand and consider the options available based on best

available research, as well as facilitate agreement upon the most promising scenario

upon which to focus their efforts. In the context of this paper, we conceptualise

scenarios as a structured set of alternative narratives about a community’s future (Foran,

2010), that explicitly integrate normative and descriptive1 aspects (Biggs et al., 2010,

Bohnet, 2010). In this sense, they align with a distinguishing aspect of the ‘transition

scenarios’ discussed by Sondeijker et al. (2006, p. 26) in that ‘they map a possibility

space…within the boundaries of long-term sustainability (normative)’.

Our approach to addressing global challenges at the regional community scale is

grounded in the theory of communicative action (Habermas, 1984; Forester, 1995) and

on the practice of social learning (Keen et al., 2005). We also emphasise the use of

evaluation to support this dialogue and learning (Measham, 2009). Judiciously

employed, evaluation can assist participants to recognise their individual learning and

synthesise these lessons to construct a wider understanding not only of the challenges

faced by rural regions, but also fruitful ways to respond.

The paper proceeds with a review of literature concerned with the regional

expression of global drivers and the different ways this has been represented in

Australia. The literature review establishes the conceptual basis for addressing regional

1 i.e. not based on social preferences

5

challenges through dialogue in place-specific rural contexts. This is followed by a case

study of empirical research in the Victorian town of Apollo Bay, where the authors

applied the principle of articulating the challenges and aspirations facing a given region

through qualitative scenario workshops. Finally, the paper demonstrates the use of

evaluation processes, not only to assess the effectiveness of interventions, but also as a

mechanism to consolidate the reflexive process of critically rethinking directions for

addressing regional challenges.

Why dialogue? Insights from the literature

Gray and Lawrence aptly define globalisation as ‘a process through which space and

time are compressed by technology, information flows, trade and power relations

allowing distant [global] actions to have increased significance at the local (regional)

level’ (2001:ix). In terms of national economic strategies these new rules have framed

commitments to liberalise trade and commodity markets including the removal of

tariffs, embedding a mantra of competitiveness and encouraging market-based

regulation alongside the individualisation of risk. The opening of Australia’s economy

to international trade can be traced from the floating of the Australian dollar in 1983.

The evidence indicates that the economic and social realities of rural regions have been

spatially rewritten over the subsequent three decades.

National fault lines resulting from differentiated levels of integration into the

world economy have been identified by economic geographers Baum, O’Connor and

Stimson (2005) who undertook a spatial analysis of the 1996 Australian census.2 This

2 The authors utilised nine major social and economic variables: socio-economic change,

occupational characteristics, industry characteristics, human capital, income and wealth, unemployment

6

analysis ends in a typology that highlights the dependence of regional fortunes upon

each region’s population characteristics and industrial base for employment. Rural

regions are disadvantaged if they have an economic basis in agriculture rather than

service provision, mining or tourism, and are failing to attract younger, employed

migrants. In a study of Australia’s regional towns3 Beer et al. (2006) show that between

1996-2001 twenty out of the seventy towns declined in population. The majority of the

fast growing towns were located on the coast. Sixty of the towns have become more

functionally specialised in their industry structure in response to their exposure to

market forces and international competition (Beer et al., 2006:16-17).

Migration flows are also a key way of measuring the spatial polarisation of

regional economic fortunes. In the Victorian context, the outflow of younger, more

qualified individuals to Melbourne and, in the reverse direction, the out-migration of

lower-income earners to rural regions has caused regional labour and skills deficits and

a self-reinforcing decline in regional service provision (Birrell et al., 2000). Similarly,

Davison (2005) comments that while the out-migration of young people from depressed

Victorian industrial centres such as the Latrobe Valley has been countered to some

degree by the movement of retirees and others to the coast, the loss of population from

dryland farming areas has continued to accelerate. Apollo Bay is classified in the Baum

et al. (2005) scheme as an advantaged small town (population less than 10,000 and

and labour force participation, household and family structure measures, ethnicity and race measures and

housing situations.

3 Beer et al (2006) and Baum et al (2005) both define regional settlements as possessing a

population above 10,000.

7

more than 50% urban) on the basis that it is a ‘sea-change’ community and is attracting

in-migrants.

Australian geographers have also demonstrated that natural amenity forms a

variable affecting the differentiation of regional fortunes. Argent et al. (2007) mapped

south eastern Australia (New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia) in terms of

seven amenity indicators. This exercise enabled them to identify three indicators

(riverine water resources, employment in recreation and related services, and distance to

a beach) with explanatory power concerning migration to inland and coastal areas.

Apollo Bay lies within the Victorian coast and Melbourne’s ‘sea change’ zones

according to Argent et al’s scheme (2007:229–230). Barr’s (2003) analysis of the

‘dynamic inter-play between economic and social forces’ predicts a differentiation of

landscape trajectories into: broad acre cropping, irrigation, rural amenity, transitional

and peri-urban.

An analysis of the transition of Australia’s rangelands from pastoral to amenity

uses such as tourism and outdoor recreation is also offered by Holmes (2002). Holmes

emphasises that not only does the bulk of the Australian continent lie outside the core

regions of capital accumulation (areas where concentrated physical, financial and

human resources facilitate investment and wealth generation), it is subject to native title

claims and growing tourism and recreational use and interest. Thus, Holmes identifies

three main drivers of a post-productivist transition: agricultural over-capacity in global

commodity markets; the emergence of amenity-oriented uses; and changing social

values, particularly indigenous and conservation values. Holmes’ analysis pinpoints

growing differentiation in the market values of Australian rural land as a result of

changed societal values and yields a typology of seven modes of land occupance

8

according to the ‘relative precedence given to production, consumption or protection

values’ (Holmes, 2006:142). For Holmes, Apollo Bay represents occupance on the basis

of rural amenity as it is near a major city and tourist destination, which means that

consumption values determine land prices, and non-farm incomes are typical.

Spatial polarisation of regions in socio-economic terms has occurred throughout

the developed world and is reflected in the European Union’s distinction between less

favoured, depleting agricultural regions that are ‘predominantly’ rural’ and more

favoured, economically diverse, accumulating regions that are ‘significantly rural’

(Copus et al., 2007:18).4 Globalised economic processes now have the power to re-

inscribe regional outcomes by spatially polarising regions in socio-economic terms.

However, as Holmes, Argent and Barr point out, changing social values also mean that

local environmental amenity forms a factor in the decision-making of those migrating

to, or pursuing recreation in, rural regions.

Policy and planning for spatially polarised regions is similarly bifurcated into

the problem of managing growth and the problem of stimulating growth. The challenges

for conventional planning and policy making in rural growth regions are serious.

Bourne et al. (2003) characterise the rapid growth of the greater Toronto region as

generating a decentralised form with fluid spatial boundaries, ‘eclectic’ social and built

environments and tensions amongst diverse interest groups competing for space and

access to amenities (Bourne et al., 2003). Existing systems of governance, infrastructure

4 European social scientists Potter and Tilzey (2005) argue that multifunctionality is an

‘invented’ discourse used by the European Union to defend publicly funded protection of rural regions

despite the pressure placed on nations by international trade negotiations to withdraw agricultural

subsidies from rural land holders.

9

provision and regulation are exceedingly slow to adapt to these characteristics (Bourne

et al., 2003; Bryant & Charvet, 2003). Such slow adaptation is aggravated by ‘persistent

contests’ between the perspectives of rural and urban residents which are difficult to

transcend via current systems of political representation and conventional planning

(Bourne et al., 2003). These persistent contests are evident also in the Australian

context. Costello (2007) describes divisions between ‘newcomers’ and traditional

residents over amenity and economic development resulting from urban-rural migration

on Melbourne’s fringe. Fisher’s (2003) identification of four distinct growth processes

within peri-urban regions of Australia – suburbanisation; counter urbanisation;

population retention and centripetal migration – underlines the complex, pluralistic

make-up of peri-urban communities. Lack of coordination between levels of political

authority subverts a cohesive response to this contestation though ordered planning and

management processes. Policy actors positioned at different tiers of government do not

necessarily share the same vision for an area, and none have absolute jurisdiction to

control development at this meso scale (Bryant & Charvet, 2003).

Declining rural regions present policy and planning challenges that are different

in kind but no less pressing or contentious. In the Australian context, these

predominantly inland regions historically depended upon agricultural land uses as an

economic foundation for their communities. Commentators on rural social policy in

Australia have identified steadily declining social viability of such rural towns due to

declining terms of trade for agricultural commodities driven by the liberalisation of

global and local markets, in addition to changes in mobility and technology, thereby by-

passing previously crucial urban centres in agricultural supply chains. This trend,

unfolding over several decades, is evident in a pattern of adjustment, that is, the increase

10

in agricultural property sizes through amalgamations of smaller, family owned farms,

and the growing influence of corporate ownership. The resulting exit of farm families

and workers translates directly into fewer services, employment opportunities, and a

lowered local tax base (rates) for local governments struggling to maintain local

infrastructure and amenities (Gray & Alston, 2006). The amalgamation of local

governments, a prevalent policy response by state governments, simply forms another

downward multiplier (O'Toole & Burdess, 2005). This example illustrates the bind

national and state governments find themselves in. While a rhetorical commitment to

regional development is ever-present amongst politicians (Gray & Alston, 2006) policy

settings have been characterised by ‘limited intervention’ (Collits, 2006).

With conventional policy not offering ready solutions for the management of

growth or decline, a turn towards communicative action and social learning as policy

levers can be discerned in the literature, across a range of fields including community

development (Johnson and Wilson, 2000), planning (Meppem, 2000) sustainable

agriculture (Röling and Wagemakers, 1998) and natural resource management (Allan

and Wilson, 2009; Measham and Baker, 2005). The formation of new spatially defined

identities and regions is highlighted here. Contested landscapes, subject to urban sprawl

and landscape fragmentation, can give rise to ad hoc forms of rural regionalism (Hamin

& Marcucci, 2008). Here the agency of local or grass roots actors is significant in

initiating a response to globally-driven pressures through the articulation of a regional

identity, institutions, boundaries and other ‘social/symbolic shapes of a region’.

Similarly, Australian commentators suggest that sustainable development is best

focused at a level somewhere in between the small town and the region (Cocklin &

Dibden, 2005; Smailes et al., 2005). Smailes and Hugo go as far as claiming that

11

community life itself can be sustained through a ‘natural process of amalgamation and

readjustment of local identity to a broader spatial scale’ (2003:99).

The work of economic geographers has generated policy interest in

understanding regions themselves as a variable conditioning economic growth by

focusing upon the role social interactions that share and create knowledge (untraded

dependencies) play in innovation (Kitson et al., 2004). Boschma neatly defines

innovation as a mutation in routines (2004:1003). Boschma posits that learning occurs

through social interaction and is dependent on: 1) access to information flows; 2)

receptiveness to that information; 3) information that is both novel and compatible with

existing knowledge; and 4) an institutional environment that facilitates networking and

inter-organisational learning. This schema explains why regions specialising in a single

industry (such as agriculture) tend to be institutionally locked-in as novel information

does not travel through social networks, thus learning is truncated and a transition to

more promising development trajectory cannot occur (Boschma, 2004:1007). Social

capital is therefore highlighted as an economic variable and potential regional

development policy lever.

It is important here to distinguish between bonding (socially cohesive

interactions within like minded groups) and bridging (interactions between diverse

groups that create social linkages between like minded groups) as this distinction

accounts for the conservative and progressive faces of social capital (Eames, 2005).

Dense social networks (bonding) convey commonplace information and promote

collusion, although they also discourage free-riding (cheating) and provide informal

insurance against adversity. In contrast, weaker ties between different social groups are

more likely to convey novel information and provide access to opportunities during

12

times of adversity (McAllister et al., 2008). According to Woodhouse (2006),

communities with high levels of both bridging and bonding social capital that are

engaged with networks at a higher level are more likely to map out and pursue an

improved economic development trajectory.

Figure 1: Social capital and economic development (after Woodhouse, 2006, p.92)

Falk and Kilpatrick’s formulation of this equation is that ‘human agency,

exerted through social interactions, creates the processes of learning and change which

produce economic outcomes’ (2000:89, emphasis added). These authors found that both

the quality and the quantity of social interactions are important for learning, change and

innovation to occur. The quality of social interaction is defined by distinguishing

between negative (hostile or derogatory) interactions and positive interactions that

mutually build self confidence (2000:102). Lee et al (2005) provide a coherent account

13

of the relationship between (inherently unevenly distributed) social capital, negotiation

of existing and new local and regional identities through purposive social interaction,

and pursuit of economic opportunities by forming relationships with networks at higher

scales. There is no doubt that the links between micro social processes and meso

economic outcomes are fragile (see Beer et al., 2006; Gibson & Argent, 2008), but they

are also potentially transformative.

Case study: dialogue for development in Apollo Bay

Apollo Bay is a town on the Great Ocean Road with a permanent population of around

1000 people, which swells to around 15,000 during peak tourist season. The Apollo Bay

community has gone through substantial change since the 1960s, shifting from a

resource based economy to a service based economy. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry

have declined substantially over this time frame, with very little retained at the time our

empirical research was conducted in 2009. Tourism has become the principal economic

sector due to the aesthetic appeal of this coastal town which nestles in a thin strip of

land between the impressive Otway ranges and a fishing harbour, around 200km from

Melbourne (figure 2). Despite these economic changes, the town has retained a

distinctly rural coastal identity which is partly what attracts tourists. Forming the

background to the empirical research conducted here, a key issue for residents was to

determine a sustainable and desirable population size. Local business communities

emphasised the need for a larger population to retain and improve services. Other

residents were resistant to the idea of population expansion for fear of changing the

town’s appealing character and compromising the strong sense of community.

14

Figure 2: Apollo Bay town viewed from port (source: authors)

Due to the seasonal nature of tourism, there is an overall lack of permanent

employment throughout the year. For most of the year there is insufficient economic

activity to support a wider range of service industry jobs, or to support apprentices. The

other side of the coin was that there is an abundance of seasonal work over summer and

it is difficult to fill positions at peak times. A related issue for Apollo Bay is the

unusual housing in the town. In 2009, Apollo Bay had twice as many dwellings as

residents due to second home ownership. The demand for these seasonal homes

effectively reduces housing affordability for permanent residents due to inflated

property values and high prices for council rates.

In 2009, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems and Regional Development Victoria

conducted a research project in Apollo Bay as part of the Sustainable Communities

15

Initiative. The purpose of this initiative is to consider new ways of viewing and

addressing local and regional sustainability challenges. The initiative has a strong focus

on clarifying local challenges, identifying and resolving information needs through

analysis of secondary data (and generating primary data if required) to inform open

discussion between researchers, locally relevant actors (such as chambers of commerce,

councils, state agencies) and residents (Williams et al., 2009; Darbas et al., 2011). As

such, informed dialogue is a core premise of the Sustainable Communities Initiative in

response to the challenge of supporting regional reflexivity identified by Gray and

Lawrence (2001).

Method

The project was guided by a project steering group comprising community

leaders from key interest groups including the chamber of commerce, retail owners,

councillors, Otway Ratepayers’ Forum, environmental groups, the local school and the

Tourism Board. The steering group played a key role in identifying local issues and

defining the boundaries of the Apollo Bay community. Furthermore, the steering group

was instrumental in nominating community representatives to take part in the

subsequent stakeholder workshops to ensure representation from across the Apollo Bay

community.

Two workshops were conducted with community stakeholders. The participants

were pre-identified by the project steering group to represent a wide spectrum of

interests and positions in the Apollo Bay community including members of

environmental groups, tradesmen, tourism operators, fishers, farmers, health

professionals, transport operators teachers and school students. The majority of these

16

representatives were permanent residents. A small proportion were second home-

owners who normally resided in Melbourne. Twenty three participants took part in the

first workshop and were divided into four table groups to address three initial questions

to provide the basis for scenarios:

1) What do you like most about living in Apollo Bay?

2) What are the threats and opportunities for Apollo Bay?

3) What trends do you see affecting Apollo Bay?

Each group recorded the responses on butchers’ paper and reported their

responses to the other tables. The research team conducted a rapid appraisal of common

themes and distilled three cross-cutting dimensions, of which two were selected to form

the axes of a four quadrant scenario grid in the style of the scenario development

procedures developed originally by Royal Dutch Shell and subsequently adapted in a

wide range of contexts (Biggs et al., 2010, Sondeijker et al., 2006). At the workshop,

each of the four groups developed one of the four scenarios by considering the

following questions:

1) What does the scenario look like?

2) What are the consequences for lifestyle, environment and the economy?

3) What name do you give the scenario?

4) How desirable is this scenario?

17

Each group recorded their responses on butchers’ paper and then reported back

to the full group. At the end of this process, a vote was taken by all in the room to

define which scenario was the most attractive for Apollo Bay.

The three main cross-cutting issues that were identified in the first workshop were

1) Population expansion

2) Diversification of the economy

3) Extrinsic or intrinsic community identity

The workshop participants chose the first two (i.e. population expansion and

diversification) to organise the remaining issues into four scenarios (Table 1). For the

remainder of the first workshop, participants worked in groups to give a name to this

possible future and flesh out what it would be like in terms of four issues:

Lifestyle implications

Economic impact

Environmental impact

Desirability of the scenario

Following the first workshop, the research team conducted a feasibility

assessment on the four scenarios. This analysis involved two steps, both desk based.

The first was to distil the workshop outputs into a discrete set of elements, i.e. particular

trends and community aspirations. The second was a probabilistic assessment in regards

to the various ways in which workshop participants expressed and developed the

18

scenarios in terms of potential new industries specified, expansion of existing economic

activities, alternative energy sources, educational opportunities and demographic trends.

The analysis was supported by available secondary data and was expressed in simple

relative terms (i.e. more or less likely). As such no single aspect of the scenarios was

definitely excluded or included, but instead seen as more or less feasible (figure 3).

Figure 3: Likeliness of different scenarios

At the second workshop, the research team presented the outcome of the

feasibility assessment. This presentation was conducted as an interactive process,

encouraging participants to query the data and the inferences based on it. The purpose

of this exercise was not to validate or discredit any proposed development or idea.

19

Table 1: Summary of scenarios

Scenario 1 Summary: Smart & Sustainable Aspirations / Expectations New industries Art and craft Research Education Solar and wind energy production Design/building of renewable energy technologies Cottage industries Small-scale agricultural and horticulture expansion Local produced timber, apples, herbs & mushrooms Tourism focuses on education and local produce

Increased employment More educational opportunities Younger population More workers, students Fewer retirees People working from home More constant income (i.e. less seasonal) Environment is protected People caring for land

Scenario 2 Summary: Sustainable Xanadu Larger population Great diversity in service economy More professional people Build a TAFE on site of school New industries: Supply of renewable energy Cottage industries Health and wellness – surgery recovery

Greater intellectual diversity More permanent employment Increased competition: more service operators Therefore lower cost of living TAFE at school would: Attract students, young people Retain trades in town Population increase, less social connectivity More crime , more crowds

Scenario 3 Summary: Business as Usual Property values and rates increase Only wealthy will be able to live here Tourism industry will grow The tourists will keep coming Retail sector will grow More second homes ‘Weekend town’ character Service oriented economy Housing affordability will be Workers won’t be able to live in town

Natural environment protected Businesses in service sector will benefit Accommodation, pubs will do well Workers in service sector will not benefit Couldn’t afford to live in Apollo Bay Construction industry will be fine Population will be older, school vulnerable Infrastructure will improve, better roads Cost of living will be higher ‘We’ll be rated out’ Sense of community lost

Scenario 4 Summary: Byron Bay of the South More tourism operators More tourists More infrastructure E.g. Swimming pool More of a party town character Service industry focus for employment But a wider range of service jobs within sector Larger rate payer base But also increasing rates Increased economies of scale Higher housing density

More options for sport and recreation Some current businesses more viable Higher cost of living due to increasing rates Elderly and low paid workers can’t afford to live More pressure on natural environment More pressure on water and power More waste to manage Increased congestion Economy vulnerable to tourism down-turn May be vulnerable to sea level rise Employment mostly seasonal

20

Rather it was to present all available information on the plausibility of those

options to help the workshop participants refine their scenarios and consider next steps

towards achieving them.

Following the feedback presentation and interactive discussion on the feasibility

analysis, participants were divided into groups to reconsider their preferred scenarios.

Once the scenarios were defined, the research team facilitated a process to help

participants define their next steps towards realising their preferred scenarios.

Implications

When beginning this research, the main tension was between two groups of residents:

those who wanted to grow the town and those who wanted to keep it the same in terms

of population size and economic activities. One of the key results of this research was

that, by working through the scenario process, those who wanted to keep the town the

same rapidly revised their position when they could foresee that ‘business as usual’

became less attractive over 20 years due to the effect of increasing property values

pushing up council rates and a gradual replacement of permanent residents by wealthy

second home owners, and a net decline in quality of life for remaining permanent

residents. As the scenario process progressed, economic diversification became the

strongest community preference. This reflects an aspiration for a more vibrant

community. Participants realised it would also support a more balanced demographic

profile and the school would be more likely to stay open. Prior to conducting this

research, the whole focus was on whether to increase the town size or not. Following

the workshops, population increase remained attractive to some people, but not by itself.

21

Simply increasing the population without more economic diversity was not seen as

providing a more vibrant community.

While the scenario process enriched and qualified the debate, there were

limitations which are important to note. The main comparative advantage of the Apollo

Bay region is that it is a highly picturesque region within a few hours’ drive from

Melbourne. It is part of the state tourism economy as a scenic point along the nationally

marketed Great Ocean Road. Maintaining this character effectively excluded a number

of options that participants raised through the workshop process, such as installation of

wind farms, which are judged unsightly by some people and excluded through state

planning institutions which apply to the region.

It is also worth emphasising that the role of research in supporting the scenario

process was not to provide an externally defined ‘silver bullet’ as to where the region

should go next. We recognise that critiques of regional development have identified the

prevalence of certain generic strategies (e.g. theme parks) which can be insensitive to

regional identity (Argent et al., 2009). Rather than imposing externally generated

strategies, in our case study the role of research was to meet the information needs of

the debate as shaped by the participants themselves, in order to assist participants to

refine their preferred futures. In this way, research serves to support regional reflexivity

through discussion and by providing access to information regarding the aspirations and

opportunities for the region (Gray & Lawrence, 2001).

As it happens, one group chose to reject the available evidence on likely

demographic change. In addition, it became apparent from the desktop analysis that the

community had already been extremely effective in exploiting their comparative

advantage. So while the research process could help to demonstrate the problems likely

22

to hinder success of some options raised, there wasn’t much that a desktop analysis of

comparative advantage could add to this region. A key aim of the community to

diversify into education and training provision was not supported by the population size

required to host such facilities, apart from perhaps a field school or remote campus of a

capital city based institution. Indeed there was only one additional comparative

advantage that emerged from the research process that had not yet been captured by the

local economy. This was the relative abundance of accessible ship-wrecks, which

already attracted occasional visits from marine archaeology enthusiasts. However the

idea of generating economic activity from these artefacts was not appealing to residents.

Social learning and evaluation

The extent to which rural regions can shape their own futures remains a perennial

question and is likely to be answerable on a case by case basis. A key implication from

this study is the importance of social learning amongst place-based communities about

the nature of the challenges they face and understanding their collective propensity and

capacity to address them. For this reason, evaluation offers substantial potential, not

only in terms of assessing the impact of research on developing community agency. In

addition it can play a role in crystallising lessons and reinforcing social capital.

Evaluation can bring insights from participatory scenario development to the surface

and can encourage the identification of factors that enabled and disabled learning. In

this way, evaluation is not only a way to assess the impact of an intervention but also a

way to extend the reflexive process and help crystallise revised directions.

For the Apollo Bay case study, participants’ perspectives on the project process

and impacts were gathered at several points during the process. Feedback was gathered

23

through short questionnaires distributed at the end of the stakeholder workshops and

through one-on-one interviews held with members of the project reference group

several months after the project was completed. Data from participants was

supplemented through observation by the project researchers during engagement

activities with the community as well as post-workshop reflections. The project

reference group also provided feedback as the projects progressed.

In framing this paper, we considered the potential significance of learning and

social capital in rural communities that have pursued improved economic development

(Boschma, 2004; Woodhouse, 2006; Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000). In this light, the

evaluation of the project process focused in particular on the quality of the social

interaction (Garmendia & Stagl, 2010). The impact assessment sought insights into the

nature and extent of learning that participants perceived had occurred during the

reflexive process, as well as the development of new connections among community

members. The latter can be seen as a partial indicator of changes in social capital. More

specifically, it may reveal ‘bridging’ connections between the local and higher level

networks.

Evaluation questions about the impact of the project for individuals were

designed along a progression from new insights or new ways of thinking to new

conversations they were having; to new actions they had undertaken during and

following the project. It quickly became apparent that these questions, designed to

assess varying levels of impact, were the ones that generated the most reflection and

therefore themselves contributed to extending the project impact. Overall, participants

found the process to be inherently useful, as captured by the following quote:

24

‘I think we’re all starting to become more aware of what they can ask for

and look at. You know, their horizons have been opened up. I think people - the

ones that I’ve spoken to, by and large, they’ve said oh… we can do this now….’

In particular, when participants were asked about what new insights they had

gained during the workshops, half of the responses reflected an increased awareness of

the perspectives of others in the stakeholder group. This is illustrated by the following:

‘More people see the need for (economic) diversity than I thought’

In addition, the opportunity for ‘brainstorming and getting other people’s ideas’

as well as the diversity of opinions, ideas and people were the aspects of the workshops

which participants most valued:

‘Realisation of depth of knowledge around the room/community is great’

Apollo Bay is a small town so it was not surprising that none of the participants

reported making any new contacts among the stakeholder group. It also became

apparent during the initial meeting with the project reference group, as well as through

the evaluation interviews, that the community already has quite a high level of

‘bridging’ social capital, with many individuals participating in a number of different

social groups, including strong links between permanent residents and second home

owners who participate in civil society activities affected by seasons (e.g. surf life-

saving clubs and sporting associations).

25

At an individual level, revisiting and examining the learning that has occurred is

an important mechanism for the retention and consolidation of that learning for future

use. If the evaluation is itself conducted in a group setting, as in a focus group for

example, it provides a means for continuing the social learning initiated through

dialogue. When evaluation is conducted in this manner, participants are further exposed

to what others value and what resonated most for them in the project as well as having

the opportunity for comparison and discussion (High & Nemes, 2007; Measham, 2009;

Folkman & Rai, 1997). This also provides a more comprehensive basis for participants

to communicate about the project more widely, with community members who were not

directly involved.

The collated evidence of these impacts of reflexive community development

helps to convey value to local and state government stakeholders. In a policy context

that typically assesses value on the basis of tangible outcomes, the value of dialogue can

be lost, or can conflict with the needs of policy makers (High & Nemes, 2007). As such,

the evaluation was found to be useful in demonstrating the extent to which participants

were gaining value from the reflexive process. It helped to reassure the local

government stakeholders that this type of qualitative process can have a quantitatively

positive impact for participants.

A key feature of the Apollo Bay case study was the wide representation of

interests and positions across the Apollo Bay population within the workshops with a

view towards increasing the legitimacy of the process. This wide representation was

actively sought by a diverse project steering group with contrasting (and sometimes

competing) perspectives who viewed the workshops as an opportunity to examine each

others’ ideas about the future for this community. It also reflected the importance of

26

sense of place and sense of community. It was interesting and important for residents to

consider counter positions held by those they knew in this small and spatially distinct

community, as well as the perspectives of visitors who support the economy of the

town. These factors contributed towards earnest and genuine participation in this

context. However, this may not be easily replicated elsewhere, where other factors

detract from the legitimacy of engagement processes leading to potential stakeholder

scepticism (Measham et al., 2011).

An important task for further research will be to evaluate a wider set of cases to

extend the arguments of this paper, and the theoretical foundations which underpin it

(Gray & Lawrence, 2001). It will be important to compare and contrast the experiences

of a broader suite of regions where the effects of globalisation and exogenous drivers

manifest themselves in different ways.

Conclusion

Rural regions will continue to face the dual challenge of managing global drivers and

competing local aspirations. Because these challenges will express themselves

differently from one region to another, place-specific dialogue, supported by case

relevant research, will assist rural regions to understand, discuss and seek agreement on

the best way forward. We do not claim that this approach will guarantee a smooth

journey in every case. Rather, it will help communities to focus on the best possible

scenario for them and to concentrate their efforts accordingly. Research can play a

substantial role in helping rural communities to understand the drivers that affect them

and assess the plausibility of avenues, as demonstrated through the case study of Apollo

Bay. In order to conduct dialogue in a way which promotes learning amongst

27

participants (and researchers) we conclude that evaluation also has a greater role to play.

Partly this role is about realising learning outcomes for participants and bringing these

to the surface. It is also partly about understanding the limitations of research for

supporting sustainable community development. The case study presented in this paper

explicitly avoided promoting a ‘silver bullet’ for a given region in favour of facilitating

dialogue to better understand community aspirations and the region’s comparative

advantages. In conducting an evaluation of the case study it was clear that the dialogue

was useful and valued in terms of defining aspirations and identifying problems to

avoid. However it was also apparent from the evaluation that the reflexive approach

employed here is only the first step of a longer journey, and this can be frustrating for

some residents who would like to pursue a more tangible set of actions.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Regional Development Victoria and the CSIRO

Sustainable Communities Initiative. Thanks to the residents of Apollo Bay who

participated in the research and to Colac Otway Shire Council. Thanks to Karin

Hosking for editorial assistance. Thanks to Wendy Proctor and Tira Foran for helpful

comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Allan, C., Wilson, B.P. (2009). Meeting in the middle - desirable but not easy.

Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(6), 388-399.

Argent N., Smailes P., and Griffin, T. (2007). The amenity complex: Towards a

framework for analysing and predicting the emergence of a multifunctional

countryside in Australia. Geographical Research, 45(3), 217-232.

28

Argent, N., Walmsley, J., and Sorensen, T. (2009). Something old, something new,

something borrowed, something...? Rediscovering the comparative advantage of

the ‘new’ pastoral economies of northern New South Wales, Australia. In G.

Halseth, S. Markey, and D. Bruce (Eds) The next rural economies: Constructing

rural place in global economies (pp.17-31). Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Baum, S., O’Connor, K. and Stimson, R. (2005). Fault lines exposed: advantage and

disadvantage across Australia's settlement system. Melbourne: Monash

University Press.

Barr, N. (2003). Future Agricultural Landscapes. Australian Planner, 40(2), 123-127.

Beer, A., Clower, T. and Kearins, B. (2006). Australia's regions and their potential for

economic and population growth. Farm Policy Journal, 3(3), 13-21.

Biggs, R., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Atkinson-Palombo, C., Bohensky, E., Boyd, E.,

Cundill, G., Fox, H., Ingram, S., Kok, K., Spehar, S., Tengö, M., Timmer, D., and

Zurek M. (2007). Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios.

Ecology and Society 12(1), 17. [online] URL:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art17/

Birrell, B., Dibden, J., and Wainer, J. (2000). Regional Victoria: Why the bush is

hurting. Melbourne: Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash

University.

Bohnet, I. C. (2010). Integrating social and ecological knowledge for planning

sustainable land- and sea-scapes: experiences from the Great Barrier Reef region,

Australia. Landscape Ecology 25(8), 1201-1218.

Boschma, R. (2004). Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective.

Regional Studies, 38(9), 1001-1014.

29

Bourne, L. S., Bunce, M., Taylor, L., and Luka, N. (2003). Contested ground: The

dynamics of peri-urban growth in the Toronto region. Canadian Journal of

Regional Science, 26(2-3), 251-69.

Brien, D.L. (2008). Why foodies thrive in the country: mapping the influence and

significance of the rural and regional chef. M/C Journal, 11, [online]:

http://www.journal.media-

culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/83.

Bryant, C. and Charvet, J. P. (2003). The peri-urban zone: The structure and dynamics

of a strategic component of metropolitan regions. Canadian Journal of Regional

Science, 26(23), 231-39.

Cheshire, L. (2006). Governing rural development: Discourses and practices of self-

help in Australian rural policy. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Cheshire, L. and Lawrence, G. (2005). Neoliberalism, individualisation and community:

regional restructuring in Australia. Social Identities, 11(5), 435 – 445.

Cocklin, C. and Dibden, J. (2005). Sustainability and change in rural Australia.

Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Collits, P. (2006). Great expectations: what regional policy can achieve in Australia.

Farm Policy Journal, 3(3), 1-11.

Copus, A. K., Johansson, M. and McQuaid, R. W. (2007). One size fits all? Regional

differentiation and rural development policy. Eurochoices, 6(3), 13-21.

Costello, L. (2007). Going bush: the implications of urban-rural migration.

Geographical Research, 45(1), 85-94.

Darbas, T., Williams, R. and Graham, S. (2011). Green-changing: a research-based

collaboration with a tree-change rural community, Rural Society 20(3), 256-265.

30

Davison, G. (2005). Rural sustainability in historical perspective. In C. Cocklin and J.

Dibden (Eds.) Sustainability and change in rural Australia (pp. 38-55). Sydney:

University of New South Wales Press.

Eames, R. (2005). Partnerships in civil society: linking bridging and bonding social

capital. In M. Keen, V. Brown and R. Dyball, (Eds.) Social learning in

environmental management: Towards a sustainable future (pp. 78-90). London:

James & James/Earthscan.

Falk, I. and Kilpatrick, S. (2000). What is Social Capital? A study of interaction in a

rural community. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(1), 87-110.

Fisher, T. (2003). Differentiation of growth processes in the peri-urban region: An

Australian case study. Urban Studies, 40(3), 551-65.

Folkman, D. V. and Rai, K. (1997). Reflections on facilitating a participatory

community self-evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(4), 455-465.

Foran, T. (2010). Using holistic scenarios to re-write Mekong rural futures. CPWF

PN67 Case Study. M-POWER Working Paper PN67-2010-23. Chiang Mai

University, Unit for Social and Environmental Research.

Forester, J. (1995). Response: Toward a critical sociology of policy analysis. Policy

Sciences, 28(4), 385-396.

Garmendia, E. and Stagl, S. (2010). Public participation for sustainability and social

learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological

Economics 69(8), 1712-1722.

Gibson, C. and Argent, N. (2008). Getting on, getting up and getting out? Broadening

perspectives on rural youth migration, Geographical Research. 46(2), 135-138.

31

Gray I. and Alston M. (2006). Regional development policy, Farm Policy Journal. 3(3),

37-43.

Gray, I. and Lawrence, G. (2001). A future for regional Australia: Escaping global

misfortune. Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action Volume 1: Reason and the

rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hamin, E. M. and Marcucci, D. J. (2008). Ad hoc rural regionalism. Journal of Rural

Studies 24(4), 467-477.

High, C. and Nemes, G. (2007). Social Learning in LEADER: Exogenous, endogenous

and hybrid evaluation in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), 103-119.

Holmes, J. (2002). Diversity and change in Australia's rangelands: a post-productivist

transition with a difference? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

27(3), 362-384.

Holmes, J. (2006). Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia:

Gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(2), 142-160.

Johnson, H. and Wilson, G. (2000). Biting the bullet: Civil society, social learning and

the transformation of local governance. World Development 28(11), 1891-1906.

Keen, M., Brown, V. and Dyball, R. (2005). Social learning in environmental

management: Towards a sustainable future. London: James & James/Earthscan.

Kitson, M., Martin, R. and Tyler, P. (2004). Regional competitiveness: an elusive yet

key concept? Regional Studies, 38(9), 991-999.

Lawrence, G. (2005). Globalisation, agricultural production systems and rural

restructuring. In J. Dibden and C. Cocklin (Eds.) Sustainability and change in

rural Australia (pp. 104-120). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

32

Lee, J., Arnason, A., Nightingale, A. and Shucksmith, M. (2005). Networking: Social

capital and identities in European rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 45(4),

269-283.

McAllister, R.R.J., Cheers, B., Darbas, T., Davies, J., Richards, C., Robinson, C.J.,

Ashley, M., Fernando, D. and Maru, Y.T. (2008). Social networks in arid

Australia: a review of concepts and evidence. The Rangeland Journal, 30(1), 167-

176.

Measham, T.G. (2009). Social learning through evaluation: a case study of overcoming

constraints for management of dryland salinity. Environmental Management

43(6), 1096-1107.

Measham, T., Baker, R., (2005). Combining people, place and learning, in: M. Keen, V.

Brown and R. Dyball (Eds.), Social learning in environmental management:

Towards a sustainable future (pp. 91-103). Earthscan, London, pp. 91-103.

Measham, T.G., Richards, C., Robinson, C.J., Larson, S., Brake, L. (2011). Genuine

community engagement in remote dryland regions: natural resource management

in Lake Eyre Basin. Geographical Research 49(2), 171-182.

Meppem, T. (2000). The discursive community: evolving institutional structures for

planning sustainability. Ecological Economics 34(1), 47-61.

O'Toole, K. and Burdess, N. (2005). Governance at community level: small towns in

rural Victoria. Australian Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 239-254.

Röling, N.G., Wagemakers, M.A.E., (1998) Facilitating sustainable agriculture:

participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental

uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

33

Smailes, P. and Hugo, G. (2003). The Gilbert Valley, South Australia. In C. Cocklin,

and M. Alston (Eds.) Community sustainability in rural Australia: a question of

capital? (pp 65-106). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research.

Smailes, P., Griffin, T. and Argent, N. (2005). The changing social framework. In C.

Cocklin and J. Dibden (Eds.) Sustainability and change in rural Australia (pp.

80–102). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Sondeijker, S., Geurts, J., Rotmans, J., and Tukker, A. (2006). Imagining sustainability:

the added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight, 8(5),

15-30.

Williams R., Rooney S., Grunbuhel C., and McMillan L. (2009). Working together-

learning together: The Sustainable Communities Initiative final report. Canberra:

CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

Woodhouse, A. (2006). Social capital and economic development in regional Australia:

a case study. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1), 83-94.