Download Frame data for theory – the start!

Alternate Futures for Basin
Communities
Dr Leonie Pearson & Dr Lain Dare
Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis
Murray-Darling Basin Futures CRN
Introduction and framing
Aim of workshop:
• Share data on “imagined” futures
in 6 communities
• Frame data for theory
• Explore data for policy
Frame data for theory –
the start!
– What capacity is important for
purposeful community change? (e.g. Moser
& Ekstrom, 2010; Marshall et al. 2012)
• The need and willingness to “imagine” and
undertake change
• How risks and uncertainty are managed
• Skills in planning learning and reorganising
for change
• Flexibility of financial, organisational,
human & natural capitals
– Does capacity vary by type of ‘imagined’
change? (Wilson et al., 2010, Butzler, 2012, Pearson & Pearson,
2012)
• Postulate that communities want different
types of change, from: adaptation (small,
BAU), transition to transformation
(revolution)
Methods
• Inductive scenario building (Kahane 2012, Pearson et
al. in review)
• Qualitative analytical techniques
– 8 Future Forums in 2013
– 70+ participants mostly community leaders
• Questions on:
– measures of progress
– visions of the future (ideal and reality)
– Barriers & opportunities
Share the data:
What is progress?
What do you think are the
key themes that our towns
would consider as progress?
What is progress?
Commonalities &
Differences
Commonalities – all wanted
• Increase in population
• more secure water
• NBN
• Greater health services
• Community spirit and cohesion
Differences
• Education was divided into those
focused on tertiary (e.g. TAFE and
Uni) and others focused on
younger aged kids e.g. childcare
and schools
• Some wanted to value add to
current agricultural industries,
whilst others wanted to diversify
away from agricultural production
What is progress?
What are the ideal
futures?
Commonalities &
Differences
Commonalities – all wanted
• Strong cohesive population
• Water as value add to industry and
town identity
• Local decision making and
governance
Differences
• Some relied on water for industry,
others not
• Type of infrastructure wanted was
important, i.e. health, housing,
aged care, etc.
• Not all saw themselves as ‘farming
towns’
‘Real’ futures vary from
ideal
• Barriers
– Capacity (social leadership, skills,
willingness, changing demographics)
– Governance (policy, coordination,
political leadership)
– Climate (climate variation, water
dependence)
– Economic diversity (irrigated
agriculture dependence,
manufacturing)
– Infrastructure & services (transport,
health, education)
– Location/isolation (tyranny of
distance)
– Water (uncertainty, limitations)
• Opportunities
– Climate (potential productivity)
– Capacity (social leadership, skills,
willingness, changing demographics)
– Innovation (history of innovation)
– Infrastructure & services (water
and/or community infrastructure)
Continuum of change
• Enables a considered review of challenges
inhibiting and opportunities promoting
changed futures
• Highlights to all interests the level of change
necessary to achieve their ideal and/or real
futures
• Helps to understand and prioritise policy and
programs that promote sustainable
community development
Unpacking the ideal
futures - Leeton
Unpacking the ideal
futures - Robinvale
Unpacking the ideal
futures - Renmark
Communities on the
continuum
Framing data for theory –
the finish
– What capacity is important for
purposeful community change?
• The need and willingness to “imagine” and
undertake change
• How risks and uncertainty are managed
• Skills in planning learning and reorganising
for change
• Flexibility of financial, organisational,
human & natural capitals
Potential policy
implications
• What policy implications do you think
this work has?
Thank you - Questions
Dr Leonie Pearson
[email protected]
Dr Lain Dare
[email protected]
References
Butzer KW (2012) Collapse, environment, and society. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 3632–3639.
Kahane AM (2012) Transformative scenario planning: Working together to change the future,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Marshall NA, Park SE, Adger, WN, Brown, K, Howde, SM (2012) Transformational Capacity and the Influence
of Place and Identity. Environ Res. Lett. 7(3), 034022.
Moser SC, Ekstrom, JA (2010)A framework for diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 107:22026-22031.
Pearson, L., Wilson, S., Kashima, Y. Lusher, D. and Pearson, C., (submitted) Imagined futures in
Murray-Darling Basin communities: Mental models of the past and future scenarios. Public Policy
Pearson, L. and Pearson, C. (2012) Societal Collapse or Transformation and Resilience, Letter to Editor,
PNAS- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, online
[www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1207552109]
Pelling, M. 2010. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation, Routledge, London.
Redclift, M. (2002). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. Routledge.
Wilson, S., Pearson, L., Kashima, Y. Lusher, D. and Pearson, C., (2013) Separating adaptive maintenance
(resilience) and transformative capacity of socio-ecological systems, Ecology and Society 18(1): 22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05100-180122