Rural service hubs and socially innovative rural-urban linkages: A conceptual framework for nexogenous development

Abstract

Co-locating services has become a common solution to the many longstanding challenges of service access and provision in rural areas. Rural service hubs – which offer two or more services at the same outlet – take many forms, typically responding to triggers for social innovation. Despite their growing ubiquity, however, rural service hubs have been little studied in comparative perspective. This article shifts the lens on service hubs from place-based solutions towards a broader, multi-scalar and multi-level perspective on rural connectivity. We propose a five dimension conceptual framework in contribution to the emerging theorisation of nexogenous rural development a model for resourceful reconnection beyond place and across rural–urban space. Drawing on examples from Austria, Finland and Wales, we illustrate how diverse service hub models mobilise social innovation, networks, scale and proximity to support service access and provision.

All hubs and no spokes? Exploring the potential of hubs to sustain rural and regional development

“…In other words, rural hubs cannot simply be the outcome of policy investments to address a local need, nor can they be solely ‘bottom-up initiatives’. As Goodwin-Hawkins (this issue) explains, they are likely to function most effectively as part of a rural nexogenous development model (Bock, 2016), where the hub provides a critical space for connection the local and extra-local networks.…”

“…Through such analysis, the goal of the Special Issue is to identify opportunities for greater complementarity and collaboration among hubs, including the potential for cross-sector, multi-activity hubs to support a range of rural development objectives. Addressing the question in the title, we also examine the prevalence of hubs in relation to the connections that they make as ‘no hub should exist as an island’ (Goodwin-Hawkins et al, this issue). A key function of any hub is to connect people, places and organisations in ways that promote rural development.…”

“…The range of “hubs” in rural areas has extended across many activities relating to diverse social, cultural, health and wellbeing, economic, technological and environmental needs of rural places. Rural transport hubs have been discussed in an earlier volume (Bosworth et al, 2020) and this issue adds contributions that focus on food hubs (Curry), enterprise hubs (Merrell, Rowe et al), co-working hubs (Merrell, Russell et al; Avdikos and Papageorgiou), creative hubs (Hill et al), digital hubs (Rundel and Salemink; Price et al) and service hubs (Goodwin-Hawkins et al). Each of these combine questions of place and function, recognising that hubs are shaped by their socio-cultural and environmental context, while simultaneously shaping that context through their development and activities.…”

“…For example, creating ‘micro-clusters’ for arts and crafts businesses (Merrell et al, this issue) creates an identifiable presence in the local area to attract greater footfall and reputation while simultaneously facilitating collaboration, skills and innovation in a sector with growth potential. Similarly, although the purpose of co-locating services tends to be expressly to overcome disadvantages of economic location, research has shown how socially innovative approaches can generate greater endogenous capacity and access to exogenous resources (Goodwin-Hawkins et al, this issue).…”

“…The different categories of hubs featured in this special issue all address matters that have a particular connection to rural places. In several cases, hubs meet multiple needs where social and economic objectives intertwine (Curry, this issue; Goodwin-Hawkins et al, this issue). This complexity requires tailored strategies to respond to the distinctive strengths and weaknesses of diverse rural places (Rundel and Salemink, this issue).…”