Oysters thrive in the right environment: The social sustainability of oyster farming in the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia

Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Oysters thrive in the right environment: The social sustainability of oyster farming in the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia Janine Pierce a,n, Guy Robinson b a b

Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia, 111 Nicolson Avenue, Whyalla, South Australia 5608, Australia Centre for Regional Engagement, University of South Australia, 111 Nicolson Avenue, Whyalla, South Australia 5608, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Available online 12 July 2012

This paper reports on a study of the oyster industry in the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, where oyster farming has become a significant component of the economy since the late 1980s. Whilst the environmental and economic impacts of this industry have been studied, there is a lack of research on the social impacts of oyster farming on the communities and the individuals who reside therein. The study extends a Five Capitals Framework (environmental, produced, social, institutional and human assets) for assessing rural sustainability by applying it to address the social impacts of the oyster industry in the Eyre Peninsula’s five principal oyster farming communities. The study combines quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques, with triangulation of the data, to demonstrate that oyster farming has had a predominantly positive effect on the social fabric. More young people are staying in the communities because of the availability of oysterrelated employment. This is generating more participation in local sporting teams alongside other benefits, including more government funding for infrastructure, better educational opportunities, increased community spirit, being ‘on the map’, global oyster sales and tourism, as well as economic growth. There are also more social network linkages, increased community pride, and strengthened social capital, though competition for employment from the state’s fast-growing mining sector may threaten the industry’s future. Success has been due to workers in the oyster industry as well as business owners and managers having long-term membership of the local community. The results have implications for future consideration of social factors as a key to success of this industry in small communities. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Oyster communities South Australia Rural community values Five capitals

1. Introduction Oyster farming has made a significant contribution to the economy of the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia since the late 1980s (Fig. 1). This was at a time of rural recession when the start of a shift to water-based farming occurred which was able to yield much more income per unit area than equivalent income from agriculture. Aquaculture on the Eyre Peninsula generates more than 92% of the value of South Australia’s aquaculture employment and household income. Of this income oyster farming is the second largest component after tuna farming. Economic data indicate a combined income from direct oyster farm production, flow-on business and secondary oyster-related business of $162.5 million in 2010 [1]. This represents a 9% increase over the previous year, in contrast to a 35% drop for tuna farming. Jobs related either directly to oyster farming, processing or indirectly to the oyster industry in areas such as transport, equipment, and marketing equate to 1211 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs [1]. Direct employment in oyster farming rose by 300 FTEs from 2003

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 8 8647 6005. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Pierce), [email protected] (G. Robinson). 0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.008

to 2010, but with larger increases in jobs downstream and in flow-on businesses. Small and scattered rural communities, in moving from predominantly land-based farming to water-based farming, have been required to adapt to a different form of primary industry and economic activity. This change has had an impact on people not only in terms of earning their living, but also in how they undertake the management of their everyday lives at the personal and social levels. Australian research to date has emphasised the environmental and economic aspects of the country’s growing aquaculture industry [2–5,6]. Grove-White [7] recommends that to gain an understanding of environmental issues for example, researchers need ‘‘to listen to the sinews of society’’ to gain social intelligence. However, social impacts of oyster farming still remain a significant and underresearched area in contrast to work on environmental impacts. This study adopts the recommended ‘listening approach’ of Grove-White [7] to what is said, both by those who direct the oyster industry and by general community members. It proceeds from this premise in accessing perspectives of oyster farmers (who were also members of the studied communities) and community members, to gain insights into the ways in which individuals perceive social impacts of the oyster industry on themselves and their community.

78

J. Pierce, G. Robinson / Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

Fig. 1. Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. . Available at /http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Do_it_online/MaplandS accessed 2 October 2011. Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2009

Table 1 The five capitals framework. The sub-headings are based on those provided by Cocklin and Alston [10]. Natural capital Natural capital includes natural resources, the state of the natural resources, access under the concept of the ‘Commons’, ecosystem services, aesthetics of beauty and nature.NB. The ‘Commons’ refers to land and areas available for the usage of all. The term ’Commons’ is usually used to imply land-based resources, but may be water-based or any other resources to which a community has rights or access. Human capital Human capital is inclusive of knowledge, skills, education and training, the ability of people to enhance community life through leadership, problemsolving technology, health, and information networks. Social capital Social capital comprises the strength of relationships between social actors, and the ability of the community to achieve community-focused goals collectively. Values, shared vision, trust, cooperation, networks, relationships, and goodwill are also grouped under this capital. Institutional capital Institutional capital is categorised into three levels: (1) the public sector of federal government, state government, local governments, (2) the private nongovernment community sector and (3) the private profit-driven sector. Schools, hospitals, private businesses, government regulation authorities, sporting clubs and voluntary committees are all examples of institutional capital. Produced capital Produced capital encompasses financial resources and physical products that have been harvested or manufactured, the built environment of housing, roads, boat ramps, water management systems, other buildings such as factories, and financial assets. Assets and liabilities must both be considered when assessing produced capital.

This study analyses oyster farming in relation to the social impacts by applying the theoretical concept of community capitals. In this approach the aspects of communities that are considered as essential to sustainability, such as social, economic

and environmental assets are assessed. There are various types of capitals in use in community assessment, with associated definitions relating to what is included and excluded [8,9]. The Five Capitals Framework, developed by Cocklin and Alston [10], examines sustainability through five inter-related capitals and provides the lens of analysis. The capitals are outlined in Table 1. In this study, social impact stories from five Eyre Peninsula oyster communities are presented. They consider oyster farming in relation to social, natural and economic systems. The growth of the oyster farming industry has generated not only concerns relating to environmental and economic impacts, but also social impacts on communities. In assessing these social impacts, which are linked in the broader picture to the sustainability of rural Australia, it was observed that research on rural Australia has mostly focused on environmental sustainability and the viability of the agricultural sector [11,12], often to the exclusion of concern for rural society. Yet, the social dimension needs to be included, especially in assessing the sustainability of environmentally sensitive industries such as oyster farming [7,13,14]. Only limited study is recorded to date of the impacts of the oyster industry at a personal and social level in Australia [15]. This study contributes to the knowledge of the social impacts of aquaculture by analysing the insights of members of oyster communities.

2. The communities Five key oyster communities (see Fig. 2) on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia were selected for this study: Ceduna (including Denial Bay), Coffin Bay, Cowell, Smoky Bay and Streaky Bay. Although together they present similarities as communities of interest located in the same region, there are some differences between them. A brief overview of each of the communities and their significance to the study is provided below.

J. Pierce, G. Robinson / Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

79

Fig. 2. Location of the five oyster communities on Eyre Peninsula.

2.1. Ceduna At the most recent census for which data are available (in 2006), the largest community studied, Ceduna, had a population of 3574 people, of which the indigenous population was around 21%. It has the oyster growing area of Denial Bay, which was a site for research into previous contests over lease extension applications, a fishing industry, the tourist draw of its annual Oysterfest (a weekend of entertainment, fine food and fun for locals and tourists), school interest in aquaculture, secondary oyster-related industries and a previous indigenous joint venture oyster farming project. 2.2. Coffin Bay Coffin Bay has approximately 650 permanent residents, increasing to a population of around 3000 people during the holiday season. There are links between Cowell and Coffin Bay when oysters are shifted from the former during their growing phase. Some oyster lessees operate their businesses in Coffin Bay but live in other communities. Coffin Bay is an interesting example of the type of tension discussed by Green et al. [16] between those who are using it to stimulate produced capital and those who wish to enjoy it for its recreational and aesthetic value.

‘community turned-around’ from having many unemployed, to one where having a job is the new norm. It has shifted from backyard operations to the development of the Smoky Bay Aquaculture Park, resulting in a significant increase in oyster industry jobs, especially for young people. 2.5. Streaky Bay Streaky Bay (population 2016) is a picturesque town where oyster farming is only one of several types of aquaculture in operation. Oyster farming operators are co-located in the one industrial area. There are also many species of fish sought by professional and recreational fishers, such as King George whiting, abalone, and shark. The qualitative basis of this study of these five communities, which emphasises their recent growth and an economic vitality associated with oyster farming, is supported by basic population data which shows small increases in population in these communities from 1996 to 2006. For example, Cowell grew by 18%, Coffin Bay by 37% and Ceduna by 5.5%. Streaky Bay recorded 77 workers in aquaculture in the 2006 Census compared with 70 for Coffin Bay and 44 for Cowell. Visual evidence from the communities suggests further small increases in population and oyster-related employment subsequently.

2.3. Cowell Cowell, population 882, is an example of an oyster community with a strong sense of community learning, having a mix of private aquaculture ventures, secondary oyster industry, educational and training pathways, and oyster-related tourism. Cowell is widely considered to be an example of best practice in oyster farming. For this reason it was selected as the community in which to use the Photovoice method, described below. 2.4. Smoky Bay Smoky Bay is part of the Ceduna Council area, located 40 km south-east of Ceduna township, with a population of approximately 200. With such a small population, an increase in jobs has been particularly significant. Smoky Bay is an example of a

3. Mixed methods approach A mixed methods approach allows for triangulation of data from different sources, both quantitative and qualitative, to provide a range of measures of the same phenomenon [17]. Three data gathering methods were used in this study to provide perspectives from those in the oyster industry, individuals in the five communities, and one particular community perspective using photographs in a method known as Photovoice. The aims were as follows: i. Questionnaire survey: to provide insights into how oyster industry members perceived the oyster industry and its impact through a five capitals focus;

80

J. Pierce, G. Robinson / Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

ii. Semi-structured interviews: across the five communities to gain individual perspectives of the impact of the oyster industry through a five capitals lens but to enable a regional comparison; iii. Photovoice case study: an individual oyster community case study (Cowell) of the impact of oyster farming through a photostory, which was then coded through a five capitals lens.

3.1. Questionnaire survey A survey of 100 oyster farmers (leaseholders and managers) across the five communities targeted the entire population of all owner operators and managers of the approximately 150 lease holdings. There was a 100% response rate as it was estimated that the population of oyster lease holders (or managers on their behalf) was 100, as some individuals owned more than one lease. Targeting the whole population aimed to eliminate any sampling and biases associated with alternative data collection methodologies. Besides generating a data map of the oyster industry and its members, the survey questions were framed to enable insights into how oyster industry members perceived the five capitals and impact of the oyster industry on the community in which they operated. The survey contained questions relating to the natural environment, education in the industry, leadership, trust, changes since the introduction of the oyster industry, working together, financial impact and other capitals related questions. The survey was premised by the belief that to understand the industry, one must first understand those who drive it. Survey data were coded into SPSS to produce both a regional dataset and individual community data. 3.2. Interviews Semi-structured, facetoface interviews were conducted with community members from each of the five communities to gain insights into how the oyster industry had impacted on the individual and their community across a range of capitals-related areas. The goal of the interviews was to gain actor-centred meanings through an interpretivist approach to the interview data [18]. To achieve this goal, a snowball approach [18] to access potential participants was applied which yielded 46 interviews. This involved key informants in the community providing names of one or more persons with a direct or indirect interest in oyster farming and their community. This process ceased when the names of individuals and organisations began to be repeated [19]. Interviews were conducted across the five communities, with most participants fulfilling several community roles, which therefore provided a range of perspectives. The other interviewee criterion was for respondents to have lived in the community for more than five years to ensure an awareness of changes over time since the advent of the oyster industry. The interviewees came from various groups: local government, education, community leaders (including progress associations, sporting organisations, environmental groups and the indigenous community), business owners (including oyster-related secondary

industry and tourism), oyster lessees and oyster lease managers, and recreational and professional fishers. Specifically, questions were designed to elicit comments relating to the impact of the oyster industry through a five capitals lens, and were framed to generate comments on: the ways in which each capital was (or was not) perceived either in a positive or negative sense in each community; the strengths and vulnerabilities of each capital before the emergence of oyster farming; the strengths and vulnerabilities of each capital after the establishment of oyster farming; and the sustainability of the oyster farming industry. The interpretivist approach adopted involved examining the interview data for themes (including social impacts), constructs and patterns [20], relating to the oyster industry’s impacts on the five selected communities. A matrix was constructed for each community (Table 2) which recorded numbers of times for each interviewee where themes reflecting the individual capitals in either a positive or negative sense were mentioned. Once completed, the matrix was useful in assessing the overall emphasis and importance of individual issues or perceived realities of the interviewees. Interview data could therefore be interpreted through a capitals lens and compared between communities, to assess similarities or differences in social impact themes.

3.3. Photovoice We are often told that we now live in a world where knowledge as well as many forms of entertainment is visually constructed, and where what we see is. [21]. Photovoice is an emerging visual social research methodology used in community participatory research which utilises photography as a catalyst to elicit people’s perceptions about their environment [21,22]. Photovoice enables participants to document their perceptions on loosely structured open-ended themes that reflect their perceived strengths and concerns of their community. The photos can then be collectively constructed into a community story. The resultant findings are then of value as a starting point for policy action and change. It was used in this study [15] to gain insights at the individual community level of the impact of the oyster industry through a photo story. Cowell was selected as it is considered a best practice oyster community with a range of different aspects of the oyster industry, including leases, tourism, education, secondary industry and competing water usage. Participants were accessed through a snowball approach [18]. Ten participated in Stage 1, and eight participated in Stage 2, which is considered an ideal size for group discussion [22]. Stage 1: A camera and a diary were given to each participant with instructions to take at least one individual photos to reflect five themes and to write accompanying comments in the diary to match to the photo taken (Table 3). The supporting comments were considered of importance to ensure integrity in interpretation by the observer of what the visual image intended [21]. After cameras and diaries were returned from participants photos were then developed, and related comments from the diaries were coded onto the back of the photos with an accompanying

Table 2 Example of a matrix of utilising the five capitals in the coding themes.

Interview 1 Positive Negative Interview 2 Positive Negative

Natural

Human

Social

Institutional

Produced

****** ****** *** ******

***************************** ** ******************* *

**************** ** ******** ***

****** **** ****** **

****** * *********** ***

J. Pierce, G. Robinson / Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

Table 3 Photovoice themes. Phototopic: (please tick box that best represents topic of the photo) Image that describes how oyster aquaculture in your community has impacted on you Image that shows what oyster farming means to you Image that shows whether your community is more or less sustainable since oyster farming Image that describes what is good1 about oyster farming in your community Image that describes what is bad about oyster farming in your community NB. Diary comments would clarify the type of good and bad as explained by participants with regard to their photos.

participant code to ensure participant confidentiality during the following photo-stimulated discussion. The comments on the backs of photos provided an extension of the photo data to enable a researcher coding into a Five Capitals Framework: natural, human, social, institutional and produced. A photo-stimulated discussion [15] was then arranged for all participants to engage in discussion and to decide on the final collage of photos to tell the community story about the impact of oyster farming. During this time participants collectively as a community group examined all the photos which had been taken and which were displayed on five tables, each table representing photos that reflected each of the five diary question themes. The participants then together decided on themes to group photos into. Participants moved through a process of first examining photos on Table 1 where photos on the first theme were displayed and decided which of the range of photos best represented their collective community views, then moved to Table 2 (the second theme) and so on. The diary comment provided to describe the photo remained the same after the photos had been selected to ensure integrity of the original photo meaning. Stage 3: The chosen photo story was then coded through a Five Capitals Framework lens of analysis. This was an innovative application of combining Photovoice and the five capitals.

4. Results 4.1. Questionnaire survey The survey found the largest proportion of oyster farmers and managers are in the 35–44 age group (39%), a relatively younger age group than land-based farmers. 61% of oyster farmers were less than 44 years of age. Traditionally in Australia women have produced up to 48% of real farm income (income adjusted for changes in the prices of goods and services), yet are underrepresented in farming leadership being more involved as a ‘helper’ in status [23]. However, during the data gathering phase, female partners were seen to take an active role in the operation of oyster farms, often as comanagers and co-owners, and there were more females than males in roles involving the ‘visible face’ of the oyster industry, through their work in oyster-related tourism. However, there is still a predominance of male formal lease ownership indicative of more control of economic capital held by men as in land-based farming [24]. Survey results showed a relatively higher number of people committed to staying in their community for the long1 Diary comments would clarify the type of good and bad as explained by participants in regard to their photos.

81

term, suggesting they were either resident prior to oyster farming or have made an ongoing commitment to the community. At least 64% of oyster farms have been operating for ten years or longer. Of those surveyed 60% viewed pollution as no threat to the oyster industry, and 67% indicated they were working with sustainable practices. Across communities, community spirit was considered to be significantly raised since the advent of the oyster industry by up to 84% in Coffin Bay to the lowest increase of 76% in Smoky Bay. A correlation has been shown between increasing levels of general trust within a community and an increase in economic prosperity [23]. In the sample communities 62% perceived trust to be increased since the introduction of the oyster industry. More than 90% indicated a positive economic impact on their community since the advent of oyster farming. More jobs from oyster farming were mentioned as important by respondents across all communities, from 91% at Streaky Bay to 100% in Ceduna. These comments from interviewees are also reflected in available data [1] which reported on the range of direct employment, flow-on activities in oyster processing, transport, retail and food services, and associated industries including the trade, manufacturing and property and business services sectors. Not all work on oyster leases is paid. Not only are those who own and operate leases showing the highest number of hours worked of the survey group, but some unpaid work was also performed by family members and was not factored into economic impact assessments [1]. Only 18% of those surveyed were paid for the full number of hours that they worked on leases. This is largely due to the high rate of self-employment and the use of relatives for unpaid labour. 4.2. Interviews The interviews raised a range of questions across the five capital areas. Respondents expressed their understanding and experience of the oyster industry and their local communities through themes related to the five capitals. Four themes in particular stand out. 4.2.1. Water The interviews revealed a pervasive belief that oyster community members were more proactive and socially responsible about water quality management than they had been prior to the start of oyster farming, and participants also spoke of a strong sense of social responsibility for maintaining water quality. This water guardianship was seen as critical for the continuance of the oyster industry: Before oysters y ships were coming and dumping their bilge water everywhere y I don’t think before oysters we valued that our water was very pure. (Ceduna, community member, female) Several interviewees thought that oysters are an environmental indicator, and employed the canary metaphor: The oysters are y the canary in the coalmine. If the oysters go bad and you can’t eat the oysters, ‘cause they are the first thing that filters the water, and because they are a raw product that you eat, if you get sick from eating an oyster, then the rest of the estuary is in major, major trouble, and will get affected down the track. (Coffin Bay, oyster farmer, male) 4.2.2. Community spirit and pride Participants frequently spoke in ways that expressed a strong sense of community spirit and pride, but also mentioned instances that had challenged this. All the interviewees valued community spirit and pride, sometimes speaking directly about them. They mentioned more intracommunity connections and a strengthening of their community

82

J. Pierce, G. Robinson / Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

identity in a positive way since the advent of oyster farming. Five key aspects were often mentioned: being on the map, community turning around, family and community, insiders and outsiders, and altruism, goodwill and trust. First, interviewees spoke of the importance of ‘‘Being on the map’’. Since the start of oyster farming, farming communities have seen themselves as what they described as ‘‘Oyster communities’’. Many interviewees expressed this new identity with pride: ‘‘The baton sort of crossed over and changed from farming to oysters’’ (Smoky Bay, retired farmer, male). The transition to being an oyster community was not seamless: there was some resistance and concern about this new industry: What happened as the years unfolded, some of the upstanding citizens in the community got jobs as managers on these farms. And all of a sudden the same people who were bagging this, who were going ‘Oh, these bloody oyster farmers’ y ‘Oh, how are you going mate, oh yeah I’m working for such and such now, it’s a great job’ y ‘Oh, are you?’ y ‘Oh wow, how’s it going?’y ’Oh, it’s really good, it’s fantastic’ y ‘Oh is it?’ and so ony The objectors in the early days, the kids, are now working for the oyster industry. It turned around our community acceptance which it most certainly wasn’t in the early days. (Coffin Bay, oyster farmer, male) The strong relationship between being on the map and being proud of the oysters was highlighted by many as reflected in this quotation: I think it’s a great industry and it’s just wonderful for the town with the generation of employment and the tourist side of it too and putting us on the map, yep, with the product. (Ceduna, community member, male) There was immense pride that interviewees drew from attracting outsiders to their region and sending their oysters outside their region: Well the Coffin Bay oysters have got a name on almost every restaurant menu around Australia. We hear this all the time. (Coffin Bay, oyster farmer, male) It’s sort of been great for Ceduna but you can say ‘What’s Ceduna noted for?’ and it’s oysters. We have been noted for quite negative things in the community, especially in the mediay ‘Oh that’s the place where the oysters grow’ which is wonderful to hear. So it’s been a positive thing. (Ceduna, community member, female) This strengthening of community identity, an external reaffirmation of this identity, visibility to outsiders and acknowledgement of community worth has been due to the oyster industry. Second, interviewees spoke of how oyster farming had turned the community around. This relates to the idea of a transformation of an undesirable or unsustainable situation. Specifically, it is the regeneration of small Eyre Peninsula oyster communities as they are retaining more young people because of the new employment opportunities: We’re definitely providing for a number of young staying in this community, particularly young lads. A lot of the kids go to the school and then to work [in oyster farming]. (Ceduna, community member, male). Third, Family and community: Interviewees often spoke of the impact of oyster farming on their family; how the industry generates jobs for the young and helps to keep the community together: It’s good [oyster farming] y and the thing is too y you’re out in the water and you’re back home by lunchtime, it’s not like you’re days or weeks away from your family y an opportunity y Christmas holidays, they’ll have the wife working with them, or the kids will be in there as well. So, I think it’s really good. It’s great to see kids pretty keen to go off with their fathers and help out and work. (Cowell, business operator, male)

Fourth, Insiders and outsiders: Since the introduction of oyster farming, long-term community members (insiders) have become involved, and newer oyster farmers and workers from outside the communities have moved in (outsiders). Acceptance of outsiders is often slow in small rural communities. However, being happy with what the oyster industry has brought appears to have overshadowed difficulties accepting new oyster farmers, and outsiders in general: Oh, I think it’s been a progression of betterment. I mean, anything that brings an industry and people together in an area has got to be better. And the people are nice; they’re not a rough element of people that are involved that I’m aware of any way in that. No, I think it’s been very good for the town and it’s been of benefit. (Streaky Bay, retired, female) However, there were some negative comments relating to different and undesirable values associated with new oyster workers (outsiders): It [oysters] does attract a certain element of person to work as oyster hands, with attitude. (Smoky Bay, oyster farm partner, male) Although most interviewees thought that oyster farmers were engaged with the community, some criticized oyster farmers in Coffin Bay for not being involved in community directions and goals: Their main and only interest tends to be growing oysters; apart from that they’re not too concerned about anything else. (Coffin Bay, business owner, male) As a number of oyster farmers operate their business in Coffin Bay, but live in other communities, this could explain their lack of involvement in the local community. Therefore, it seems as if some Coffin Bay oyster farmers are both insiders and outsiders. A negative perception of oyster farmers was peculiar to interviewees who live in Coffin Bay. A fifth aspect mentioned was: Altruism, goodwill and trust. Comments on people employed in the oyster industry from general community members indicated that oyster industry members were both embracing of and being embraced by their community. Altruism and goodwill were often mentioned when referring to donations of money and oysters to local fundraising, to local committees and clubs, as well as giving time to community projects. The link between the enhanced trust in the community and what the oyster industry has introduced was reinforced throughout the interviews. Often, the oyster industry was seen as the saving grace of dying rural communities, as revealed by the following interviewee: I reckon there is a lot more trusting now, because without the oyster industry the town would be nothing. (Smoky Bay, community member, female)

4.2.3. Public institutions, government and governance Institutional capital was mostly described as enhanced to benefit communities since the advent of the oyster industry with more money being put into infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, boat ramps and roads to benefit the whole community. Also different tiers of government work together for projects to benefit the community: There was federal government money, and state government; there were the recreational fisheries, and the District Council of Ceduna put that money in. It cost over $500,000 to build that boat ramp. (Smoky Bay, oyster farmer, male) However, the government was sometimes viewed as a cause of stress and conflict such as when trying to get oyster leases approved: We had to fight them, and it was a long process y about 12 departments y in getting oyster leases approved. (Smoky Bay, community member, female).

J. Pierce, G. Robinson / Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

4.2.4. Employment (jobs and training) and economic impact The flow-on benefits to the community with respect to skills gained through working in oyster farming was often mentioned: Oh, it’s great for the community. Well those skills that they learn they can bring them and put them into place in community organisations, sporting bodies, or be it progress associations, or maybe local council: a whole heap of range of skills which they would never have got otherwise. (Coffin Bay, oyster farmer, male) Jobs give people an opportunity to live in a rural community, and help to attract more people, and as indicated in the survey data the demographic data of the oyster farmers and managers shows a younger age group in the 35–45 year old age group than in land based farming. ‘‘Jobs from oyster farming’’ was a theme mentioned by every interviewee, regardless of their connection to the industry: ‘‘It’s saved the town economically’’ (Smoky Bay, community member, female). One worker can bring more people to the town and generate business: I don’t know what the ratio is, but it’s almost 2 to 1. For every one person employed in aquaculture, it creates two other jobs in the town. So you know you employ a family here, and you’ve nearly got to employ somebody else at the checkout to serve the groceries and those sort of things. An extra schoolteacher comes in to teach the kids. (Cowell, business manager, male) I don’t think there’s very many industries where people can start from nothing, and then within just two or three years do really well, We have had the opportunity to lease some of our water [to] two or three young peopley In five years they have gone from just working men on wages, to building themselves two-storey homes, and new boats, and building themselves sheds. (Coffin Bay, oyster farmer, male). But stories are not all positive with increasing competition between oyster farmers becoming more apparent: People are now undercutting the market because they’ve got that big overheads they can’t sell their oysters. (Streaky Bay, community member, male)

83

Fig. 3. Capitals reflected in this photo: human, social, institutional, produced.

Fig. 4. Capitals reflected in this photo: human, social, institutional, produced.

4.3. Photovoice The Photovoice method was used in this study to successfully link to the five capitals approach. Most photos and comments presented a positive view of the impact of oyster farming on Cowell. Photos of human and produced capitals dominated, emphasising youth receiving aquaculture training at school, new businesses, and improved infrastructure such as an enhanced communal boat ramp, other boat ramps, oyster punts and houses. There were mostly positive comments, but several photos of a negative nature were taken relating to oyster infrastructure and waste (shells). Diary comments highlighted the fact that, although participants were happy with the oyster industry, they were not always content with the unsightly visual aesthetics that accompany it. Theme 1: How has oyster farming impacted on you? Fig. 3 ‘‘Vibrant main street, vibrant community’’ was one of the photos selected by participants in the discussion group who agreed that the photo and interpretation conveyed a more dynamic community since oyster farming. Participants decided on this photo to best represent that the main street is busier than in pre-oyster days, reflecting more people connecting with each other, more trade for businesses, and pride in the revamped main street. These are all signs of enhancements to community capital since oyster farming came to Cowell. Theme 2: What does oyster farming mean to you? Fig. 4 was titled by participants as ‘‘New kindergarten built to meet needs of more young families in Cowell’’. The kindergarten

was described as a symbol of more young families in the community, of population growth, government funding to help young families, and as pride in this new community building. An increase in population has been a catalyst for additional government funding, a new community building, social capital enhancement through young children and families mixing, and wellbeing through providing more support for parents of young children. Theme 3: Is your community more or less sustainable since oyster farming? Fig. 5 was titled by participants as ‘School and sustainability; own oyster lease’. Participants believed that training and skilling for new jobs for the young was a central theme. However, even though this human capital was the central reason for the choice of photo, participants also explained the web of interdependence of government funding, and benefits from having the school’s own oyster lease to hone students’ aquaculture and business skills. Theme 4: Image that describes what is good about oyster farming in your community. Fig. 6 shows the boat ramp, and was unanimously selected by all participants as representing all that is good for the community since oyster farming. The boat ramp is seen as an indicator of daily community social interaction, an enhancer of the capacity of oyster businesses, with more sharing of knowledge of the oyster industry. The government has also put money into enhancing the boat ramp. It is pivot point for the community where all community capitals intersect. Participants explained they interact

84

J. Pierce, G. Robinson / Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

with the unsightly visual aesthetics that accompany it, from infrastructure to oyster shells and baskets.

5. Discussion and triangulation of data

Fig. 5. Capitals reflected in this photo: natural, human, social, institutional, produced.

Fig. 6. Capitals reflected in this photo: natural, human, social, institutional, produced.

Fig. 7. Capitals reflected in this photo: human, produced.

with all water users and those who like to experience the water at the boat ramp. Theme 5: Image that describes what is bad about oyster farming in your community. Fig. 7 was titled by participants as ‘Untidy, backyard industry, need to put behind fence’ This photo of an untidy block of land was chosen from similar photos of what constituted ‘bad’, which were all concerned with oyster infrastructure and waste (shells). Diary comments highlighted the fact that although participants were happy with the oyster industry, they were not always happy

Triangulation of the three data sets was conducted to strengthen the inherent weaknesses of a single approach to data gathering, enabling stories of individual communities and the combined Eyre region oyster community to be recounted and compared. All five capitals have been enhanced since the advent of the oyster industry, although not to the same extent in all the studied communities. Natural: There is a link between natural capital and social response as community members, as well as oyster farmers, are proactive in holding and ensuring the vision of ‘clean and green’ water following the maxim of ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’ with respect to maintaining water quality. However, there is always the threat of closure of oyster farms if pollution occurs, which would have a significant social impact. Human: Oyster farming has strengthened human capital through training and education. There are more young working people in the communities, an increase in numbers of school students, and viable sporting clubs. There have been increases in services such as health and kindergartens, more women in leadership roles, and forging of new networks. All three datasets strongly identified these human capital aspects as noticeably enhanced, though jobs created in the industry are often unskilled. Social: Social impacts of oyster farming on the studied communities have been mostly positive. There are more jobs for local community members and a strengthening of the economic base due to oyster-related income, more sharing, trust building, cooperation, and enhanced pride and community spirit in these oyster communities that are now proudly ‘on the map’, a phrase often used by interviewees to celebrate their community’s enhanced profile beyond the local region since the development of the oyster industry. This theme was often mentioned strongly in all three datasets. There are some difficulties with acceptance and integration of new workers in oyster communities, and competition between users of boat ramps which was identified in the interviews. However, the survey was not framed to address this question, which had not been anticipated as a possible issue, and this aspect was not captured in Photovoice photos. The strongest finding that clearly came through in the qualitative data from the interviews and Photovoice was the enhanced community spirit, with more jobs, particularly notable in Smoky Bay. This community spirit relating to a future for the young in the community through job opportunities was reiterated in survey data and also in photos of students receiving aquaculture-related training in the Photovoice data. Overall, all five capitals have been enhanced since the advent of the oyster industry, although not to the same extent in all communities in the region. Institutional: The survey, interviews and photovoice datasets all indicated increases in more and better services in health, schools, and other government-funded services, as well as more businesses, including oyster-related tourism. However, comments were made in interviews that the quality of local and regional roads had not kept pace with transport needs since the growth of the oyster industry. The role of government continues to be pivotal in ensuring water quality and ensuring estimations of carrying capacity of oyster leases and aquaculture zones are accurate and timely. Produced: All three datasets showed produced capital has been a strength in communities as a result of oyster farming. This indicated that there is more money flowing into these communities from those in the oyster industry spending more money in the

J. Pierce, G. Robinson / Marine Policy 37 (2013) 77–85

communities, and donating money to community clubs. There is also more government investment in infrastructure and continued services, building produced capital in infrastructure, businesses, new and better houses and economic assets. These economic improvements reflect data [9] on positive economic impacts and jobs from oyster farming in these communities.

6. Conclusion The regional picture of Eyre oyster communities and the stories told by individual communities indicate that there have been relatively few negative aspects associated with the oyster industry. Moreover, problems have been tackled and have diminished over time. The Eyre region oyster farming industry is owned and managed mostly by local community members. High levels of local business ownership are associated with the propensity for community resilience and community strength [25,26]. The oyster industry has become trusted because it has reflected community values. It has also provided the ‘betterment’ referred to by one interviewee in relation to bringing people and a new industry together in a positive way, and the community association with oysters has become proudly embedded into the community identity. This ‘betterment’ concept is associated with ‘community strength’ [27]. There has been a predominance of positive social capital building across all the studied communities, and there has been enhancement of social capital aspects of trust, reciprocity, cooperation and partnerships [9,27,28], as illustrated in the findings across the three datasets analyzed. This study has added a social dimension to knowledge of the impacts of oyster farming on small rural communities in Australia. It has revealed a strong link between buoyancy of the oyster industry, economic impact on the communities with more and better houses, businesses, government infrastructure, and income to sustain oyster community members and the community itself. The flow-on economic benefits of oyster industry members through spending within the community and the region, attracting tourists who also spend in the community, and financial support to community groups, have had an impact on the social wellbeing of these communities. The oyster communities studied demonstrate resilience as both an outcome in relation to their adaptation to a new aquaculture industry [29], and as a process of transition involving new areas of community learning and community responsibility. The communities have developed their human capital through generation of new skills and learning pathways, and have committed to more stringent water stewardship. However, there is a caution that regardless of a positive impact across all capitals, oyster farming is environmentally sensitive due to the potential for pollution near oyster farms, and the added threat of global competitive forces. Moreover, despite growth in population and employment in the oyster farming communities, in the last three years there has been increased competition for young workers, with the lure of wellpaid jobs in the state’s rapidly expanding mining sector, which has affected availability of labour in the five communities. Hence there is further need for more research on the resultant social changes and investigation of whether the oyster farming industry can maintain the gains of the last two decades. Photovoice as a methodology could also be used in other impact studies of fishing and aquaculture communities.

Acknowledgements Gratitude is expressed for the contribution of Eyre Peninsula communities and oyster industry members who so selflessly gave

85

their time to this study. Acknowledgement is also given to Jennifer McKay who led the Australian Research Council-funded Photovoice project referred to in this paper. References [1] Econsearch. The economic impact of aquaculture on the South Australian state and regional economies 2009/10. A Report prepared for PIRSA aquaculture. 2011. Available at /http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/aquaculture.econom ic_impactS (accessed 20 October 2011). [2] Burritt R. Environmental accounting and aquaculture in South Australia. J Asia-Pac Centre Environ Accountability 2007;13:12–20. [3] Gooley GJ, Gavene FM editors. Integrated agri-aquaculture systems: a resource handbook for Australian industry development. Barton ACT: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; 2003. Available at /http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/education/documents/Integrated_Agri_ Aquaculture_Systems.pdfS (accessed 9 March 2011). [4] Kumar MS, Sierp M. Integrated wastewater treatment and aquaculture production: report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Canberra 2003. [5] Ogburn DM Ecological and genetic implications of aquaculture. Springer London, Environmental impacts in Australian aquaculture. 2007. Available at/http://www.springerlink.com/biomedical-and-life-sciencesS (accessed 10 March 2011). [6] Treadwell R, Maguire G, McKelvie L. Potential for Australian aquaculture. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics: ABARE Research Report Canberra 1992:92. [7] Grove-White R. Environment, risk and democracy. Oxford: Blackwell; 1997. [8] Flora JL, Flora CB. Rural communities, legacy and change. Boulder: Westview Press; 2004. [9] Bourdieu P. The forms of capital (Nice R. trans). In: Richardson IC, editor. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 1986. p. 241–248. [10] Cocklin C, Alston M, editors. Community sustainability in rural Australia: a question of capital? Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research; 2003. [11] Lawrence G. The institute for sustainable regional development. In: Grimes J, Lawrence G, Stehlik D, editors. Sustainable futures: towards a catchment management strategy for the Central Queensland Region. Rockhampton: ISRD; 1998. p. 6–8. [12] Panelli R. Narratives of community and change in a contemporary rural setting: the case of Duaringa. Queensland. Aust Geog Stud 2001;2001(39): 156–166. [13] Mazmanian DA, Kraft ME. Towards sustainable communities. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1999. [14] White K, O’Neill B Tzankova Z Will aquaculture fulfill the promise of the blue revolution? Seaweb Aquaculture Clearing House. Available at /http:// www.seaweb.org/resources/documents/reports_crossroads.pdfS (accessed 2 January 2011). [15] Pierce J, McKay J. Our community capitals as we see them through photovoice: Cowell oyster industry in South Australia. Aust J Environ Manage 2008;15:159–168. [16] Green G, Marcouiller M, Deller S, Erkilla D, Sumathi N. Local dependency, land use attitudes and economic development: comparisons between seasonal and permanent residents. Rural Sociol 1996;61:203–215. [17] Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. California: Sage Publications; 2003. [18] Gerring J. Case study research: principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. [19] Glaser B, Strauss G, Anselm L. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company; 1967. [20] Leedy PD. Practical research: planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1997. [21] Rose G. Visual methodologies. London: Sage Publications; 2001. [22] Wang C, Burris MA, Xiang YP. Chinese village women as visual anthropologists: a participatory approach to reaching policymakers. Soc Sci Med 1996;42:1391–1400. [23] Alston M. Women on the land: the hidden heart of rural Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press; 1995. [24] Knack S, Keefer P. Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross country investigation Q J Econ 1997;112:1251–1288. [25] Alston M. Social exclusion in rural Australia. In: Cocklin C, Dibden J, editors. Sustainability and change in rural Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press; 2005. p. 157–170. [26] Barraket J. Building sustainable communities: co-operative solutions to rural renewal. Lindfield: NSW: Australian Centre for Co-operative Research and Development; 2001. [27] Cheers B, Edwards J, Graham, L Community strength and health: research in progress. In: Proceedings: Primary Health Care Practice Forum: The first SA Collaboration PHC RED Conference. Adelaide, SA; 2004. [28] Ferragina E. Social capital and equality: tocqueville’s legacy: rethinking social capital in relation with income inequalities. Tocqueville Rev 2011;31:73–98. [29] Wilson G. Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural community resilience. TransInstBr Geogr 2010;2010:35–36.