Monitoring Change in Community Wellbeing: Perceptions, Implications, Policy, Place

Aalders, I., Fiorini, S., Gilbert, A. MacLeod, M. and Williams, F.

It is largely assumed that the strength of a community (as echoed through notions of social and economic wellbeing) is important to the sustainability of that community and the sustainable development of an area. The Government Economic Strategy’s Cohesion ‘Golden Rule’ (Scottish Government, 2007a) recognises, however, geographical disparities in economic activity in Scotland and their consequences for rural communities.

Rural communities are fluid and subject to considerable change, the result of  responses to local, national and global social and economic drivers.  The dynamic nature of communities makes the character of rural communities less clearly defined, as is the relationship between communities of place and communities of interest.  Such relationships may be signified by alternative economic and social interactions, for example, professionals being disconnected from where they live. This has implication for policy makers and planners aiming at improving the sustainability and wellbeing of rural areas.

The ability of rural communities to withstand these pressures is largely understood, in policy and in academic literature, to be dependent upon their relative ‘strength’ or ‘fragility’. There is little conceptual clarity, however, over the socio-cultural and economic factors which determine the ‘strength’ required to create the “thriving rural communities” which Scotland’s rural policy aims to support (Scottish Government, 2007b). Theoretical concepts that aim to characterise community ‘wellbeing’ include community cohesion (Spoonley et al, 2005, Jeanotte 2000), social cohesion (The Council of Europe, 2005), quality of life (Forward Scotland, 2008), social capital (Bridger and Lulofff, 2001) and deprivation (Noble et al, 2003). In rural areas these inter-related aspects of wellbeing are expected to be key factors in determining future performance and sustainability of rural populations. A persistent problem for both academics and policy makers is, however, how to identify and monitor trends using indicators which are able to represent ‘slippery’ concepts that are typically contextual, behavioural, relational, and intangible in nature. Commonly indicators use quantitative proxies which are often criticised for failing to adequately measure or represent reality in rural areas (UHI PolicyWeb, 2005; Woodward, 1996; McSorley, 2008). Moreover, there remains considerable debate as to the causality and transferability of some attributes considered indicative of wellbeing.

This paper aims to contribute to our understanding of rural community wellbeing through an empirical application of the recently published measurement framework, “A wellbeing framework for Scotland (Forward Scotland, 2008). Based on available secondary information, we develop a spatial representation of selected well-being indicators (appropriate proxies) as applied to the Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park.  These proxies were then discussed with focus groups of local residents to examine the perceived effectiveness of the indicators in representing community well-being as well as the drivers of change. During the focus groups particular attention was given to the capacity of assessing change and drivers of change experienced by rural community in three fundamental areas of Scotland’s rural life and well being: agriculture, cultural identity, and the natural environment and the sustainable use of its resources.

References:

Bridger, J. C. & Luloff, A. E. 2001, "Building the Sustainable Community: Is Social Capital the Answer?", Sociological Inquiry, vol. 71, no. 4, p. 458.

Forward Scotland 2008 A wellbeing framework for Scotland: a better way for measuring society’s progress in the 21st Century. Forward Scotland. Online available at: http://www.forward-scotland.org.uk/Publications/Wellbeing-Better-Measure-Society-s-Progress.html 

Jeanotte, M. Sharon. 2000 Social Cohesion Around the World: An International Comparison of Definitions and Issues, Strategic Research and Analysis, Canadian Heritage, Ottawa.

McSorley, L. 2008. Living in Poverty in Rural Areas. Unpublished report to the Scottish Government Rural and Environmental Research and Analysis Directorate.

Noble, M., Smith, G., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Lloyd, M., Ratcliffe, A., McLellan, D., Sigala, M., and Anttila, C. 2003 Scottish indices of deprivation 2003. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Government, 2007a, The Government Economic Strategy. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Online available at : http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/12115041/0

Scottish Government, 2007b, Scotland Rural Development Programme 2007-2013. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Online available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/07/20145359/0

Spoonley, P.,  Peace, R., Butcher, A. and O’Neill, D. 2005 “Social Cohesion: A Policy and Indicator Framework for Assessing Immigrant and Host Outcomes”, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24 : 85-110.

The Council of Europe. 2005 Concerted development of social cohesion indicators – methodological guide. The Council of Europe. Online available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/indicators_en.asp

UHI PolicyWeb, 2005, Policy Brief: Indicators used for Rural and Urban Poverty in Policy Processes.

Woodward, R. 1996, ‘Deprivation’ and ‘the rural’: an investigation into contradictory discourses. Journal of Rural Studies, 12(1), 55-67.