‘Back of the Envelope’: Pragmatic Planning for Sustainable Rural Community Development

Markey, Sean; Connelly, Sean; Roseland, Mark

doi:10.1080/02697451003625356

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roseland, 2012; United Nations, 2015). The following section illustrates how rural communities are often overlooked in these models, leading to an inadequate understanding of the contextual differences between rural and urban areas (Markey, Connelly, & Roseland, 2010). We also show how natural resource-dependent communities have often been excluded from discourse on sustainability and innovation (Carter & Vodden, 2017;Hall & Donald, 2009).…”

Section: Untold Stories Of Sustainability In Rural and Resource-basmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This urban bias is evident throughout SCD research in the Global North, as well as frameworks like New Urbanism, the Ecocity movement, and even SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities (Ecocity Builders, 2020; Roseland, 2012; United Nations, 2015). The following section illustrates how rural communities are often overlooked in these models, leading to an inadequate understanding of the contextual differences between rural and urban areas (Markey, Connelly, & Roseland, 2010). We also show how natural resource‐dependent communities have often been excluded from discourse on sustainability and innovation (Carter & Vodden, 2017; Hall & Donald, 2009).…”

Section: Untold Stories Of Sustainability In Rural and Resource‐basedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In northern settings, SD research and practice often ignore the contextual differences between urban and rural communities. Strategies developed for urban areas are often used in copy‐paste fashion in rural places (Markey et al, 2010), while comparative research often fails to acknowledge the contextual factors that distinguish urban and rural regions (e.g., Rodrigues & Franco, 2019). This urban‐centric approach may undervalue important (yet difficult to measure) rural assets like social capital (Baines, 2012; Reimer, 2005), identity, and attachment to place (Markey et al, 2019).…”

Section: Untold Stories Of Sustainability In Rural and Resource‐basedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Storytelling for sustainable development in rural communities: An alternative approach

Lowery

Dagevos

Chuenpagdee

et al. 2020

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mainstream conceptualizations of sustainable development (SD) tend to focus on urban areas or the national or global scale-most recently through the Sustainable Development Goals. This focus often overlooks rural and natural resource-based communities, particularly those dependent on renewable resources like fisheries or forestry. Drawing from a comprehensive review, we propose an alternative approach for interpreting and measuring SD in these contexts. We integrate two seemingly contradictory approaches: sustainability indicators (SIs), whose evolution reflects competing views of the nature of knowledge and action in pursuit of SD, and the use of storytelling in policy and planning, highlighting how actors tell stories to garner support for proposed developments, influence public understanding, and mobilize stakeholders. Examining the opposing epistemologies often underlying these two approaches, we posit that they can be brought together through a transdisciplinary lens for sustainable rural development. We illustrate these potentials in Newfoundland and Labrador, a highly resource-based region in which rural communities are often characterized by deficiencies based narratives. In such contexts, storytelling can allow rural stakeholders to interpret SD while potentially enlisting SIs in telling their own sustainability stories.

show abstract

Section: Untold Stories Of Sustainability In Rural and Resource-basmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Untold Stories Of Sustainability In Rural and Resource‐basedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Untold Stories Of Sustainability In Rural and Resource‐basedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Storytelling for sustainable development in rural communities: An alternative approach

Lowery

Dagevos

Chuenpagdee

et al. 2020

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strong local interpersonal networks and trust are widely cited as both a precondition [5,14,38,50,51,56,79,[94][95][96][97][98][99][100] and a potential outcome [35,50,75,79,101,102] of CRE projects.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable energy: A review and research agenda

Berka

Creamer

2018

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing literature suggests that community owned renewable energy (CRE) projects have the potential to deliver a range of environmental and local socio-economic benefits. There is relatively little empirical evidence to substantiate this, with few systematic efforts to assess social and environmental impacts or to understand the context in which given impacts arise. In this paper, we review and conceptualise the local impacts commonly cited in the literature and dissect the empirical evidence currently available to support their occurrence. Having assessed the quality of evidence and pinpointed knowledge gaps, we draw on methodological literature to identify approaches necessary to improve our understanding of the local impacts of CRE and explore their patterns of occurrence. We find a lack of robust survey and statistical evidence across all the seven impact categories identified. Of the impacts identified, 'empowerment' and 'access to affordable energy' are found to be the least studied. In addition, several impacts are associated only with specific types of community energy projects. We argue that the paucity of consistent evidence for direct impacts associated with the development processes and direct outcomes of projects suggests that the most substantial local impacts result from medium to long term indirect project outcomes and the investment of project revenues in the local community. As such, collective funding pools and negotiation processes around their distribution towards private versus public goods play a crucial role in determining transformative local impacts of CRE.

show abstract

“…We noted a particular gap in natural resource indicators, likely stemming from the low level of resource dependence across the sample; however, more remote communities (including the two Indigenous-led initiatives) placed stronger emphasis on natural resources. These findings highlight the need for consideration of the many contextual differences between urban and rural communities [133], and different kinds of rural contexts, in future research on sustainable rural development and SI tools.…”

Section: Geographic Divide In Si Initiatives and Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Goal-Driven or Data-Driven? Inventory of Sustainability Indicator Initiatives in Rural Canada

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article seeks to address knowledge gaps on sustainability indicators (SIs) in rural and natural resource-dependent communities, considering how they are used to contextualize sustainable development priorities and support local governance. We build on recent scholarship on the potentials of SIs for stimulating societal transformation, extending this inquiry into rural and resource-based communities which have been under-represented in SI research. The governance challenges facing rural Canada, as well as its geographic and socio-economic diversity, provide a unique context for examining these issues. We provide relatively uncommon synthetic findings by compiling an inventory of SI initiatives across 39 rural communities and regions of Canada. Using the Community Capital Framework, we examine grey literature and academic publications related to each initiative spanning from 1999–2019 to determine the breadth of sustainable development priorities considered. Informed by collaborative and multi-level governance frameworks, we explore how these initiatives are used to support multi-stakeholder collective action. This article finds that rural Canadian SI initiatives prioritize socio-cultural capital, with relatively fewer economic and ecological indicators, while identifying a typology of SI use and inter-related governance dynamics informing how these priorities and indicators are determined. Although some initiatives display highly collaborative and bottom-up processes, many rural Canadian SI initiatives are characterized by a data-driven approach that, when met with local capacity gaps, fails to contextualize standardized datasets to reflect rural realities. We encourage more in-depth investigation of these findings and comparison of Canadian experiences to other jurisdictions.

show abstract

‘Back of the Envelope’: Pragmatic Planning for Sustainable Rural Community Development

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

Storytelling for sustainable development in rural communities: An alternative approach

Storytelling for sustainable development in rural communities: An alternative approach

Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable energy: A review and research agenda

Goal-Driven or Data-Driven? Inventory of Sustainability Indicator Initiatives in Rural Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About