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.