Find the information such as human life, natural resource,agriculture,forestry, biotechnology, biodiversity, wood and non-wood materials.
Blog List
Tuesday, 29 November 2016
Understanding the relationship between social change and its impacts: The experience of rural land use change in south-eastern Australia
Published Date October 2012, Vol.28(4):538–548,doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.05.002 Growing Old in Rural Places Open Access, Creative Commons license Author
Kathryn J.H. Williams a,c,,
Jacki Schirmer b,c
aMelbourne School of Land and Environment, Department of Resource Management and Geography, The University of Melbourne, 221 Bouverie Street, Parkville 3010, Australia
bFenner School of Environment and Society, Building 48, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia
cCooperative Research Centre for Forestry, College Road, Sandy Bay, Tasmania Private Bag 12, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Available online 15 September 2012.
Abstract
This study investigated socio-economic impacts of land use change, giving explicit attention to the relationships between independently observed land use change and associated socio-economic changes, perceived land use change and socio-economic change, attributed cause of change, and experienced impacts of change. Using a case study region in south-east Australia, we examined the impacts of growth in use of land for dairy farming, cropping, blue gum plantations and rural residential development on (i) rural population trends, and (ii) the amount and nature of employment available in the study region. Perceptions and impacts of change were assessed using multiple qualitative and quantitative methods. Results demonstrate that local residents were not always aware of the extent and nature of land use change, and had difficulty attributing social changes and their impacts to the land use changes that underlie them. Furthermore, the felt impacts of land use change appeared dependent on a person's awareness of that change, and on their beliefs about the causes of social change. These findings highlight avenues for theoretical development to better specify the processes by which social change processes are experienced as human impacts. The findings also have implications for land use policy and social impact assessment, illustrating the importance of understanding both perceived and actual social change.
Highlights
► Social impacts of land use change depend on a person's awareness of that change. ► Impacts of land use change also depend on attributed causes of social change. ► Perceived social change sometimes differs from independently observed change. ► Addressing impacts require understanding both perceived and actual social change.
Keywords
Rural land use change
Socio-economic impacts
Social impact assessment
Mixed methods research
1 Background
Rural land use is changing rapidly in many parts of the world (Curry et al., 2001; Petit, 2009; Rudel, 2009). While shifts from agricultural to non-agricultural land uses, such as wind farms or reafforestation, often attract the greatest public (and academic) attention, the largest land use changes frequently involve a shift from one traditional rural land use to another, such as a shift from grazing to broadacre cropping (Williams, 2011). All types of land use change have the potential to significantly impact rural communities through both positive and negative socio-economic change, often accompanied by social contention and debate (Kruger, 2005; Xu et al., 2007). While policy makers seek to promote positive benefits of rural land use change and reduce any negative impacts, these efforts may be complicated by conflicting views among stakeholders and the general public regarding the impacts of land use changes (Schirmer, 2007; Wester-Herber, 2004). Understanding the reasons for different views on the impacts of land use change is crucial to developing appropriate responses to community concerns. This paper contributes new insights by comparing independently observed land use change and associated socio-economic changes, with perceptions of those changes, and the impacts of change on the lives of rural people.
Regional land use change is the outcome of many small scale drivers and changes, with decisions made at an individual or property scale influenced by regional, national and global norms, environmental change, policy and market forces (Barr, 2000; Verburg et al., 2008). As such, the extent and impacts of change may be highly variable across even relatively small areas. A shift in what is grown on the land is accompanied by flow-on changes in socio-economic production systems, such as a shift to new forms of land ownership (for example, from the family farm to corporate management), or in the supply chain, for example through intensification of production and resultant change in the nature of farm inputs purchased and utilised (Barr et al., 2005). Regional land use change is often unevenly distributed in spatial terms (Petit, 2009; Verburg et al., 2008). Local and regional variation in rainfall, soil quality, and infrastructure access mean that land use changes may be localised to only some parts of a region (Thomas and Sporton, 1997). In addition, many rural regions experience multiple drivers of land use change simultaneously, and the impacts of each depend in part on how different land use change drivers and responses interact (Barr, 2008). This complexity is illustrated by the work of Barr et al. (2005) and Barr (2008) who examined rural land use change in Victoria, Australia. He found a complex mix of interacting forces shaped land use change, including changing terms of trade for agricultural producers forcing them to increase farm size to remain competitive, an ageing farming workforce, increasing demand for high-amenity land by urban residents seeking to shift onto small rural properties, and increasing use of off-farm work by farmers. These and other factors interacted to produce multiple distinct rural landscapes, in each of which a different mix of causative factors resulted in a unique profile of land use change. For example, in production-oriented landscapes, land use change was dominated by amalgamation of farms, expansion of cropping, and population decline. In rural amenity landscapes, by contrast, attractive natural features and accessibility by road networks to larger population centres led to smaller landholding size as ‘seachangers’ seeking small rural properties for lifestyle purposes shifted into the areas, and population was more likely to grow. The complexity of rural land use change means that identifying socio-economic impacts of this change can be challenging, requiring methods that are suited to untangling the range of factors at play (Schirmer, 2011b).
Beyond the complexity of land use change itself, those endeavouring to understand socio-economic impacts of rural land use change are further challenged by the different ways people experience impacts of change. This is evident from the work of Vanclay and others (Slootweg et al., 2001; Vanclay, 2002) who argue that to understand the impact of any change one must identify both the social and biophysical changes occurring and the felt experience, or impact, of these changes. This approach recognises that an intervention such as a change in land use leads to processes of social change, but that these social change processes do not equate to social impact: instead, the impacts of social change processes will vary for different people depending on their situation. For example, a change in the number of people living in a community may be experienced as a positive impact by some residents and a negative impact by others. This means that understanding and addressing social impacts of land use change is highly complex, as impacts will vary depending on both the nature and extent of land use change and the way people experience the social changes that result from this land use change.
A range of social and psychological factors are likely to influence whether and how social change processes result in particular types of human impact. While the distinction between social change processes and social impacts has been well established, the nature of the relationship between the two has not been examined in detail in literature seeking to conceptualise social impact (for example Vanclay, 2002). Several studies have suggested a range of factors that may influence how a person experiences a social change, indicating a number of avenues by which social change processes result in differing social impacts. Schirmer (2011b) suggested that a person's goals, occupation, or life stage affect how they experience land use change, while Alston (2006) demonstrated how gender influences the experience of drought. A number of authors have pointed to the ways that the values or beliefs a person holds regarding place, rurality or belonging shape the experience of social change (Barlow and Cocklin, 2003; Convery et al., 2005; Devine-Wright, 2009). Others still have considered the influence of community and farmer adaptive responses to change (Ross and McGee, 2006; Vanclay, 2003a). While a broad range of factors have been identified, the influence of this work on conceptions of social impact is limited: the work is dispersed across diverse fields such as rural sociology, environmental psychology and social impact assessment literature, and there has been limited attempt to synthesise or integrate this work (Ross and McGee, 2006), or to more explicitly identify the pathways between social change processes and experience of impacts arising from them as part of frameworks such as that presented by Slootweg et al. (2001).
In particular, existing models give little attention to the ways that awareness of land use change and attribution of causes of socio-economic changes influence the experienced impacts of land use change. There is good reason to suggest that these factors will make a difference to experienced impact. Some land use changes are more visible than others in a physical or perceptual-social sense (Miller, 2001; Sevenant and Antrop, 2007), and there is evidence that awareness of land use changes is variable. Surveys of residents in rural southwest Victoria found disproportionate awareness of increases in plantations relative to more common forms of land use change such as increased cropping (Williams et al., 2003). Even where there is awareness of land use change, identifying the nature of the social changes that accompany it, and attributing experiences (impacts) to those changes is fraught with difficulty. As noted above, multiple land use changes are often occurring at once; these together with other factors contribute to social change, which in turn is experienced in varying ways by different people. As such, attribution of social change is uncertain; residents may attribute negative or positive experiences to a land use that is not causally associated with the relevant socio-economic change. Despite this, there is little evidence that factors such as awareness and attribution are being considered in social impact assessment. While Slootweg et al. (2001) and Vanclay's (2002) key papers set out a compelling case for the separation of social change processes and social impacts when assessing social impact, they give little attention to how the extent and nature of awareness of social change processes, or the attributions individuals make regarding these processes, might influence a person's felt social impacts.
The accuracy of conceptual frameworks explaining how social changes do and do not lead to human impact has significant practical consequence. Policy makers attempting to assist rural communities in adjusting to land use change must correctly identify causal factors of positive and negative impact if they are to implement effective supportive policy and planning. Social impact assessment is a methodology widely used to understand the social impacts of land use and other changes. Practitioners in this field also require a sound basis for identifying how social impact occurs in rural communities (Ross and McGee, 2006; Vanclay, 2002, 2003b). This paper contributes to this understanding through a detailed examination of the socio-economic impact of rural land use change occurring in a relatively large region in south-eastern Australia. The analysis incorporates explicit consideration and comparison of observed land use change, observed socio-economic change, and experienced impact of land uses in relation to awareness of land use change and attribution of socio-economic change. The study was conducted over a three-year period (2006–2009). Multiple methods were used to explore social change and impacts of change. We focus primarily on two aspects of socio-economic change: changes in population, particularly population decline and turnover; and changes in employment. Past research has indicated significant concern about how land use changes affect local populations and employment opportunities (Berry et al., 1990; Curry et al., 2001; Schirmer, 2000; Williams et al., 2003), and about the social impacts any change in population and jobs may have on those living in the region (Barlow and Cocklin, 2003, p. 509).
2 Case study region
The study region extended from Robe in South Australia to Colac in Central Victoria (Fig. 1). In 2006 the region had a population of 227,200 people. Almost one quarter of residents (22.7%) lived in the two major regional cities (Warrnambool and Mt Gambier), and a further 25.2% in smaller regional cities with a population greater than 5000 such as Hamilton, Horsham, Portland and Colac (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006b). The remainder – just over half the population – lived on rural properties, or in small rural towns or settlements. The region is organised into 17 local government areas.
Fig. 1. Map of study region, Green Triangle and Central Victoria.
The region makes a significant and diverse contribution to national agricultural and forestry production. For example, while the study region includes 1.1% of Australia's agricultural land, in 2006 it had 20.1% of Australia's hardwood plantations and 18.2% of softwood plantations, 14.9% of Australia's dairy cows, 14.6% of the national area of pasture/hay crops, 13.6% of the national flock of sheep and lambs, 12.9% of the grapes grown in Australia, 9.0% of Australia's oilseed area, 5.9% of Australia's beef cattle, and 2.6% of Australia's cereal grain crops (Schirmer et al., 2009).
Socio-economic impacts of land use change were examined for 1991 to 2006, a period in which ongoing land use change occurred in the study region. This largely, although not always, involved a shift from the sheep grazing for wool production that had dominated much of the region through to the early 1990s, to increasing use of rural land for dairy farming, beef cattle grazing, dryland cropping of cereal grains and oilseeds, establishment of ‘blue gum’ plantations, and grape growing, as well as for rural residential purposes. All but the last three have typically involved farmers changing the types of produce grown on their land, and often some farm amalgamation, with farmers purchasing additional properties and expanding their enterprises over time. The latter three typically involve a change in land ownership: blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) tree plantations grown for wood pulp over 10–15 years are largely established by private companies who lease or purchase land from farmers; viticulture has involved some new corporate owners establishing areas of vines as well as some traditional farmers; while rural residential development may still involve some agricultural production from the land (often referred to as ‘hobby farming’), but is distinguished from mainstream agricultural production as it involves new residents shifting onto and managing small rural properties for lifestyle, rather than rural production, purposes.
These various land use changes have been driven by a number of factors. A key trigger was a shift away from sheep grazing for wool triggered by price pressures in the wool industry, particularly the Australian government's withdrawal of a guaranteed floor price for wool in 1991 (Massy, 2011; Vanclay, 2003a). The region's sheep flock has since declined by over one-third, which has in turn created significant opportunity for land use change over time (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006a). Other factors triggering land use change include changing market conditions and climatic variability; for example, among other factors, a decline in rainfall in southern parts of the region has encouraged a shift from grazing to dryland cropping. In the case of blue gum plantations, plantation expansion was driven by a number of factors, including the establishment of legislation enabling new investment mechanisms that provided up-front tax deductions for establishment of plantations, and a commitment by both the Australian government and private forest industry to trebling the area of Australia's plantations between the 1990s and 2020 (Plantations, 2020, 1997). Meanwhile a desire for a different lifestyle has led increasing numbers of people to shift to rural areas for a ‘seachange’ (Osbaldiston, 2010).
While a diversity of land use changes have occurred in the region, in this paper we focus on four that are particularly significant for the region: increased plantation forestry, rural residential development, dairy farming and cropping (Schirmer et al., 2008b). We selected these as they were either topics of public debate (blue gum plantations, rural residential expansion), promoted as a method of revitalising rural communities (dairy farming), or widespread in terms of area (cropping). The expansion of blue gum plantations in particular has been the subject of widespread controversy in the region, with debate about its social and economic impacts common when plantations are established, while rural residential expansion has been less controversial but still commonly discussed as being associated with significant social change (Williams et al., 2003). Expansion of dairy farming is often presented in the local media as a positive economic development (O'Toole and Keneley, 2010; Schirmer, 2011a), while the large-scale expansion of cropping is rarely commented on publicly in the region.
3 Methods
In this paper we explore the links between land use change and its impacts by comparing (a) the actual and perceived extent of each of the four land uses studied, (b) the perceived and actual changes in population and employment associated with these land uses, and finally (c) felt experience, or impacts. We used a mixed-method approach to gather and analyse data. The methods used are summarised in Table 1, with further detail provided in several sources (Schirmer, 2011b, in press; Schirmer et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2008). This paper draws on results from this study already published in peer reviewed books and articles. It also draws on some previously unpublished data. Where methods used have been published elsewhere we provide the relevant reference and a brief summary of methods, rather than an in-depth description of methods.
Table 1. Summary of research methods.
Component
Participants/Data source
Approach
Purpose
Group Interviews
69 residents
Purposive sampling of participants through community groups. Semi-structured interviews (Schirmer et al., 2008b).
Identify significant land use change for residents; explore accounts of impacts of land use change
Resident Survey
899 residents
Postal survey with self-completed questionnaire. Systematic sampling through telephone directory (Williams et al., 2008).
Observe awareness of selected land use changes; quantify beliefs about impacts and causes
Landholder Survey
81 landholders
Purposive sampling by industry based on membership of industry associations (Schirmer et al., 2008a).
Identify employment patterns of key land use types
Analysis of Independent Data
Australian Bureau of Statistics; other government sources
Identify (a) key socio-economic and land use changes occurring; and (b) associations between land use change and socio-economic change.
Focus Groups
66 people with in-depth knowledge of land use in area
Purposive sampling of people with particular regional knowledge of land use issues including local government councillors and planners, farmers and graziers, rural real estate and stock agents, members of local community groups and fire brigades, and local rural consultants and extension officers (Schirmer, in press).
Test patterns observed in analysis of independent data through identifying (a) any problems with the data, and (b) informants interpretations of how and why different changes had occurred, and the consequences of those changes.
First, the extent of growth in use of land for blue gum plantations, cropping, dairy farming and rural residential properties between 1991 and 2006 was examined, using the best available indicator for each form of change, for example area of land used or, where this was not feasible, flock/herd numbers.
Second, we identified likely associations between land use change and socio-economic change, using independent data on population and employment, together with a small survey of rural landholders identifying the employment generated by different land uses. To establish the likely relationship between land use change and changes in population and employment, we first examined whether there was a relationship at the scale of the individual farm enterprise, through gathering direct data identifying the change in employment generated per hectare, and population supported by the land, associated with land use change. This was followed by ‘scaling up’ the analysis to identify whether the influence of land use change on population or jobs at the individual property scale was large enough to be ‘visible’ against the many other factors simultaneously influencing these trends at a larger scale (Schirmer, 2011a, 2011b). This enabled identification of whether the trends observed at individual property scale were large enough to have an observable impact on population or employment trends at larger scales, or whether the many other factors influencing these trends, such as the ongoing rural population decline occurring in many Australian rural inland areas due to increasing farm efficiency and exit of youth (Hugo, 2005), had a greater influence. This ‘scaling up’ involved comparative analysis of areas experiencing differing extents of land use change (for example, no expansion of plantations compared to low, medium or high rates of expansion over the period studied), to identify if they experienced observably different population or employment trends. The larger scale examined was that of the ‘statistical local area’ (SLA), with each local government area in the region split into between one and three SLAs in the reporting of many available statistics for the region.
Third, we examined residents' perceptions regarding land use change via a survey of local residents of the region (Williams et al., 2008). This Resident Survey included questions about whether key land uses had increased, decreased or remained unchanged (awareness), and about perceptions of the influence of land use change on population and employment (perceived socio-economic change). For the latter, participants were asked whether, in their view, an increase in each land use would result in ‘fewer or more people living in smaller towns and rural areas?’, and ‘less or more employment in smaller towns and rural areas?’ While responses were given on a 5-point scale, these were re-coded into three categories: increase, little or no change, or decrease in population or employment. Potential respondents were selected randomly from an electronic telephone directory for the area. Questionnaires were posted to the first named addressee. Up to three reminders, including a re-posted questionnaire, were distributed over a six-week period. The response rate was 31 percent. Older and male residents were over represented in the sample. Data were analysed primarily using simple descriptive statistics.
Finally, the felt experience, or impact, of land use change for local residents, was analysed. This drew partly on data from the Resident Survey, in which participants were asked to rate the overall impact of each of the four land use change using a 5-point scale where 1 = negative impact and 5 = positive impact. Impacts were also identified through group interviews conducted for the study. Group interviews identified the land use changes that residents of the region considered most significant, and explored the diversity of views held by local residents about the nature of social changes and impacts arising from those changes. Interview data were analysed thematically, with a focus on how participants experienced any socio-economic changes they associated with land use changes, rather than on quantifying the frequency of these experiences (Schirmer et al., 2008b).
The methods used were exploratory in nature: they enabled a qualitative identification of the links between land use change, perceptions of that change and experience of its impacts. We compared the results of analysis of independent data and of the Resident Survey to identify whether residents' perceptions were consistent with (i) the actual extent of land use change, and (ii) the changes in population and employment identified as being associated with that land use change. Based on the Resident Survey, perceptions of the social changes associated with each land use change were correlated with perceptions of overall impact, to identify whether perceived impact was closely linked to the nature of the social changes residents believed were associated with a land use change. Our data did not support statistical analysis beyond simple correlations, and we focus in our results on identifying potential relationships that can be explored in more depth in future in order to better establish the role of residents' perceptions in influencing their experience of the social impacts of land use change.
4 Results
The findings are described for each land use below.
4.1 Blue gum plantations
Blue gum plantations were primarily located in high rainfall parts of the study region, within 200 km of ports from which the woodchips they were established to produce could be exported. While the largest areas were established in southern and western parts of the region, blue gum plantations were established across a high proportion of the study region. There was a very high awareness of increase in these plantations, with 78% of Resident Survey respondents reporting having observed growth in this land use over the past 10–15 years, including residents living in areas of the region where few or no blue gum plantations were established (Table 2).
Table 2. Extent of land use change, and residents' awareness of land use change.
New land use
Growth in land use in study region between 1991 and 2006 (hectares or herd size)
Awareness of increasing land use change (% respondents to Resident Survey who reported being aware of growth in this land use in the area near where they lived)
The large majority of rural residential expansion occurred in southern parts of the study region, either near the coast, near aesthetically pleasing lakes or treed areas, or surrounding regional towns and cities; very little occurred in northern parts of the region.b
70
a
It was not possible to estimate the area of land used for dairy farming in 1991, as no data were available on average stocking rates, or area of land used. In 2006, data on average stocking rates were sourced from the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and combined with data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Agricultural Census to produce an area estimate, with approximately 398 550 ha used for dairy farming in this year by a total herd of 415 880 cows. Herd size is used as a proxy for land use change over time, with focus group participants reporting this to be a useful measure.
b
The exact area of rural residential development could not be measured, due to difficulty defining what type of properties should be considered ‘rural residential’ versus ‘agricultural’, and lack of accessible data on the area of land falling into each category if a definition were made. Instead, the areas where this land use expanded rapidly, somewhat, or very little were identified using a combination of expert informants in focus groups, and data from the ABS Census of Population and Housing on the proportion of rural properties onto which new residents shifted between 2001 and 2006.
c
Data source: Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) National Plantation Inventory; area grew from 675 ha to 148 780 ha between 1991 and 2005; note that the data range is from 1991 to 2005 as 2006 data were not available.
d
Data source: ABS Agricultural Census together with data supplied by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries.
e
Data source: ABS Agricultural Census; area cropped grew from 496 788 to 855 958 ha between 1991 and 2006.
Analysis of independent data suggested that at the scale of the individual property, a shift from sheep or beef grazing to growing blue gum plantations is associated with decline in the number of people living on the property, and with change in the type of people living in a region, with previous residents often shifting away, and new residents shifting to live on rural properties established to plantations (Table 3). At the SLA scale, the association between increased plantations and population was mixed; it appears that in most cases, other factors have a greater influence on rural population trends than plantation expansion. In some areas, plantations replaced dairy farming; where this was the case an increase in plantations was associated with above average population decline and increased median age. However in most instances, plantations replaced grazing for beef or sheep. Here there was no clear pattern of association between increase in plantations and population; in some SLAs population changes were positive, in others negative or neutral. However there was a clear association between increased plantations and turnover in population. SLAs with a significant increase in plantations had a higher than average rate of in-migration of new residents compared to other SLAs.
Table 3. Comparison of independently observed trends in population with residents' perceptions of population change associated with four land use changes (increased blue gum plantation, cropping, dairy and rural residential development).
New land use
Previous land use
Analysis of independent data on influence of land use change on population trendsa
Analysis of perceptions of residents in the study regionb
Change in population at individual property scalec
For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074301671500039X
No comments:
Post a Comment