Rural sustainability in Canada and elsewhere: a historic and civics perspective (1).

Abstract

Rural areas in Canada and elsewhere are the scene of extensive and rapid change associated with the rise of industrial agriculture, increasing farm size, decline of rural populations, more intensive use of land, increasing use of fertilizers and technology, loss of natural areas, pollution and the breakdown of traditional ways of life. This paper analyzes these changes historically principally in terms of their association with rational and top-down planning, notably since World War II. The paper also discusses changes in ecological, planning and other theory and practice that offer prospects for greater conservation and a more sustainable approach in rural areas. The paper ends with description of ah interactive, adaptive and civic approach to planning at local, national, and international scales. Ways of applying this model focus on mutual learning among the various groups and individuals in and outside of rural areas including civic fora, civic research groups, and heritage landscape guides.

Resume

Les zoaes rurales au Canada et ailleurs connaissent des changements massifs et rapides associes a rascension de l'agriculture industrielle, a l'augmentation de la taille des fermes, au declin des populations rurales, a une utilisation plus intensive des terres, a l'utilisation accrue des fertilisants et de la technologie, a la perte des espaces naturels, a la pollution et a l'eclatement des modes de vie traditionnels. Dans cet article, l'auteur analyse ces changements d'un point de vue historique, principalement en termes de leur association a la planification rationnelle et descendante, notamment depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale. II examine egalement les changements en matiere d'ecologie, de planification et autres theories et pratiques qui offrent des perspectives de meilleure conservation et une approche plus durable dans les zones rurales. L'auteur conclut avec la description d'une approche interactive, adaptative et civique a la planification a l'echelle locale, nationale et internationale. Les manieres d'appliquer ces mode1es mettent l'emphase sur rapprantissage mutuel au sein des divers groupes et particuliers, a l'intedeur comme a l'exterieur des zones rurales, notamment au moyen de forum et groupes de recherche civiques et de guides sur les paysages patrimoniaux (Heritage Landscape Guides).

Keywords

Rural, conservation, sustainability, planning theory, civics, Canada

**********

The Meaning of Rural Sustainability

The concept of rural sustainability is a complex one. The general concept is incompletely defined as indeed, are its constituent parts: Rural and Sustainability. We can think of the urban and the rural where the latter includes the cultivated and the wild. Yet it is obviously difficult to decide where one begins and the other ends. Urban, rural, and the wild merge into one another. Distinctions among them are often made arbitrarily for accounting, legal, or related reasons.

Sustainability is ah even more elusive concept. What is it that we are trying to sustain in a rural or other area? Is it family or other social conditions rather than corporate ones? Is it a way of life? Is it a mix of agricultural, lumbering, mining, recreational, residential and associated land use patterns?

I suggest that the terms--rural, and sustainability, and the larger concept of rural sustainability--are used for the most patt, not to define more precisely what the nature of the rural landscape should be, but what it should not be. Rural sustainability, and other related concepts, seem mainly to be put forward as a way of reacting to unwanted changes in the economic, social, and environmental conditions in areas outside of cities or urban areas.

Many rural landscapes are undergoing pressure to more to an industrial and corporate model. The push is toward lowering costs through greater specialization and efficiency in production so as to be able to compete in a wider continental or global "open market". These pressures, in turn, lead to a focus on: a narrower range of crops or livestock; greater use of increasingly specific fertilizers and other advanced high-yield technology; lower labor requirements; farm amalgamation; population migration to urban areas; decline of small villages and towns; more intensive use of land; drainage and reclamation of wetlands; cutting of woods and forests; loss of natural areas; and the breakdown of traditional ways of life. The term, rural sustainability, seems to be a way of conceptualizing a model or vision intended to avoid these frequently deleterious impacts on affected people and society.

Some General Considerations in Planning:

Rural sustainability is a complex concept defying clear definition. What are we trying to sustain and how can we measure success? My own contribution to a discussion of rural sustainability as a better way forward, is not to offer specific definitions or solutions leading to a more specific alternative vision. Rather my focus will be on ways of planning, managing and making decisions that should assist in avoiding the more extreme changes that seem to be of concern to those interested in rural sustainability. My observations and experiences arise for the most part from Canada, although they involve the United States and other countries. My hope is that these observations will be useful at a time when Poland and other countries may be about to enter the European Union and so encounter the development of an industrial or corporate approach to rural areas in a very direct way.

We can begin with some general considerations. The first is that my observations are colored by my background as a university professor of geography and planning. Largely because of this background, I tend to have a broad or inclusive view rather than a specialized or exclusive one. My approach is that of a human ecologist with an interest in policy and planning. This research interest has been expressed over the last four decades in numerous situations involving the evolution and development of land use policy and practice. These include experiences in university administration, as well as with government and non-governmental organizations.

Certain understandings or perspectives have arisen from these experiences. The first is that although initiative or leadership may vary with the situation, an array of government and non-governmental organizations, including universities, are generally involved directly or indirectly in any significant policy or planning situation. The second is that, for a variety of economic, social, environmental and political reasons, the roles of government and non-governmental organizations change with circumstances and with time.

An individual organization or set of related organizations may plan toward preferred goals and objectives. However, seldom do these plans proceed in a straight line. The plans are influenced and modified by the responses of other organizations. Furthermore, once a decision is made, many organizations and individuals cannot be expected to fall in line but rather to search for alternative ways of meeting their own values, interests and goals. In other words planning and decision making tends to be adaptive and frequently does not proceed in accordance with initial plans. Another important point in this regard is the occurrence of unforeseen circumstances or "surprises" which can have profound effects on planning, goals, objectives, policies, procedures and directions.

Yet another general consideration is that government and Non-governmental organizations frequently involve a range of perceptions of a field of interest. In these circumstances perspectives and fields of interest frequently overlap. Boundaries between research disciplines and corporate and civic sectors of interest generally cannot be precisely drawn. In this context, specialized or focused disciplines, or sectors of interest, and the agencies and organizations that house them, often are viewed as sharing similar backgrounds, attitudes and values. Yet these organizations often house considerable variation in interest and position, depending on the topic, issue or challenge at hand. It follows from this that the names we apply to disciplines, sectors or other foci of interest to us, may give the appearance of, but frequently are not, precise and universally understood. The approximations of meaning inherent in much of our language and terminology, lead to the expectation that our terms and meanings will frequently or even generally have to be discussed, evaluated and negotiated with others who do not share our understandings.

Such general considerations in planning have been noted by knowledgeable and experienced persons since at least the 1960s. Observations on these considerations often have been made in the context of evaluations of the results of a rational goal-driven approach to planning by corporate agencies or organizations in and outside of government. These critiques or evaluations have frequently resulted in the advocacy of alternative planning approaches, theories or models (Hudson, 1979). These include: incremental planning which proceeds on a short-term opportunistic basis; mixed scanning which involves longer term goals; and transactive planning, which basically advocates negotiation and trade-offs among organizations and individuals in arriving at achievable goals, objectives, policies and procedures in the mutual interest (Hudson, 1979; Friedmann and Weaver, 1977).