gSchool of Biology and Ecology, Deering Hall Room 202, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04467, USA
Received 5 August 2014. Revised 5 September 2015. Accepted 14 September 2015. Available online 24 October 2015.
Highlights
Rural areas contain key components for sustaining forested socioecological systems.
•
Trajectories of community development share complex characteristics.
•
Interaction of local and extralocal dynamics drives variation in these trajectories.
•
Rigid disciplinary or regional models neglect interplay of cross-scale dynamics.
•
A “Communities in the middle” framework synthesizes and advances rural studies.
Abstract
Using a socioecological systems perspective, we advance a conceptual approach for characterizing trajectories of change in rural forest-based communities. We call attention to “communities in the middle,” communities positioned within forested regions representing neither unpopulated wilderness nor heavily urbanized or densely populated places on the edge of urban areas. In 2010, these middle places accounted for 27.3% of the continental United States landscape yet less than 5% of the human population. Common shocks, such as the decline of traditional production industries, demographic shifts, new information technologies, climate change, invasive species, and demand for new energy resources, unite these areas. Yet, we observe variation in existing patterns of change across communities, which grows out of interactions between local contexts and larger drivers of change. Focusing on community dynamics, structure, and well-being in transitioning rural forested landscapes, we synthesize insights on three commonly identified development trajectories. We identify interactions among the resource base, connectivity to other places, and social adaptability as critical to these trajectories. Further, we describe vulnerabilities, opportunities, contingencies, diversity, novel recombinations, and mitigation as useful concepts for understanding community pathways within these trajectories. This framework provides a starting point to guide further synthesis, formal meta-analyses, and future interdisciplinary research on change in these important ‘middle’ places.
Keywords
Rural forest-based communities
Community development
Socioecological systems
Forest resources
Forest transition
Shocks
1 Introduction
Rural forest-based communities and the forests and natural resources on which they depend economically and socially (Genin et al., 2013 and Heckenberger et al., 2003) share a joint future. Forests offer key inputs to supply chains of forest products and ecosystem services (Hibbard and Lurie, 2012 and Ninan and Inoue, 2013), which influence community economies and demographics (Agrawal et al., 2013). Forests are also culturally important, supporting historic traditions and social relationships with natural resources (Lyon and Parkins, 2013). In return, key ecosystem services provided by forests allow for avoidance of costly technological investments (Postel and Thompson, 2005), support ecological systems (Agrawal et al., 2013), and mediate natural disturbances (Aukema et al., 2010, Hawbaker et al., 2013 and Laurance, 2007). In the United States (US) alone, more than half of forestlands are in private ownership (W. B. Smith et al., 2009), which suggests potential challenges among private, public, social, and ecological forest management objectives.
In this paper, we synthesize existing literature relevant to rural forest-based communities in the US with attention on two knowledge gaps. First, we focus geographically on rural forest-based communities that are neither at the urban-rural boundary (Irwin et al., 2009) nor extremely remote (Hammer et al., 2009), a particular type that we refer to as “communities in the middle”. These areas (see Section 2.1) exhibit particular dynamism due to the interaction among those systems traditionally thought of as urban and rural. Second, existing literature on forest-community relationships (e.g., Beckley et al., 2008) stops short of providing a consistent, quantative, process-oriented basis for analyzing community-forest dependence. Therefore, we address this by applying an interdisciplinary, systems approach to analyzing coupled social-environmental futures in these rural forest-based communities.
We engage with socioecological systems (SES) perspectives (Genin et al., 2013, Liu et al., 2013 and Ostrom, 2007) as an integrative framework for our synthesis. SES frameworks help reveal otherwise nebulous policy goals, recognizing interdependencies among community development and forest outcomes that lead to new ways of enhancing adaptive capacity. These outcomes are one component of a “trajectory of change,” defined as the cumulative and iterative process of social responses and outcomes to change (Fazey et al., 2011 and Fazey et al., 2015). Here we adopt a novel approach to thinking about community change as a foundation for characterizing community patterns of change and outcomes based on a qualitative comparison of rural forest-based community dynamics. By placing forest–community interactions at the center of our focus we then ask the following questions:
•
What distinct outcomes frequently occur across diverse geographic settings?
•
What are the various dynamics, in terms of interaction among external forces and local characteristics that appear to lead to these diverse outcomes?
2 Approach and conceptual framework
This synthesis is a result of the efforts of the “Rural Forest Communities at a Tipping Point? Trends & Actionable Research Opportunities” Pursuit project working group at the US-based Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC).1 This research team originally formed with the realization that despite the diverse patterns of change, there exist key commonalities that were underexplored as an integrated and coherent body of research. In particular, many communities experienced similar challenges, but diverged in terms of outcomes. These divergent trajectories were not entirely unpredictable; on the contrary a few distinct patterns of change appeared to result depending on the intersection between local community socioecological characteristics and the external shocks they experienced.
This paper engages recent empirical insights with a critical review of interdisciplinary literature. Therefore, the analysis presented is the product of a synthesis of authors' experience, other published empirical work, and the authors' ongoing original research (e.g., Colgan et al., 2014, Law and McSweeney, 2013, Mansfield et al., 2015, McSweeney and McChesney, 2004, Olson and Munroe, 2012 and Spies et al., 2014). In the sections that follow, we first outline three ideal-typical developmental trajectories. Next, we outline a focal set of characteristics associated with each trajectory organized within three conceptual categories: characteristics of the resource base, connectivity to other places, and social adaptability (see Table 1). Then, we advance discussion of possible community pathways and potential for future change with these forest-based “communities in the middle.” This framework is a starting point to guide further synthesis, formal meta-analyses, and future interdisciplinary research on the causes and consequences of diverse patterns of change in rural forest-based communities.
Table 1. Local characteristics in broad categories used to describe variability in the resource base, connectivity, and social adaptability of rural forest-based communities.
We acknowledge the importance of multi-faceted aspects of culture that influence community change (e.g., Lyon and Parkins, 2013 and Fazey et al., 2015). Detailed evaluation of this complexity is beyond the scope of this manuscript, but encouraged for future research.
2.1 Study regions and communities
We focus on the continental US (48 contiguous states; excluding Alaska and Hawaii) to examine rural forest-based communities positioned within broader geographical areas. These regions of interest represent neither unpopulated, completely forested places—“wilderness” in the popular understanding—nor heavily urbanized or large metropolitan places within forested regions. Using a 10-km national grid, our interdisciplinary working group identified these areas as regions with extensive forests (at least 20% forest cover) and moderate to low housing densities (0.1 housing units per km2 to 10 housing units per km2). In 2010, these lands collectively accounted for approximately 27.3% (2,108,100 km2) of the US contiguous landscape, and approximately 4.8% of the contiguous US population (14,667,000 people). Because of the vast geographic extent of these locations, their ecological and social trends affect North America as a whole.
We then turned our attention to the communities situated within these study regions. Using the US Census Bureau's 2009–2013 county subdivision-scale data and community definition, we identified 8650 communities that intersected with our rural forested study regions. On average, these communities had a strong forest resource base, with a mean of 60% forest cover (SD ± 21.07) (2006 NLCD). Population and housing stock varied considerably across communities; mean year-round population, housing units, and percent seasonal housing were 324 (SD ± 475.23), 1471 (SD ± 2939.31), and 14.80 percent (SD ± 18.54), respectively (US Census Bureau 2009–2013 ACS). On average, approximately 16 (SD ± 10.08) percent of the population lived below the poverty line (US Census Bureau 2009–2013 ACS). Average distance to a city with a population of 400,000 people was approximately 392 (SD ± 185) km (Foster et al., 2012).
The areas considered here encompass the numerous “communities in the middle” that form the basis of our analysis. In the US, these land areas exhibit (1) exurban and micropolitan (Mulligan and Vias, 2006) land use,2 (2) diverse sources of employment and income, and (3) landscapes of dynamic forest change. Generally, we conceptualize communities as consisting of human populations territorially organized, rooted in place, and living in relationships of mutual interdependence (Park, 1936). Though sharing a common history of forest-based production, regional context, and prior experience with particular commodities, their global market trends, local ecology, and social structures vary in ways that contribute strongly to social and ecological outcomes. Nonetheless, subsets of communities across these regions share common experiences in terms of broad trajectories of change as outlined below.
2.2 Linking community characteristics with patterns of change
In order to understand rural forest-based community response and potential adaptation to past economic and environmental challenges of the past several decades, we employ a socioecological systems (SES) perspective (Holling, 2001, Ostrom, 2007 and Young et al., 2006) that presupposes a shock or collapse (Besser et al., 2008 and Holling and Gunderson, 2002) in the ability of natural resource production to support a community economically and socially. What constitutes a shock varies in terms of character, magnitude, and temporal and spatial extent, and the result is reorganization of the socioecological system with qualitative shifts in community-resource interdependencies (Holling, 2001). Particular types of shocks—such as resource depletion, mill closures, or wildfires—constrain subsequent development possibilities in important ways. Therefore, we view post-shock patterns of change as largely contingent on extant ecological and social characteristics of communities themselves (Ostrom, 2007).
The synthesis presented here incorporates yet is distinct from several existing research themes. There is robust literature on community capacity, broadly defined as the ability to produce desired outcomes (e.g., Beckley et al., 2008, Emery and Flora, 2006, Kusel, 2001 and Machlis et al., 1997), and resilience (e.g., Magis, 2010). In short, the literature concerned with community capacity provides valuable insights about factors that underlie any given community's ability to become what it might want to be, particularly in the face of challenging circumstances. In addition, it advances tools for assessing community resources across a wide range of domains including social, political, financial, and natural capitals.
However, limitations to existing frameworks exist. Where community capacity frameworks address natural resources, for example, they may include semi-quantitative evaluations of communities' overall degrees of various resource stocks at the expense of sensitivity to their particular characters—for example, what surrounding forestland is like in terms of its aesthetic qualities. Further, as tools to be used for community development, community capacity approaches may optimistically overestimate the value of community assets, or limit the scope of analysis to positive aspects of the community rather than a consideration that also includes community problems, needs, and deficits (e.g., Emery and Flora, 2006). Other frameworks are functionalist (though comprehensive) accounts of the constituent parts of human ecosystems articulated at a high level of abstraction with the goal of enhancing ecosystem management (Machlis et al., 1997). Notably, Beckley et al. (2008) offer a more concrete and robust perspective that moves toward linking dimensions of community capacity with divergent development outcomes.
In contrast, socioecological systems (SES) offer a means to integrate various theories and methods across the social and ecological sciences while focusing on how outcomes across these two spheres depend on dynamic and integrated relationships. The intricacy of local circumstances among complex social-ecological interdependencies and feedbacks requires substantive attention to the nature of those feedbacks in setting policy goals (Ostrom, 2007). Therefore, we advance beyond the community capacity literature by focusing on community characteristics that appear to matter not necessarily for community capacity (though they may overlap with those that do), but for observable patterns of community development outcomes that result from the interplay of internal and external drivers. In addition, our framework points to the factors associated with the particular type of place a community has become post-shock. We also refer to nascent SES analytical tools while enhancing their focus by incorporating the community capacity perspective approach to parsing and assessing constituent elements of multiple dimensions of community life. In doing so, we develop a unique focus on patterns of substantive community change (rather than community capacity).
Although diverse pathways of change (Campeanu and Fazey, 2014) can be postulated for communities facing similar challenges (i.e., particular types of shocks), we focus on three primary trajectories as “ideal types” for purposes of our discussion: (1) production–shock–decline; (2) production–shock–amenity; and (3) production–shock–(new) production3 (see Section 3). These trajectories are strongly linked with prevailing theoretical and empirical frameworks (see above), have high practical salience and credibility with community-level officials, and share common starting and intermediate points. They represent distinct sets of relationships between communities and their resource bases, foster different outcomes, and play out over varying time scales, from less than a decade to more than a century. We focus our assessment on current conditions with attention to future possibilities (Besser et al., 2008 and Holling and Gunderson, 2002). As a simple exercise to begin mapping community characteristics onto trajectories, we compiled characteristics frequently assessed in the rural development literature (Table 1). The diversity of experiences across rural forested communities necessitates an examination of contingencies, pathways and novel recombinations of local and extralocal dynamics (see Holling, 2001).
3 Typology of community development trajectories
To summarize interdisciplinary literature related to rural forest-based communities, we collaboratively identified variables related to diverse patterns of development. Then, we inductively aggregated these variables into broad sets of characteristics, resulting in three general categories of factors hypothesized to be most relevant for explaining development outcomes: resource base, connectivity, and social adaptability (see Table 1). While there is a broad similarity to various community capacity frameworks (see above), the combination of selected characteristics departs from existing work in its logistical focus on how particular elements of place shape developmental trajectories, and its sensitivity to the political relationships embedded in a community's endowment of various forms of capital (e.g., natural, physical, social). In short, focusing on developmental trajectories allows us to perceive and classify the relevant constituent elements of community in a new and productive way.
We assess relative stocks of resource base, connectivity, and social adaptability resources across the three developmental trajectories (Fig. 1). In this case, it is not simply the overall degree of resource stocks that matters as a predictor of change, but rather its interaction with the particular character of those community dimensions that contribute to such resources (discussed below). Thus, our analysis also incorporates a sensitivity to how place character (Lyon, 2014 and Molotch et al., 2000) matters for outcomes, a dynamic not explicitly explored in much of the current community capacity research (Kusel, 2001 is a notable exception).
Fig. 1. A stylized depiction of hypothetical relative positions of rural forest-based communities within each of three trajectories: T1. Production – shock – decline; T2. Production – shock -amenity; T3. Production – shock – production. The three axes represent: (a) characteristics of the resource base (e.g., healthy, degraded); (b) connectivity (e.g., IT, transportation); and (c) the degree of social adaptability (e.g., social capital, inequality), with 1 = lowest and 5 = highest. The outlined polygons in the center of each diagram represent stocks of potential resources for leveraging communities' unique strengths toward new forms of development that enhance social and ecological well-being.
3.1 Trajectory 1 (T1): production–shock–decline
The production–shock–decline trajectory (T1) comprises communities that fail to recover from a challenging situation and instead experience ongoing population and employment decline. From a systems perspective, we view decline as a post-shock dynamic state or release that has not reached reorganization (Holling, 2001); contrast this with T2 and T3 (outlined below), which represent new stable states of social-environmental interdependencies. T1 communities are those in which the traditional, production-based local economy suffered a shock that has challenged the historical production mode due to factors such as environmental degradation, falling commodity prices, or regulatory shifts (Falk and Lobao, 2003, Freudenburg, 1992 and Markey et al., 2008; M. D. Smith et al., 2001) (Fig. 1).
Given such challenges, local government often is most responsive to traditionally dominant resource-based economic interests, generally but not always centered outside the region. For example, in the Hocking Hills region of Ohio, coal extraction was directed by the needs of a growing urban population in Chicago (Law and McSweeney, 2013). In the Coast Range of Oregon, local decision-making has tended to serve the interests of export commodity production. Within Northern New England, local politics strongly orients some towns toward uncertain economic foundations (e.g., paper mills) even if potential exists for amenity-based alternatives. In such situations, the resource base is concentrated and controlled among a small number of groups or by non-local interests, and timberland ownership was historically dominated by large paper companies, whereas public lands account for a large amount of the forestland base in the Pacific Northwest. In terms of physical connectivity, T1 areas tend to be remote. Although rivers and railroads serve as important transport media, complex topography limits the ability to expand transportation networks, or constrains connectivity options for technological or production infrastructure development. Remoteness can intensify the community tendency to respond to historically dominant interests.
Places marked by decline have often been impacted by external or stochastic environmental perturbations (Flora and Flora, 2013 and Hibbard and Lurie, 2012). Large-scale wildfire is a persistent threat in western communities in dry forest types. Insect invasions impact both public and private landholdings across North America. Moreover, a community's environmental challenges are often exacerbated by policies restricting land use. For example, in the US the Endangered Species Act has continuous potential to impact extractive activities depended on by rural communities (Brown and Shogren, 1998, Lueck and Michael, 2000, Sheldon, 1997 and Shogren et al., 1999). Beyond these extralocal constraints, T1 communities often endure environmental legacies of extractive industry, such as soil and water contamination. As a result, new economic possibilities or community identities may depend on the degree to which prior environmental degradation is severe enough to preclude new forms of economic reorganization (Colocousis, 2012).
Socially, T1 communities tend to be marked by relatively high levels of poverty and inequality that predate proximate economic shocks. In many contexts, historical class or racial divisions have produced a civic culture in which inter-group ties that facilitate inclusive community organization and individual mobility opportunities are lacking, but intra-group social cohesion (e.g., within families or particular socioeconomic strata) is strong (see Putnam, 2000 for a discussion of “bridging” versus “bonding” social capital). For example, in Appalachia, high levels of economic inequality rooted in a limited economic opportunity structure and volatile coal industry have produced highly segregated communities with few cross-class, bridging ties (Duncan and Lamborghini, 1994). Similarly, pulp and paper-dependent southwest Alabama has been marked by interwoven racial and class inequalities, a highly concentrated pattern of forest ownership, and low levels of human capital investment (Bliss and Bailey, 2000). At the same time, there are possibilities for local future adaptability, as people remain self-sufficient in terms of livelihood strategies, partly on the basis of strong existing intra-group social cohesion (e.g., kinship networks). In many areas, commuting from economically disadvantaged small communities to nearby urban centers has recently increased in scope and intensity as workers adapt to changing employment opportunities (Olson and Munroe, 2012). Ultimately, T1 communities have a lot of latent potential for opportunistic new development (assuming resources are not negatively impacted beyond possible use by prior degradation), such that they may better withstand future shocks.
3.2 Trajectory 2 (T2): production–shock–amenity
The production–shock–amenity trajectory (T2) assumes a reorganization to a new forms of development predicated on the presence of natural amenities (Charnley et al., 2008, McGranahan, 1999 and Winkler et al., 2007). This trajectory is often described as a shift from production to consumptive human-landscape relationships, although some original production aspects remain, such as commodity production on a significantly smaller scale, or niche or craft manufacturing (Mitchell, 2013) (Table 2). Conceptually, T2 focuses on resiliency mediated by diversification of the resource base in both natural (recreation, ecosystem services, tourism) and built (bedroom communities) environments, accompanied by presence of an often heterogeneous mix of newcomers (Mitchell and de Waal, 2009). Reorganization of social-environmental interdependencies often is assisted by high and/or reliable connectivity to urban centers, and proximity to amenities such as mountains, water, and parks and public land, the management of which can be challenging for rural communities (Naldi et al., 2015). Natural amenities can drive tourism and in-migration drawing a range of new residents including retirees and telecommuters. (Gosnell and Abrams, 2011 and McGranahan, 1999). Outdoor tourism activities in the East Cascades of Oregon, hot-tub cabin visits in the Ohio Hocking Hills (Van Berkel et al., 2014) and trail visitation and lodging in northern New England benefit from access to urban areas, major roads, services, and coordination among private and public actors. Technology also plays an important role in connectivity as well as the marketing of the location. For instance, a local tourist association could invest in a standard online booking website to draw in long-distance customers for a collection of bed-and-breakfast establishments that individually cannot afford the investment. Overall, T2 requires infrastructural and institutional support for reorganization—support that is contingent on scarce capital (both financial and social) in some locations.
Table 2. A qualitative comparison of areas for analysis for three socioecological system trajectories for rural forest-based communities.
Trajectory specific lessons
Cross-cutting themes
Production-shock-decline (T1)
Production-shock-amenity (T2)
Production-shock-production (T3)
Vulnerabilities that exist
Enduring poverty, population loss, and environmental degradation challenge communities. Decline introduces unique challenges for community capacity building.
Amenity economies often rely on external flows of people and capital. Appeal of forest ecosystems hinges on how amenity base is developed and the extent and nature of ecological disturbances.
New industries provide lower wage jobs, produce new inequality. Global price volatility introduces further shocks.
Economic flexibility is a critical challenge communities must negotiate.
Opportunities that exist
Communities may have endowments and latent potential (e.g., labor, land, resources, infrastructure) that later are valuable.
Potential for new investment, and new ideas and visions for future. Amenity economy can fund local services, and infrastructure development and foster demand for ecological conservation.
New industries can instill renewed value for workforce skills and present opportunities for communities to maintain historical identities (e.g., manufacturing).
Cycles of adaptation foster community awareness of the role of forests in long-term viability.
Contingencies that shape social and ecological outcomes
Development and demographic change in proximate communities influences community viability. Community mentality and locus of control (internal or external) are key contingencies.
Presence and form of amenity-based development will depend on environmental legacies. Balance between external money and local control shapes outcomes.
Outcomes vary with how communities make best use of available resources and human capital given investment requirements, and whether and how forest matters to these changes.
The extent to which local visions for the future are valued and acted upon is critical.
Diversity vs. specialization
Communities depend on wage and employment niche opportunities in proximate regions.
Niche-based provision of amenity economy brings business but leaves community more vulnerable. Benefits depend on linkages with other communities.
Local institutions are critical to new industries.
There is no one formula for success.
Novel recombination
Strong social networks can facilitate social learning, adaptive management processes, and community development.
Benefits depend on strengthening linkages with other communities.
Community linkages to global processes are critical. New compatibilities or conflicts between various forms of production, amenities, and forest management shape outcomes.
Interactions among factors are critical.
Mitigation for trajectory tradeoffs
Maintaining or encouraging local identity can foster community identity, strengthening social ties.
Fostering commitment to value of diverse stakeholders, shared goals, and common reliance on resources strengthens mitigation capacity.
Potential for productive synergies from new industries are critical.
Social learning and collaborative problem solving forge policy priorities and local visions for resource use.
Employment connected to the local provisioning of recreational and leisure-based services distinguishes T2 communities. Natural resources on public lands thus provide benefits to private land ownership (i.e., residents and business can receive direct and indirect financial returns). In cases where land ownership is mixed, quasi-public-private entities such as land trusts and regional community development organizations can help overcome ownership divisions. Similarly, collaborative planning also helps foster resource base management goals (Waage, 2001). Access to and quality of the amenity resource base influences the ability of individual communities to conserve the amenity-driven focus over time. Even if natural occurrences such as fire or invasive species affect the resource base, numerous nearby options may allow for preservation of amenity-based experiences. For example, several large-scale fires have recently affected forests of the central Oregon Cascades, but the impacts of these events is lessened by access to a variety of recreation areas, and a diversity of potential activities and accommodations. However, T2 communities are also vulnerable because of their dependence on external economic conditions for in-flows of people and capital. In Ohio, oversupply of cabins in response to variable demand from urban tourists poses challenges for viability (Mansfield et al., 2015). In Northern New England, popular portrayals— “magazine versions”—of communities can contrast with actual local conditions, frustrating both locals and tourists.
Socially, high inequality and cultural divisions exist, particularly between long-term community members and newcomers (Hunter et al., 2005 and Winkler, 2013). For example, amenity-based exurbanization in southeastern Ohio has increased property values such that long-time landowners are defaulting on amplified property taxes. Similar trends have emerged in some Northern New England communities, especially where ski and golf resorts are present. As a result of these divisions, governing institutions and information sources are diverse and vary based on social groups (Brehm et al., 2004; J. W. Smith, 2013). Newcomers who are semi-permanent or maintain residences elsewhere can weaken civic bonds, as seen in many rural communities along the Oregon Coast, Cascade Mountains, and Northern New England where metropolitan residents’ vacation homes are located. Both local and regional institutions are important for managing differences among community members. In some cases, such as places dependent on hunting and fishing amenities in Northern New England, local knowledge remains critical to new economic development opportunities, and this dynamic reduces some divisions and increases inter-group cohesion. Elsewhere, a common complaint of longtime residents is that local government is more responsive to wealthier newcomer needs (Gosnell et al., 2006). In addition, newcomers may not know or respect longstanding traditions surrounding land access, as is increasingly found in New England as new out-of-state landowners prohibit access to hunting lands or trails that were publically accessible for generations. Further, T2 transitions do not always result in high-quality recreation- and leisure-based jobs for locals, as the preponderance of work may be concentrated in the relatively low-wage retail and service sectors (Krannich et al., 2006).
3.3 Trajectory 3 (T3): production–shock–(new) production
The production–shock–(new) production trajectory (T3) refers to a trajectory in which production per se remains or reorganizes into new activities at the center of community economic life, even if the commodity produced diverges from the historically dominant one. From a systems perspective, this refers to a new stable state of social-environmental interdependencies whether or not the new state is advantageous or disadvantageous to the community, as is the case with T2. T3 is distinct from T2 because consumption activities (i.e., tourism, recreation, exurban development) are not the dominant economic base (Table 2). Thus, diversification could include traditional extractive activities, the emergence of new forms of commodity production, or service-based economic activity. Examples of new forms of production are wind or woody biomass energy (Colocousis, 2013, McPartland, 2012and Pasqualetti, 2001), unconventional natural gas extraction (Perry, 2012 and Schafft et al., 2013), or production of timber or other forest products marketed under a new sustainability-oriented certification scheme (Overdevest and Rickenbach, 2006). In the northeastern US, the former pulp mill town of Berlin, NH, saw a transition from pulp production to electricity generation via the repurposing of existing industrial infrastructure. In the same region, the mill in Old Town, ME, has leveraged partnerships with university researchers to produce energy and biofuels as byproducts of traditional pulp manufacturing (Benjamin et al., 2009). Emerging forms of manufacturing, a service provision in which the linkages between economic activity and local resource bases shift or become more diffuse, are branch plants (A. Glasmeier and Borchard, 1989), data centers (e.g., Google in The Dalles, OR), and server farms (e.g., Facebook in Prineville, OR). Thus, novel recombinations (Holling, 2001) of unpredictable technological and social trends in local development are contingent upon the need for particular geophysical conditions or available infrastructure (see Section 4.5 below).
Compared to T1 and T2, there is less knowledge about the factors that shape the T3 trajectory. Although some T3 characteristics overlap with T1 and T2, this trajectory is characterized by new modes of resource-based production, with variable impacts on forests, leading to qualitatively new opportunities and challenges. An industrially managed or intensively harvested landscape may constrain a consumption-oriented turn, whereas redevelopment of an existing industry may result in a more production-oriented direction (Marsden, 1999). In northern NH, a history of pulpwood production reshaped the forest resource base in ways consistent with the modest input needs of a biomass energy facility (Colocousis, 2013), and intensive timber harvesting has constrained recreation opportunities (Colocousis, 2012). In southwestern Oregon, re-establishment of timber sales on public lands have increased government revenue in some local communities (American Forest Resource Council, 2013). Beyond the forest resource base itself, existing industrial infrastructure also influences the emergence of new economic activity. In Ohio and Maine, public-private partnerships (e.g., Chamber of Commerce; local technical colleges, universities, and industrial partners) are fostering new manufacturing opportunities. Similarly, state and federal policy are driving economic change in many rural Pennsylvania communities in the midst of demand for shale gas. However, the environmental consequences of new modes of production may not be immediately visible or well understood (Vidic et al., 2013).
T3 communities often rely on connections to proximate urban centers, yet challenges to connectivity exist such as lengthy commuting times or lack of telecommunications infrastructure. Despite moderate population density, storm-related impacts on utilities or perceived lack of cell phone towers or high-speed internet access can constrain connectivity. Historical and dynamic land ownership patterns and the degree to which traditional industrial interests dominate local decision-making may also influence emerging economic activity. In Alabama, for example, the largest 1% of landowners controls over half the state's private forestland, a situation with substantial implications for patterns of land use (Bliss et al., 1998). In Maine, where over 90% of forestland remains privately held, ownership patterns have shifted dramatically away from the large-scale industrial landholdings that traditionally dominated the state, to a mixture of financial investors, real estate investment trusts, and other large-scale nonindustrial interests which diversifies yet complicates patterns of resource use (Hagan et al., 2005). In Ohio, while most private forest landholdings are nonindustrial and less than 10 acres in size, private corporations own an estimated 15% of total forestland (Widmann et al., 2009). The arrival of new firms, such as the Snowville Creamery in Athens, Ohio, a strong proponent of community-based land-use planning (Meter, 2011), challenges previously entrenched inequalities and provides opportunity for proactive long-term strategies. Further, SmartWood certification programs are being implemented in many Ohio state forests (Ohio Division of Natural Resources, n.d.).
As the new economy provides employment opportunities, greater reductions in poverty and inequality are possible in T3 compared to T1 and T2. However, shifting occupational mixes exacerbate existing inequalities, particularly as they relate to historical levels of human capital underinvestment (Johnson and Stallmann, 1994 and Peters, 2012). Emerging industries often produce strong social connections and cohesion within particular economic spheres, but broad social ties and cohesion are limited, particularly if new economic activity has drawn new workers to the area. Such is the case in the context of shale gas extraction across much of Pennsylvania, and in the construction phase of biomass development in northern New England. Technology and teleconnections allow for linkages to new markets; however, fluctuations in global prices or macroeconomic trends introduce new vulnerabilities (A. K. Glasmeier, 1991).
4 Cross-cutting themes and synthesis across communities
As outlined above (see also Table 1), variation in the local resource base, connectivity, and social adaptability marks the forest-based communities under consideration here. Subsets of communities share commonalities in terms of not only the trajectories that highlight similar patterns of change, but the community characteristics broadly associated with them. The particular trajectory that a community follows, however, does not strictly depend on community characteristics and resource endowments, but rather on how these features interact along an individual pathway. For example, one form of social change may produce ecological degradation, resulting in new social vulnerabilities in one location, but foster ecological stewardship and community resilience elsewhere. Therefore, we challenge rural studies to capitalize on collective knowledge across disciplinary, spatial, and temporal scales, and advance cross-cutting themes with a focus on reciprocal relationships often overlooked in conventional community development preconceptions and research orientations. As a start, we delineate trajectories of change, and account for commonalities and differences between communities (Table 2) as a foundation for aligning policy interventions with the distinctive pathways that communities follow. Furthermore, we emphasize implications of these trajectories for broader understanding of transitioning rural forest-based landscapes and opportunities for future research and engagement with these communities.
4.1 Vulnerabilities
Flexibility is important for navigating the challenges posed by a shock to a socioecological system in ways that minimize harm and enhance well-being (Turner et al., 2003, Table 2). Flexibility includes anticipating and reacting to new economic opportunities, considering the economic, environmental, and social “opportunity costs” of past and present development decisions, and a wider view of community resilience (Skerratt, 2013). As suggested in our many examples, abrupt changes in social and ecological factors impact emerging opportunities. Thus, no one strategy for development will necessarily provide a community an absolute advantage at any given time. Conversely, current opportunities could always reverse themselves and their potential for success over time.
Across all three trajectories, interacting social and ecological forms of disturbance drive community vulnerabilities. Considering social drivers, there is a notable distinction between trajectories that rely on external flows of resources-people (e.g., tourism), capital (e.g., branch plants), and global markets-versus grassroots efforts or internal or local drivers (Table 1). The degree to which important economic actors are nested or embedded in local relationships and civic culture —living alongside and engaged in routine social interactions with other community members—and thus more responsive to community needs as opposed to those of non-local corporate offices (Blanchard and Matthews, 2006 and Ostrom, 2007), will shape how economic changes are distributed across the community. These distinguishing features impact exposure to change and coping and adaptive responses to change. Reliance on external flows of people and capital increases both exposure to change and adaptive capacity to change (Holling, 2001). Conversely, economies characterized by high social embeddedness lessen exposure to certain types of (social) change and increase adaptive capacity to change. Some communities experiencing decline may also be less vulnerable to certain forms of change because they are less strictly dependent on external social or infrastructural connections or experience vulnerability on a regional rather than global scale because of limited connectivity. However, enduring poverty and population declines are likely to undermine social coping and adaptive capacity to shocks. Fostering flexibility and adaptability requires a significant reorientation in community strategic planning.
When viewing forest-dependent communities through a socioecological lens, interactions among changing human settlement patterns and ecosystems offer important context for potential vulnerabilities (Table 1) (Turner et al., 2003). If successful, amenity and production strategies could draw new people to communities and result in social adaptability through new development patterns and preferences (Kaltenborn et al., 2009). However, housing associated with amenity-based development could exacerbate community vulnerabilities by facilitating inequality (Marcouiller and Clendennig, 2005) and raise housing costs (Abrams et al., 2012). Are sustained amenity and production opportunities undermined by the very dynamics that encouraged initial investment? Exploring such questions and the conditions under which such dynamics occur at the community level will advance understanding of vulnerability and flexibility in transitioning landscapes.
4.2 Opportunities
Adaptation cycles can foster community awareness of natural resources in civic and economic life (Table 2). Even large-scale shocks, like climate-related disasters, can create new opportunities for the resource base in terms of land-use adaptations and community reorganization (McSweeney and Coomes, 2011) (Table 1). While boom-and-bust cycles are disruptive and create legacies that are difficult to overcome, over time they may also foster a proactive social spirit (Brown et al., 2005). Both T2 and T3 trajectories present opportunities for integration of new ideas into prior strategies. Although influxes of new investment or visitors may or may not preserve community historical identity, whether and how natural resources can become “amenities” in T2 can play a key role, whereas T3 introduces the possibility of renewed value for the local resource base and social skills. At the same time, the extent to which long-term residents have an opportunity to voice their visions through mechanisms such as collective choice-rules (Ostrom, 2007) can shape the impact of new housing and other modes of connectivity on the built and natural environment. While the T1 trajectory has less desirable features, it may present opportunities if extant community attributes later prove to be valuable. Do varying levels of social cohesion and connectivity coupled with varying ties to the resource base drive distinct land-use adaptation and community-reorganization processes? Ongoing and future community change may take unpredictable forms, challenging both communities and researchers.
4.3 Contingencies
Communities reflect historical legacies (e.g., effects of extraction or industrial activities) that have enabled or precluded current opportunities spatially and temporally (e.g., Phillips, 2004, Table 2). Spatial contingencies include heterogeneous environmental or social characteristics, such as topography or human capital, respectively (Table 1). Large-scale processes (e.g., falling global commodity prices) could affect all communities, but their ability to cope with such change depends on such contingencies at the local level.
Recognizing the role of contingencies has two implications. First, interactions between and among social and ecological factors are critical and likely will affect the social or ecological outcomes that have potential to occur (Ostrom, 2007). For example, integration of natural resources with established local events enhances the ability for T2 outcomes, particularly for smaller communities. Events in small communities such as rodeos and quilt or antique shows may attract a more diverse audience than outdoor recreation alone. Larger forest-dependent communities often support a more-diversified service sector that provides stability, such as government offices and health care facilities.
Secondly, the trajectory of any community will depend upon how the visions of often diverse stakeholder groups are channeled in the context of extralocal drivers of change (e.g., connectivity; Table 1). Some communities will have a proactive stance for considering possible futures, while others will have a reactive disposition (Skerratt, 2013). Particular stakeholder groups within these communities may have radically different ideas about which forest features are beneficial or problematic (Bell, 2007). New forms of development are more likely to persist and thrive when coupled with broad community support, which in turn requires some degree of consensus among community members. Diverse stakeholder and governance characteristics and multiple and potentially competing stakeholder visions for the future must be valued to manifest in robust community development strategies. In addition, how communities make use of available resources and human capital will lead to distinct opportunities and challenges. Finally, community viability may be nested and depend upon economic, environmental and demographic changes in other places, from proximate communities to global networks (Young et al., 2006). Under what conditions do historical legacies enable or preclude current opportunities spatially and temporally? Managing a balance of external flows of capital and people versus community control of development strategies and efforts is a key challenge, the meeting of which depends on the functionality of local institutions and civic culture.
4.4 Role of diversity
Communities are often encouraged to seek and exploit a regional comparative advantage, which, historically, has formed strong resource-based industries and local economies (Table 2). However, with nonlinear socioecological interactions and often unanticipated feedbacks, economic and social diversity prove critical in times of uncertainty (Sánchez-Zamora et al., 2014). T1 is testament to shifting commodity prices, labor costs, and other large-scale impositions of local shocks. Similar though distinct uncertainties exist for T2 and T3, and have the potential of future shocks in communities where overspecialization may occur. In T2 communities, historical vulnerability to commodity cost-price dynamics may be replaced by vulnerability to wage stagnation and declines in disposable income (Table 1). In T3 communities, price-based vulnerability may shift from one commodity to another. The challenges of economic redevelopment by virtue of an initial economic shock provide opportunity for balancing specialization and diversity over the long term (Holling and Gunderson, 2002). While a perfectly diverse local economy is likely unattainable for any community, regional comparative advantage will inevitably play a role in developing diversity that will help mitigate vulnerability to future shocks. Local institutions shape the extent and nature of diverse economic and social activities, but what conditions facilitate diversity? There likely is no single or predictable formula for success.
4.5 Novel recombinations
In all three trajectories and across all of our study regions, unexpected events challenge rural communities (Table 2). As is typical in socioecological systems, many of these events are linked with nonlinear and perhaps unpredictable interactions among community, landscape, and regional characteristics at multiple spatial and temporal scales (Kates and Clark, 1996 and Turner et al., 2003). In T1 communities, strong, enduring social networks (connectivity and social cohesion) and productive land-based resources may facilitate future community development (Table 1). A positive outcome may assume that a rural community resists temptation to pursue short-term economic gains through resource degradation, and maintains social networks over time. Conversely, an outcome of community decline could either be temporary, representing a waiting period from which a community emerges with ecological rejuvenation and renewed social strength, or terminal in which a community dissolves regardless of social cohesion or available resources. In both cases, the preservation of future outcomes results from decline, which may or may not enable unexpected, yet imaginable, positive community futures.
Strong parallels exist between T2 and T3 communities, where social and ecological connections introduce important uncertainties. Such interactions drive variation in the extent to which benefits of amenity-based development and new forms of production are distributed (Falk and Lobao, 2003 and Marcouiller et al., 2004). These interactions can also generate unexpected ecological changes to the resource base, especially where new activities concentrate resource use in certain areas or prioritize particular resource attributes over others. Flows of residents, visitors or consumers, and capital interact with forest resources to create complex socioecological dynamics, and community linkages to broader regional and global processes mediate these teleconnections (Seto et al., 2012).
New compatibilities or conflicts between various forms of production, amenities, and forest management are expected in rural forest-based landscapes in transition. Increasing low density housing development in forested landscapes complicates management of events such as invasive pest outbreaks and wildfires, which are representative of events that are manageable yet uncertain (Schneider et al., 1998) and can be extremely complex to address. As rural communities negotiate challenges introduced by climate change and energy futures, capacity building for adaptation must be part of any development strategy—what community conditions are necessary for robust outcomes to adaptation in response to a particular shock (Holling, 2001)? Commitment to a particular trajectory may be difficult to reverse and lead to positive or negative cascading interactions between system components. In addition, attention to cultivating adaptation capacity and social learning from novel recombinations might bring greater scrutiny of the interactive role of community factors and the potential for path-dependency.
4.6 Mitigation
Ingredients for mitigation (defined here as the intentional reduction of potential negative community impacts associated with each trajectory) include cultivating awareness of reciprocal socioecological relationships, fostering an inclusive civic culture and trust, and recognizing and valuing multiple voices. Analogous to other forms of community transitions, social learning—the process by which various groups learn from each other to define problems and establish common goals and perspectives—is critical to the ways in which rural forest-based communities negotiate trajectory tradeoffs (McSweeney and Coomes, 2011 and Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008). While a tall order for many communities, their varied futures depend at least partially on their respective abilities to foster social learning and other mitigation capacities. For T1 communities, processes that maintain a local, community identity and encourage strong social ties offer potential for social learning. Conversely, communities on the T2 and T3 trajectories may benefit most from processes that emphasize the shared aspects of diverse stakeholders in problem solving. Long-term ecosystem outcomes may depend on how well the objectives and impacts of new residents or tourists (e.g., those seeking natural amenities) and local industries (e.g., those relying on natural resources for production) can be reconciled. Participation in community problem-solving can lead to long-term cooperation if formal and informal relationships among various groups can be fostered (Patel et al., 2007). Groups can work to define desired community-level outcomes (e.g., locally- or regionally-oriented economy, quality of natural resources) and then discuss means of obtaining those goals (Robinson, 2003). Do varying levels of connectivity, social cohesion, and ties to the resource base drive variation in resultant mitigating strategies that minimize community impact from shocks? Such interactions foster inclusivity and trust and critically shape individual and group decisions that in turn influence the way in which the forests are managed and communities evolve.
For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016715300231
No comments:
Post a Comment