The role of local actors in transforming the urban fringe

Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 255-267, 1995 Copyright ~) 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0743-0167/95 $9.50 + 0.00

Pergamon

0743-0167(95)00020-8

The Role of Local Actors in Transforming the Urban Fringe Christopher R. Bryant Dfpartement de Gfographie, Universit6 de Montrfal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montrfal, Qufbec, Canada H3C 3J7

In interpreting the transformation of rural space, much attention has been given to the macro scale processes shaping capitalist society, particularly those of accumulation and uneven development. Often, the role of the individual and of local agency generally is relegated to that of a pawn. However, with the retreat of the central state from many domains, the role of the individual and particularly the local community in shaping development processes has received more and more attention. Proactive roles have been recognized increasingly for communities and individuals in relatively depressed regions as being an integral part of the emerging 'new economy', but the urban fringe has received little attention from this perspective. Glimpses of the role for local agency come partly from research into urban fringe agriculture over the past 20 years which has profiled the role of the individual farmer and farm family, but little progress has been made in the appreciation of locality, or socially constructed localized action space, in the urban fringe, particularly in its manifestation through the actions of local groups, organizations and communities. A conceptual framework is proposed to advance our understanding of local agency in the processes of differentiation within the urban fringe. Local agency acts upon the transformation of the local environment to become one of the driving forces behind the process of uneven development and, more generally, differentiation of urban fringe space. Abstract --

through the small business sector, face considerable difficulty. Individuals and local agency (e.g. the actions of local municipalities and elected officials, local bureaucracies, community organizations, citizen groups, community-wide coalitions of groups and interests) have mostly been treated in these interpretations as little m o r e than pawns, reacting to external decisions and forces beyond their control (Marsden et al., 1992) and trying to reduce their localized impacts.

Introduction

In interpretations of uneven d e v e l o p m e n t in the transformation of rural areas in capitalist society, a great deal of attention has been given to macro scale processes. This has included the results of penetration of external capitals into production processes, linked to the appropriation of surplus value g e n e r a t e d in the economic production process and the cumulative processes that have led to concentration of p o w e r and capital (Marsden et al., 1990). Rural and resource peripheries generally have been set against metropolitan complexes and urban fields in these interpretations.

In rural areas within the context of broad metropolitan regions or urban fields (Friedmann and Miller, 1965), a similar situation existed. The difference, however, is that the forces receiving most attention in the research literature are related to the meso scale processes of urban field development. While it is recognized that these are frequently, if not generally, fuelled by macro scale processes of uneven d e v e l o p m e n t and concentration (Bauer and Roux, 1976), the focus has been m o r e on the processes by which regional cities and megalopolitan complexes develop and extend their influence into

In the context of resource peripheries such as the Atlantic C a n a d a region, the role of actors (such as multinational firms) and processes (such as the internationalization of the market-place and technological change) r e m o t e from the local area are often stressed as contributing directly to their vulnerability and creating a climate of uncertainty. U n d e r these conditions, other forms of capital accumulation, e.g. 255

256

Christopher R. Bryant

the countryside (Bryant et al., 1982). Uneven development related to production processes is still operative at this meso scale, e.g. resulting in the clustering of certain types of agricultural development, and differentiation between smaller settlement nodes in terms of tourism development, type of commercial development and type of industrial development. However, there are also other processes of capital accumulation and protection, driven by consumer related processes and property interests, e.g. resulting in the uneven protection of residential and 'natural' environments. Despite the shift in scale of analysis towards the regional level in the context of metropolitan regions, the role of individuals and local agency in contributing to uneven development has not been integrated particularly well into the conceptual frameworks. Again, they tend to be treated as a detail on the broader scale map. Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, however, significant changes have begun to appear. Central state regulation and intervention is generally on the wane as governments have realized the difficulties in influencing change in their national economies and societies in the face of the complexities and the global nature of processes of change. Local and regional involvement in development processes of all types (economic development, social and cultural development, and environmental conservation) have been on the rise (Galaway and Hudson, 1994; Vachon, 1993). This is not new in itself as people have frequently sought to better their own lot or to band together drawing on ties of cultural affinity, a shared sense of place and a common vision (or enemy) (Buechler, 1993; Morris and Mueller, 1992; Zander, 1990). What is relatively new is the attention that central states have given to the phenomenon, even encouraging local movements and organizations, partly in the hope that alliances with them will lead to more effective intervention and regulation of the economic and social system, not to mention the potential political gains to be made (OECD, 1992a; 1992b). In resource peripheries, the increased attention given to local agency has gone hand in hand with several trends that appear contradictory to the global processes of internationalization of capital and markets, e.g. the rise in importance of medium, then small and now micro scale businesses as important net job creators and the possibilities for small scale production in a number of sectors. The emergence of a new economy based upon small scale endogenous development may represent the critical new conditions for local agency to play a more permanent role in development processes in such regions (Dykeman, 1990).

In the context of broad metropolitan regions, the role of local agency has been the object of much less attention, both in terms of research and management. A major thrust has been how to manage broad metropolitan regions as a functioning unit, through various forms of governance and government, e.g. cooperative structures between municipalities and various types of regional government structure (Foster, 1993; Sancton, 1991). The interrelationships between central cities, suburbs and the urban fringe have been seen largely from the perspective of the negative consequences of individual and municipal actions in the suburbs and urban fringe upon central cities in terms of employment, infrastructure and service costs, as well as upon the overall costs of servicing large, sprawling urban regions, including transportation costs (Bryant and Lemire, 1993; Marchard and Charland, 1992). Local agency in the urban fringe is seen almost entirely in a negative light because of the presumed inability of local actors to take account of the broader interests of society. However, local agency in the urban fringe is not only associated with 'defensive elitism'. While there are undoubtedly major concerns here, there are other significant aspects to the role of local agency including actions aimed at social and economic change for the benefit of the broader community. In this article, a case is made for raising the profile ascribed to local agency in shaping the urban fringe, in particular in leading to uneven development in terms of production processes, property interests and the accumulation of consumer capital. In this context, the article has two objectives: (1) to introduce a conceptual framework (the segment model) and approach for the analysis of local agency; and (2) to provide some empirical material to illustrate the potential of this framework and approach to further our understanding of urban fringe dynamics. First, the urban fringe is presented as an arena in which multiple forces at different scales operate on human activity and in which local and individual actors have an important part to play. Second, a conceptual framework is presented for analyzing how local interests are articulated and how local agency contributes to the process of uneven development. The argument is developed by considering the actions of individuals, the actions taken within organized segments of a local community and, ultimately, the potential role and challenges of a more inclusive form of planning and management for community change and development in the urban fringe. While it is acknowledged that 'community' and 'municipality' are not considered synonymous (Weber, 1956), there are strong con-

Role of Local Actors in Transforming the Urban Fringe nections. In this article, a pragmatic approach is adopted, emphasizing the local municipality as a 'geographic community', partly because the local municipality is assuming greater responsibilities for the planning and management of change (Douglas, 1994) and partly because the modern 'community' is often identified with the space in which services and infrastructure are provided (Doucet and Favreau, 1991). The urban fringe and local agency The urban fringe is an arena in which a variety of forces and processes operate to influence the structure and dynamic of human activities (Bryant and Coppack, 1991). One of the important dimensions to understanding social and structural relations in a local environment in the urban fringe (as elsewhere) is the form of interaction between activities and people within that local environment and between it and the external environment. In this context, it can be observed that all human activities operate within systems of exchange or interaction of one kind or another - - economic (e.g. capital and produce markets), social (e.g. family and friendship networks), political (e.g. local, regional, provincial and national systems of regulation and influence) and even biophysical (e.g. the ecosystem) (Bryant, 1989). Systems of exchange or interaction include the different networks through which people, firms and

GEOGRAPHIC SCALES

SYSTEMSOFEXCHANGE ANDINTERACTION E.g. MACRO ~flnEternational producemarkets I ]Internationalcapitalmarkets International ~nternationalcorporatestructuri productmarkets National ~~[oEgNati ! . Noaintal~onalregul 'atiosnystem capitalmarkets

MESO

E.g. f.~Eigegional producemarkets ) |~ T] |Regional capital markets j ~ )lab°ur L mark, s

MICRO Local

[ ~ .I."I~ Social networks | |~calpoliticalsystem~ local,produce markets i

Regional

f lEg.Locallabourmarkets

Firms-Farms Households-Individuals Figure 1. Human activities and systems of exchange in the urban fringe.

257

institutions interact, exchange information, exert influence or are influenced, and trade or exchange goods and services. They can function at a variety of geographic scales - - macro, meso and micro - between which there are different degrees of interconnection (Fig. 1). For example, while some agricultural producers in the fringe may produce entirely for the local market, ultimately their markets and strategies are influenced by competition from producers in other regions and countries either directly or through substitute products. Similarly, understanding the differential shift of industry from central cities to suburban and urban fringe locations must draw not only on comparisons between central city, suburbs and urban fringe, but also upon an understanding of the competitive position internationally of industry in central cities and its historical development in relation to technology (Garreau, 1991). Thus, the explanation of the structure and dynamics of human activities must take into account the relative position of different human activities within these different systems of exchange or interaction. The m a c r o level

Macro scale forces link many economic activities in the urban fringe to systems of exchange nationally and internationally; this too is partly responsible for the changing relationship between suburbs, urban fringe and central city (Standback, 1991). Manufacturing companies such as the General Motors (GM) plant north of Montr6al and the automobile plants in Toronto's urban fringe are inevitably linked into continental and even world wide markets and competition. In understanding the dynamic of such activities, these larger production units must be seen in the context of the corporate structure in which they function. Decision criteria are determined most frequently in relation to the yield of investments and competitiveness that barely, if at all, take into account local circumstances and the impacts of decisions upon communities. Nowhere is this lack of local control more apparent than during recessionary economic conditions. In terms of smaller and medium sized manufacturing businesses, while many may serve regional and even national markets, they are not immune from the vagaries of macro scale forces such as competition and interest rate changes that reflect changing conditions in the international marketplace. The m e s o level

There are also important meso scale forces and processes at work. These operate at the metro-

258

Christopher R. Bryant

politan region or urban field level. These are the forces that have received the most attention in terms of the changes affecting the urban fringe. The expansion of the urban population and the spread of residential development as well as commercial and some industrial development into the suburbs and the urban fringe has been conceptualized as a series of meso scale forces operating within the macro scale processes of population and economic activity concentration into major urban regions (e.g. Bauer and Roux, 1976; Bryant et al., 1982), giving rise to the regional city and the urban field (Friedmann and Mqler, 1965). The processes at work are linked to differentials in economic costs and living conditions (e.g. security) between central city, suburbs and urban fringe, to value shifts in terms of accessibility to open space and to the changing technology of communication and transportation altering the boundaries of individuals' and companies' systems of exchange and interaction. The impacts of such changes in settlement structure have been studied extensively, especially in terms of agriculture (see, for example, Bryant and Johnston, 1992) and the costs of servicing (see, for example, Marchand and Charland, 1992). The micro or local level

Finally, there are also micro level processes at work, including local development processes - - planned and unplanned - - that implicate individuals and local actors of various kinds. However, the tendency has been to see individuals and local actors as reacting to, following and somehow being led by the macro and meso scale forces and processes. Even the quest for different living conditions has usually been placed in the context of the overall shift in the composition of consumer preferences for alternative living environments. At the community level, research has tended to ascribe a relatively passive or reactive role to local community and local government involvement. In the urban fringe, it is often argued that where there is successful development of economic activities in a suburban or urban fringe location, the development is 'owed' to the relative position of the individual municipality with respect to the central city (Groupe de travail sur Montr6al et sa r6gion, 1993). To a certain extent, this is self-evident, although even here the argument ignores the new realities that have unfolded in major metropolitan regions. The edge city, one of the stages in the development towards a megalopolitan structure, cannot just be explained in relation to the opposition between central city, on the one hand, and suburbs and urban fringe on the other hand (Bryant, 1985; Garreau, 1991).

The meso scale conceptualizations of the urban fringe within the metropolitan region or urban field focus on the effects of influences emanating from the urban centre or other major nodes in the suburban zone. These effects are represented for the most part as a gradient of influences and pressures, notwithstanding some reference to non-gradient influences such as environmental and cultural diversity and existing settlement structures within the urban fringe (Bryant et al., 1982; Coppack, 1988). A closer look at the dynamics of urban fringe formation shows a much more complex geographic reality. The observed heterogeneity of space within the urban fringe is not only related to local specificities within the fringe environment but also to the effect of local agency. For two reasons, a greater level of interest should be devoted to the role of local agency and actors in the urban fringe, an area that accounts for an increasingly important share of national and metropolitan area population in many countries (for Canada, see Patterson, 1992). First, attention to local agency and local actors sheds more light on the patterns of uneven development within this nationally important environment. The local dimension to these patterns is linked to processes of capital accumulation and local potential (which may include environmental characteristics, community attitudes and organization), the accumulation and protection of capital in the residential, property and related domains, the protection of private and collective interests in the local land resource and the provision of services to respond to local needs. Second, given the reduced presence of the central state in the management of society and economy in many countries, a phenomenon that also appears increasingly to operate between regional forms of government and local municipalities, it is likely that local municipalities - - a major local actor - - will have to assume even greater responsibility for managing change in their communities (Bunce, 1990). Locality, socially constructed localized action space, takes on more significance under these conditions, including the potential to alter significantly the patterns of development occurring. Local interests, local agency and process in the urban fringe: a conceptual framework

The conceptual framework (called the segment model) is based upon three cornerstones: (1) the local interests that reside in the local environment; (2) how these interests are organized; and (3) the dynamics linking the interests, through power and influence relationships, to community change. These relationships are articulated through networks embedded in the systems of exchange or interaction introduced in the previous section.

Role of Local Actors in Transforming the Urban Fringe Local interests in the local environment

There are three distinct, yet interrelated, approaches to describing and analysing interests in a local community. First, the population can be divided up according to various socio-economic indicators such as income, professional status, family status and educational levels. Assumptions can be made about the interests and needs of the various categories. Similarly, activities such as economic activities can be described using indicators such as product/service mix, size and labour characteristics. Second, the population can be viewed from a class perspective, partly involving a synthesis of various socio-economic indicators, an analysis that lends itself to interpretations relating to class conflict, capital accumulation and concentration o f power (Walker, 1987). Both of these approaches involve the identification of various categories or classes of population, and activity. Frequently, assumptions are made about the link between these categorizations and interests and needs. However, interests and needs have been shown to overlap many of the common ways of classifying populations in the urban fringe such as the distinction between farm and non-farm populations (Smit and Flaherty, 1981). So, while these categories may be useful in describing the community, they are less useful in analysing the dynamics of community change and in understanding the role of local agency in management and planning for community change. A third approach takes as its point of departure the interests themselves by identifying the significant dimensions (driving forces, problems, challenges, potentials, values) of a community within and around which actors may organize their decisions and actions. It is argued that this can be more closely linked to community dynamics. Identifying the significant dimensions has been called segmentation and the dimensions themselves segments (Beaudoin and Bryant, 1993) or orientations (Bryant, 1995). In some instances, there is no doubt that the segments can be linked to specific population and activity categories and even class structures. However, the relationship is far from simple and direct because the segments, as underlying dimensions of community change, may also act as catalysts around which opposing interests may engage in dialogue and negotiation. Segments can be identified in terms of sectors of activities (e.g. economic sectors such as agriculture, light manufacturing and commercial development, and cultural activity sectors), themes that cut across

259

sectors (e.g. environmental concerns, preoccupations regarding population aging, the integration of ethnic groups, poverty, and housing) or geography (e.g. downtown revitalization, floodplain management, and areas of special scientific or natural interest). The segmentation of any given area or community is likely to contain local specificities, reflecting the differential composition of communities, the different environments they have evolved in (even within the urban fringe of a given metropolitan region) and their different economic bases. Frequently, key segments represent a combination of sectoral, thematic and geographic characteristics, e.g. agricultural development near environmentally sensitive wetland areas. The set of segments that characterize a community can be thought of as bundles of challenges and opportunities that help explain the current structure and dynamic of the community (Bryant, 1995). These segments are revealed by clusters of initiatives, projects, actions and decisions. They can also be revealed through interviews with community 'leaders' as well as through focus group encounters with small groups of community residents. Furthermore, there are also latent segments that have either not been revealed through action or they may represent the underlying dimensions (potentials and constraints) of future change. These latent segments are of particular interest for community planning and management. Latent segments can be revealed through carefully structured focus groups with groups of community residents. For each segment, latent or actual, there is an object or set of interrelated objects of interest, i.e. one or more elements of the local environment and one or more processes of change. The object or objects are associated with a set of values or interests, although the interests involved in a given segment may not necessarily be in harmony with each other. For example, the 'future role of agricultural land in the community' may be one important segment but it is associated potentially with interests advocating conservation as well as those that favour conversion of that land to other uses. The interests that define different segments are broad-ranging, e.g. protecting and conserving parts of the natural environment, participating in investment opportunities in particular economic activities, the maintenance of income potential from existing commercial enterprises, improving the quality of life in the community, protecting and enhancing property values, maintaining particular life-styles and retaining or developing political power and influence. The interests in different urban fringe environments are not just defensive and driven by self-interest. They can also include such broad values as social justice, accessi-

260

Christopher R. Bryant

bility to housing, employment, alternative life-styles and educational opportunities. Segmentation is more than just a device to help describe the situation of a community and the preoccupations of its residents and others with respect to the local environment. First, because each segment is associated with a set of interests, it is possible to see the segments as constructs around which the analysis of the transformation of local rural spaces in the urban fringe can be investigated. Analysis could pursue why communities differ in terms of the segments that are revealed, even when comparison is made between communities with apparently similar circumstances, e.g. transportation accessibility and resource base. The framework points to the importance of identifying the networks and actors associated with different segments and their relative positions in the community in terms of power and influence. The analysis would also include the identification of the actors, how they negotiate with other actors in the pursuit of their interests and what actions they pursue. This framework therefore fits in well with the framework that Marsden et al. (1993) have recently advocated, involving the investigation of actors pursuing their interests through their actions within the broader economic, social and political context. Second, segments can also be seen as organizing vehicles for the planning and management of change. This takes local development far beyond the mobilization of people around specific interests, e.g. social and environmental action by community groups (Buechler, 1993; Zander, 1990) even though such actions and movements are still part of local development processes. The perspective of segments as organizing vehicles for planning and management recognizes that in the cultural contexts of North America and Western Europe at least, many actual development processes are in fact decentralized in the sense that the actual decisions concerning investments, property transfers and life-styles are taken by a multitude of companies, individuals and groups. Planning systems that fail to recognize this important fact of life frequently have difficulties in achieving objectives for the community's development (Dykeman, 1990). Indeed, it is increasingly common to observe processes of planning and managing change organized around and within segments. Examples include the many community working groups centred around the different themes of community life (e.g. a social planning coalition) as well as working and study groups tackling the challenges faced by different economic activities in an area (e.g. an agricultural development working group).

Some segment management and planning processes may only be partial ones in the sense that they serve only a particular set of actors with a common and self-reinforcing set of interests and values. Such would be the case if a segment defined as 'the role of agricultural land in the community' only drew together those who advocated the conservation of agricultural land. Or, again, if a segment defined as 'access to open space lands in the community' only drew together landed property interests. When such biased segment interests are also dominant in the local community power structure, it is easy to see how exclusionary measures based on protecting only a particular set of values and interests can arise. However, when segments are used as part of a broader process of managing change and help draw together actors with different interests and values into a negotiated planning and management process, the process can become much more inclusive. It can also address the challenges of the dynamic character of many urban fringe communities; the segments that define the community's structure and dynamic can change, as can the interests drawn together within any given segment, as the perceptions of the local community and its residents change.

The organization of segment interests An important dimension in the conceptual framework is how segments and the interests associated with them are organized from the community perspective. Segments are not mutually exclusive in terms of membership; individuals, households, businesses and organizations may individually have interests associated with several segments simultaneously. In Fig. 2, individuals, firms, farms, households and organizations have been linked, through their interests, to the 'objects' in four segments or orientations. Within any given segment, the increasing width of the cone from top to bottom reflects a vertical dimension to the organization of interests within it. Three different situations can be used to depict the range of possibilities. First, at a very elementary level and at the top of a cone (Fig. 2), there are simply individuals with common interests centred on a common object but with no communication between them, no formal organization and little sense of shared values. There is no organization in this extreme situation. This may be the case of some population groups who have been marginalized in the development process. In some urban fringe environments, this is the case with the agricultural population which has been greatly outnumbered by the non-farm population and agricultural issues are low to non-existent on the community agenda.

Role of Local Actors in Transforming the Urban Fringe

"rm"

Individuals Farms Households Organizations

261

ment that empower people within the segment. However, in the long term, there may not be any major change in the position of such people vis ~ vis others if they and their segment are not recognized as important and brought around the collective decision-making tables as equal partners.

\

.

gz o c

c.Q ._~ .~ _~.~ ~E cE

Extent of horizontal integration between segments

n, Preservation

of rural character

n 2 Exurban development

n 3 Maintaining agricultural viability

n,

Recreational development

Figure 2. Interests and segments in the local community. Second, some mobilization may take place as people sharing the same personal, and collective, interest collaborate or cooperate, leading to the initation of projects and actions within the segment. Where people have come together to defend a cause, protect something they see as essential to their survival or their quality of life, the first stages of mobilization tend to be oriented to lobbying efforts aimed at government or other players with power and influence. Organization, and participation, within development initiatives in a segment can also be an important means towards the empowerment of underprivileged groups in a community. This is certainly the case with the many community groups working within underprivileged groups in urban areas (Newman et al., 1986). Finally, people with divergent interests and values with respect to the same object (e.g. agricultural land, housing) may be drawn together in some way, e.g. into working groups, to sort out their differences and develop a consensus with respect to directions. Clearly, the power and influence associated with different sets of actors defined by their interests and values vary substantially within and between the segments of a community. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why some segments are revealed in the projects and actions taken within a community, while others remain latent or are constantly pushed aside. It is possible to have important efforts made at planning and managing development within a seg-

Horizontal organization is therefore the other important perspective to the organization of interests in a community development context (Fig. 2). This involves linkages across the different segments to provide a broader community perspective, shown as the area of overlap in the segment cones. Theoretically, only when there is adequate communication between all the different segments and their planning and development processes can we talk about a true community perspective in development processes. In reality, the extent of the integration tends often to be limited to just a subset of segments; and in many cases, virtually no integration exists between the different segments when local government agencies appropriate all of the planning and management processes and do not recognize the legitimacy of other interests undertaking planning and development in a relatively decentralized manner. The dynamics of change at the community level According to the argument developed in the preceding two sections, the dynamics linking interests and values, segments and local agency vary from community to community in the urban fringe (as elsewhere). The dynamic of community change is linked to the nature of the power and social (or informal) relationships in a community and how they are articulated through the networks both internal and external to the community, the changing composition of interests in the community and the changing socio-economic composition of the community. In short, communities can be characterized by different community cultures with respect to the management of change and the recognition and inclusion of the legitimate interests and segments present in the community in the management of change. Inevitably, this leads to the hypothesis that as a result of such differences, different local communities will experience different trajectories in the transformation of their space. Thus, given particular patterns of development and power relationships, and an event or a series of events that take place in the community, various interests are activated (either on an ad hoc basis or a more permanent basis). Depending upon the particular community culture and organization, reaction may take place or there may be a more planned

262

Christopher R. Bryant

approach to the management of change. This in turn may be organized in different ways, e.g. through individuals, organizations and businesses working within a particular segment; through a small group of people or an elite working for the whole community; just through local institutions such as municipalities; or through more inclusive processes involving a wide range of segments with communication and coordination being managed centrally (but not necessarily through local government) (Douglas, 1994). Decisions are taken, actions pursued and changes occur in the local urban fringe environment. The changes may be relatively short term in nature, or they may lead to long term changes in the patterns of uneven development, accumulation, the protection of particular environments and the values associated with them, as well as changes in power relationships. Certain changes may simply reinforce existing patterns. For example, in the context of agricultural change within the urban fringe, the informal social organization within the agricultural segment and its role in diffusion processes have led to the clustering of certain types of agricultural activities and forms of marketing (Bryant and Johnston, 1992). Or, as another example, once certain types of commercial development begin to evolve in particular settlement nodes, informal and formal processes of planning and development may reinforce the development, e.g. the development of regional tourist nodes catering to urban demands for rural character, garment outlet discounts and arts and crafts (Mitchell, 1988). Social differentiation takes places through both informal and formal planning and development mechanisms (Walker, 1987), with the latter being implicitly and often even explicitly exclusionary in nature. While it may not be easy to talk of have not communities in many urban fringes, it is certainly possible to talk of have communities, and even in the latter it is clear that there are often groups of the population whose interests are not taken into account by the power structures and the formal planning and development processes. So, notwithstanding the overall regional context in which the urban fringe evolves and the powerful meso and macro scale forces that have helped shape it, there is significant geographic differentiation within the urban fringe, both in terms of producer capital and consumer capital accumulation. This differentiation is partly explained by differentiation in the resource base (including the scenic qualities of their environment) of communities and partly by how change is managed. The latter ranges from virtually unplanned change, to change planned and managed or influenced by elite groups working

through particular local institutions, to broader based processes of community management. Depending upon the power structure, the community culture with respect to managing change and how this in turn relates to the inclusion of the different interests and segments in the community in the process, very different forms of community evolve. In the next section, three situations characterized by an increasing degree of broad community involvement are presented to illustrate the potential of the segment model for improving our understanding of urban fringe dynamics. First, some comments are offered on agricultural change, largely from the perspective of individual and groups of individual farmers taking decisions that contribute cumulatively to uneven development. Second, some examples are noted to illustrate mobilization, planning and management processes within a given segment. Third, some examples are offered to illustrate a broader, more inclusive community perspective. The potential of the segment model and approach: illustrations

Individuals as agents of change in the urban fringe: the example of farmers Since the mid-1970s, increasing attention in the research literature has been paid to the role of the individual farmer and farm family as agents of change in the evolution of agricultural space in the urban fringe (see Bryant and Johnston (1992) for an extensive review of the literature in this field). Farmers, and agriculture generally, had been frequently (and still are) seen as relatively passive, reacting to change rather than adapting, anticipating or even being proactive. In the urban fringe agriculture literature, this contributed undoubtedly to a preoccupation with the negative stresses in the farmer's decision-making environment, e.g. land speculation, the actual conversion of agricultural land to non-farm uses, and the general problems perceived to arise from the presumed incompatibilities between agricultural activities and non-farm land use activities. With very simplistic assumptions about farmer decision-making behaviour implicit in much of the research until the mid-1970s, negative stresses in the external environment were assumed almost automatically to lead to difficulties for agriculture and the degeneration of the agricultural structure. Subsequently, a greater and greater degree of heterogeneity of farm structures and change has

Role of Local Actors in Transforming the Urban Fringe been recognized. Agricultural structure is not unequivocally going downhill in the urban fringe. There are places where it is, and frequently these are influenced by various urban based forces as well as other factors. But there are also places where agricultural development continues along the traditional productivist paths, and still others where farmers adapt to the negative stresses, take advantage of the positives in their environment and enter into an entrepreneurial mode of operations (Bryant, 1984; Bouffard, 1994; Lockeretz, 1987; Rickard, 1991). Not only do there appear to be significant sub-regional variations in the patterns but there are also important inter-farm differences, related to such factors as the socio-economic mode of operation of the farm, and personal and family propensities for engaging in risk-taking activities. At the sub-regional level, various case studies in the lie-de-France region have shown the heterogeneous nature of patterns of farm development in the urban fringe. In the northern part of the Paris urban fringe, orchard areas have been shown to have relocated from the 1950s to the 1980s, still clustering close to the original farm communities involved (Bryant, 1973a). An initial set of decisions by a core group of farmers was instrumental in enticing other farmers from the same farm communities to follow suit; informal processes of communication and the social organization within the farming population were therefore important in transforming the spatial structure of these orchard areas. In another case study (Bryant, 1973b), farmers who had experienced expropriation of their land for the Arroport de Charles de Gaulle were able to extend their economic strength for the most part by partial relocation and by acquisition of other farms elsewhere. These were farming families who in most cases already had considerable economic strength and for many of them the expropriation only served to enhance this. A similar argument for recognizing patterns of uneven development initiated by individual decision-taking units (individuals, development companies, investment companies) can be made regarding the urban development process including property development and land speculation (Goodchild and Munton, 1985).

Interests organized through segments As already noted, different people, organizations, companies and firms frequently identify with a given segment or segments in the community. When a particular event or events comes along to alter conditions, positively or negatively, individual decision-takers will often be drawn together by the bond of a common interest.

263

At an elementary level of organization in a segment, it is easy to see how some people will band together to form lobby groups to influence the local power structure and local government (as well as external actors perceived to have power and influence) to react to a particular event or series of events which threaten cherished values. The theme-based segment relating to environmental values is an obvious one that many people have identified in the urban fringe. It is not only a question of defensive elitism, since people from all socio-economic categories may place a high value on their local 'natural' environment. In reaction to specific projects with perceived localized negative externalities, loose associations of residents have been quick to form. These include the obvious concerns with waste management sites and facilities, e.g. hazardous waste management sites in the Montrral region (Andr6 et al., 1995). Frequently, these citizen groups are short-lived, depending upon the nature of the stress to which they reacted (Zander, 1990) and particularly upon whether the objective of the mobilization is broadened beyond the initial catalysing project or event. These associations of citizens also include resistance to additional development in order to protect existing property values and other values associated with the environment. Sometimes, the effect of the mobilization of part of the population is to modify the conditions under which a given project will be developed. At other times, it may lead to major changes and decisions that in effect alter the long term shape of the community. Frequently, this has the effect of reinforcing consumer capital accumulation through increasing the value of residential property and as well providing accessibility to resources for the benefit of the broader community - - clearly, private interests may converge with certain collective interests. Examples from the urban fringe of most major Western cities are numerous. For example, south of Montrral on an agricultural plain that is relatively monotonous, some small mountains provide highly sought-after locations for residential development, e.g. Mont St Hilaire and Mont St Bruno, within a half-hour drive of downtown Montr6al. At St Bruno, after upper-middle income residential development had already occupied the lower slopes of much of the mountain, residents became aware of a development proposal that would have seen a major residential development on the mountain itself. After the residents mobilized and approached the Qurbec provincial government, the latter stepped in, purchased the land and developed a provincial conservation park in this urban fringe zone. The residents saw their property values enhanced and a

264

Christopher R. Bryant

large area of natural open space preserved as part of their own living environment. Sometimes, mobilization in a segment will go much further than simply lobbying the powers that be. A variety of possibilities has been observed, ranging from the constitution of environmental committees endorsed by local and regional government structures, to the development of communication processes on a permanent basis between actors in a segment (e.g. a social planning coalition of the social development agencies in a community or region), to the development of segment planning and development processes through the constitution of working groups. Ultimately, such more inclusive segment planning and management processes may lead to the development and implementation of projects that can change the patterns of development in an area. An example of this is found in the development of Chevreuse Parc Naturei R6gional, just south of Paris, France (Bryant, 1986; Squarcioni, 1983). The Parc Naturel R6gional in France provides a vehicle for sustainable development in the context of voluntary groupings of local municipalities (communes) who agree to work together and with other actors and interests to develop a continuous management and planning process to ensure local values are respected and development and conservation reconciled. The Chevreuse Parc Naturel R6gional involves 19 communes, and covers a picturesque area of 28,500 ha comprising deeply cut valleys alternating with small agricultural plateaux. Within 30 km of the gates of Paris, the area came under pressure for development particularly in some of the valley areas in the mid-1970s. The area had already become home to many wealthy families who had sought the peace and tranquillity of these landscapes which combined extensive areas of woodland (approximately 16% of the total area of the Parc) with a rich cultural and architectural heritage from centuries of human occupation. The idea for the Parc grew out of a small number of concerned citizens. They were articulate and had the ability to deal with the local and regional political system. The development of the Parc and its Charter took over a decade to negotiate and put in place, and its existence has daily ramifications for the operations of all the local municipalities involved. The management structure for the Parc includes a wide variety of interests, although largely represented through formal institutions and associations. In this example, an environmental theme segment

spawned more than a lobby group. It has led to a relatively permanent feature in the Paris urban fringe with both local and regional impacts, affecting the overall pattern of development in this area. The segment model has the potential in this case to shed light on how the initial group of Parc advocates were able to raise their specific concerns regarding the local environment to such a high profile that other local actors as well as external ones cooperated to endorse a major regional project. Analysis could be pursued to show to what extent the initial set of interests have been able to maintain their influence over policy directions in the Parc, by tracing the decisions and actions of the various actors in the context of the different networks of relationships in which they function. This type of analysis would also help understand why the farmers who manage approximately 33% of the Parc's area appear to have had little impact upon policy orientations in the Parc, even though they are represented in the management structure. Four other Parcs are in various stages of negotiation (as of May, 1995). The origins of these projects are different and different interests and groups are involved. Since the development of the Parcs Naturels R6gionaux (PNR) in France is very much a local development process, it can be anticipated that the specifics regarding how the space in each Parc will be managed and planned will be very different (cf. PNR du Vexin, 1993). Adopting a segment approach would help understand the dynamics of negotiation between the different actors and how very different results in terms of management directions are constructed in these urban fringe environments.

The community perspective As already noted, some segment-based planning and development processes can give rise to projects and initiatives that have major ramifications for the whole community or region involved. In the management of change at the community level, while we have cast our discussion in terms of local interests, it should not be forgotten that there may be non-resident interests in the local area environment (e.g. economic, cultural and environmental interests) that have to be addressed. It is therefore possible that a project such as a Parc Naturel R6gional represents such a major influence in a community that it acts as a catalyst drawing many different interests together into a broader community process as well as interests from outside the community. However, it must never be forgotten that the segment processes usually originate with a

Role of Local Actors in Transforming the Urban Fringe particular set of interests; if these are brought to the community table, it likely says something about the power and influence of the people involved in the first place. However much other interests are integrated into the project, the project is still generally defined in relation to the initial concerns, e.g. in the case of the Chevreuse Parc Naturel R6gional, the maintenance of natural landscapes and the control of the nature of residential and other forms of development to maintain the area's special character. The broader community perspective is becoming more important as it is increasingly recognized that municipalities and communities generally do have a major role to play in managing change in their own environments. Managing change essentially means undertaking some sort of long term planning, particularly strategic planning. The challenges are immense given the open economic and social systems in which human activities function today, especially in the urban fringe. This has been undertaken in the past frequently with management being directed at a community level by a small elite group, directly or indirectly involving the local government. This form of local management process is essentially similar to the top down approach, except that it simply starts at the local level. The broader community perspective, by contrast, implies the integration of as many legitimate interests and segments in the community as possible. An effective community perspective that integrates all the important interests and segments in the community can only exist if first, the different interests and segments (latent and actual) are indeed recognized and second, there is adequate communication between the different segments and effective representation of the segments in the overall process of managing community change. This does not mean that a single agency or organization must take the lead and include representation from all segments within it. But it does mean that an effective system of communication needs to be developed. The reality is, however, usually less inclusive and more elitist, perhaps especially so in many urban fringe communities. Particularly where we are confronted with communities undergoing changes, e.g. the influx of new comers, it is important to ask the questions: 'For whom are we managing change in the community?' and 'Whose vision of the community are we striving for?' The local management processes driven by small elite groups or by municipalities, however sensitive the people involved are to the different interests in the community, can never substitute for more direct involvement. The urban fringe is rife with local management

265

processes that are exclusionary and partial. Traditional local economic development organizations have been particularly prone to taking a partial view of their world. The quest for jobs and a broadening of the local tax base sums up the vision of the community that many people working in these organizations have had; and in urban fringe, and suburban, locations, it has not been difficult for some of the larger municipalities to pursue these goals without any significant consultation and input from their population which has frequently been seen as disinterested in becoming involved and oriented towards the nearby metropolitan or major urban centre. It has been even easier in regions where there have been significant growth pressures to sidestep the issue of involving the community's residents. Elsewhere, other communities have managed to influence the patterns of development in their communities, effectively excluding some potential population categories from settling in the community. The power of local agency in contributing to patterns of uneven development and especially the accumulation of consumer capital is highlighted in the stark contrasts that can be found between adjacent communities in the urban fringe of the same metropolitan centre. Examples can be found in most major urban and metropolitan regions. Already, the example from the Ile-de-France region of the Chevreuse Parc Naturel R6gional can be extended to show how planning tools at the local level can be used to exclude certain types of development - - and therefore people - - from accessing the housing property market. An example from the west portion of the Montr6al region also demonstrates this point. The two relatively small towns of Hudson and Saint Lazaire are located side by side, both approximately 50 km from the centre of Montr6al. Hudson has not experienced much growth (from 4400 in 1986 to 4800 in 1991) while Saint Lazaire has increased substantially (from 5000 in 1986 to 9000 in 1991). The differences are not related to location; indeed, Hudson with a location on a lake, might be expected to have experienced a much larger growth rate. However, Hudson has adopted a set of strategies based on the premise that it does not want to grow too much and that it wants to maintain the sort of population composition it has. Its policies of (very) large lot zoning and substantial green spaces, tied to the decision to maintain residential development on septic systems, effectively has created a market of relatively expensive homes, and a relatively small growth rate. Saint Lazaire, on the other hand, has opted for a collective sewage system, smaller hous-

266

Christopher R. Bryant

ing lots and higher residential densities, making it much more accessible to a broader range of population categories. It would be tempting to read class conflicts into these sorts of situations; however, while there is und o u b t e d l y an element of this in such situations, a class-based explanation is too simplistic since within these communities, people of different social class nonetheless often share similar values with respect to certain segments, e.g. environmental protection and protection of property values. Adopting a segment approach to the analysis of these two communities has the potential to clarify the dynamics involved. How have the revealed segments changed over time? How have the actors pursued their interests, influencing collective decisions at the municipality level, by working through the informal networks within and beyond the communities concerned? Conclusions The urban fringe is characterized by relatively strong pressures for growth compared to more distant rural areas. However, within the urban fringe there is a strong differentiation of space both in the context of the agricultural and rural spaces within the urban fringe, as well as in terms of the social composition and economic bases of the different communities. Part of the differentiation can be traced to meso and macro scale forces, but local agency has an important role to play as well. This is so regardless of whether the evolution of individual communities is driven by individual and even selfish interests or whether it is driven by more collective community interests. This is related to the fact that the different interests get to play themselves out through the local and regional power and influence structures even when there is an attempt to manage the process of change for the collective interest. The segment model and approach described in this article has the potential to contribute significantly to understanding the dynamics by which differentiation takes place with the urban fringe. The uneven patterns of development and accumulation are reflected in differential accessibility to quality of life, services, housing, environment and employment. As in many environments, there is inertia and cumulative effects in the actual unplanned and planned processes of managing change. H o w e v e r , there are also continual changes occurring. This is particularly the case with respect to the interests present and perceived. Changes in these reflect both the growing awareness of different

values associated with the environment generally as well as the changing composition of the population in many communities in the urban fringe. Finding ways to harness the energies and creativity of individuals and local actors generally in this dynamic environment will almost certainly involve recognizing the need to be prepared to alter planning and management strategies continuously and to organize planning and management in ways that recognize the important actual and potential segments that make up the mould within which the development process actually takes place. The segment approach has the potential to contribute to this through its emphasis on the importance of identifying actual and latent segments or orientations and by showing how a more inclusive community planning and management process can be built around planning and management processes in each segment. Acknowledgements - - The author would like to acknowledge on-going support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for his work in the lie-de-France region, as well as an earlier grant awarded by NATO for the investigation of local involvement in the planning and management of natural areas in the Paris urban fringe. Thanks are also due to Mr Guy Frumignac o f the Drpartement de Grographie at the Universit6 de Montrral for preparing the figures.

References Andr6, P., Bryant, C.R. and C6tr, R. (1995) Hazardous waste management in the rural-urban fringe of Montrral. The Environmentalist 15(3) (forthcoming). Bauer, G. and Roux, J.-M. (1976) La rurbanisation ou la ville ~parpill~e. Les Editions du Seuil, Paris. Beaudoin, M. and Bryant, C.R. (1993) Tools for Operationalising Strategic Management for Community Futures Committees. Employment and Immigration Canada, Montrral. Beuchler, S.M. (1993) Beyond resource mobilization? Emerging trends in social movement theory. The Sociological Quarterly 34(2), 217-235. Bouffard, D.-P. (1994) La contribution de l'entrepreneurship agricole gl la prdservation de l'agriculture dans les milieux urbains et pdr~-urbains. Facuit6 d'Amrnagement, Universit6 de Montrral, unpublished M.Sc.A. thesis, Montrral. Bryant, C.R. (1973a) L'agriculture face h la croissance mrtropolitaine: le cas des exploitations fruitirres de Groslay et Deuil-la-Barre dans la grande banlieue nord de l'agglomrration parisienne. Economie Rurale 98, 35-55. Bryant, C.R. (1973b) L'agriculture face ~ la croissance mrtropolitaine: le cas des exploitations de grande culture exproprires par l'emprise de l'Arroport ParisNord. Economie Rurale 95, 23-35. Bryant, C.R. (1984) The recent evolution of farming landscapes in urban-centred regions. Landscape Planning 11,307-326. Bryant, C.R. (1985) Restructuration 6conomique: le cas de la ville mrtropolitaine de Toronto et sa rrgion. 1Etudes Canadiennes 19, 29-42.

Role of Local Actors in Transforming the U r b a n Fringe Bryant, C.R. (1986) Farmland conservation and farming landscapes in urban-centred regions: the case of the Ilede-France Region. Landscape and Urban Planning 13, 251-276. Bryant, C.R. (1989) Entrepreneurs in the rural environment. The Journal of Rural Studies 5(4), 337-348. Bryant, C.R. (1995) Strategic management and planning for local and community economic development: II The community. Sustainable Community Analysis Workbooks 3. Econotrends Limited, St. Eugrne, Ontario. Bryant, C.R. and Coppack, P.M. (1991) The city's countryside. In The Canadian City in Transition, Bunting, T. and Filion, P. (eds), pp. 209-239. Oxford University Press, London. Bryant, C.R. and Johnston, T.R.R. (1992) Agriculture in the City's Countryside. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Bryant, C.R. and Lemire, D. (1993) Population Distribution and the Management of Urban Growth in Six Selected Urban Regions in Canada. ICURR Press, Toronto. Bryant, C.R., Russwurm, L.H. and McLellan, A.G. (1982) The City's Countryside: Land and its Management in the Rural-Urban Fringe. Longman, London. Bunce, M.F. (1990) Local planning and the role of rural land in metropolitan regions: the example of the Toronto area. In Limits to Rural Land Use, van Oort, G., van den Berg, L.M., Groenendijk, J.G. and Kempers, A.H.H.M. (eds), pp. 113-122. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (Pudoc), Wageningen, Netherlands. Coppack, P.M. (1988) The role of amenity in the evolution of the urban field. Geografiska Annaler 70B, 353-361. Douglas, D.J.A. (ed.) (1994) Community Economic Development in Canada. Volume One. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, Whitby, Ontario. Doucet, L. and Favreau, L. (eds) (1991) Th~orie et pratique en organisation communautaire. Presses de l'Universit6 Laval, Sillery, Qurbec. Dykeman, F.W. (ed.) (1990) Entrepreneurial and Sustainable Rural Communities. Rural and Small Towns Research and Studies Programme, Mount Allison University, Sackville. Foster, K.A. (1993) Exploring the links between political structure and metropolitan growth. Political Geography 12(6), 523-547. Friedmann, J. and Miller, J. (1965) The urban field. Journal of the Institute of American Planners 31(4), 312-320. Garreau, J. (1991) Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Doubleday Co., New York. Goodchild, R.N. and Munton, R.J.C. (1985) Development and the Landowner. George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London. Groupe de travail sur Montrral et sa rrgion (1993) Montreal: une ville r~gion. Final Report of the Groupe de travail sur Montrral et sa rrgion, Montrral Urban Community, Montrral. Galaway, B. and Hudson, J. (1994) Community Economic Development: Perspecties on Research and Policy. Thompson Educational Publishing Inc., Toronto. Lockeretz, W. (ed.) (1987) Sustaining Agriculture near Cities. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. Marchand, C. and Charland, J. (1992) The Rural-Urban

267

Fringe: A Review of Patterns and Development Costs. ICURR Press, Toronto. Marsden, T., Lowe, P. and Whatmore, S. (eds) (1990) Rural Restructuring: Global Processes and their Responses. David Fulton, London. Marsden, T., Lowe, P. and Whatmore, S. (1992) Introduction: labour and locality: emerging research issues. In Labour and Locality: Uneven Development and the Rural Labour Process, Marsden, T., Lowe, P. and Whatmore, S. (eds), pp. 1-18. David Fulton Publishers Ltd, London. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe P., Munton, R. and Flynn, A. (1993) Constructing the Countryside. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Mitchell, C.J.A. (1988) Recreation and culture in the urban field. In Essays in Canadian Urban Process and Form III: The Urban Field, Coppack, P.M., Russwurm, L.H. and Bryant, C.R. (eds), pp. 193-207. University of Waterloo, Department of Geography Publication No. 30, Waterloo, Ontario. Morris, A.D. and Mueller, C.M. (eds) (1992) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Yale University Press, New Haven. Newman, L.H., Lyon, D.M. and Philp, W.B. (1986) Community Economic Development: An Approach for Urban-Based Economies. Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1992a) National Programmes in Support of Local Initiatives. OECD, ILE Notebooks, Paris. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1992b) Partnerships: The Key to Job Creation. OECD, ILE Notebook, Paris. Patterson, J. (1992) A quarter century of Canada's metropolitan fringe development. Sustainable Cities (Institute for Urban Studies Newsletter Supplement) 4, 1-6. PNR (Parc Naturel Rrgional) du Vexin (1994) Parc Naturel R~gional du Vexin Fran~ais: Projet de charte. Mission du PNR du Vexin Franqais, Thrm6ricourt, Ilede-France. Rickard, T.J. (1991) Direct marketing as agricultural adaptation in megalopolitan Connecticut. In Limits to Rural Land Use, van Oort, G., van den Berg, L.M., Groenendijk, J.G. and Kempers, A.H.H.M. (eds), pp. 78-88. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (Pudoc), Wageningen, Netherlands. Sancton, A. (1991) Local Government Reorganization in Canada since 1975. ICURR Press, Toronto. Squarcioni, R. (1983) Un parc naturel rrgional en lie-deFrance: la Haute Vallre de Chevreuse. Cahiers de I'IAURIF 69, 9-24. Smit, B. and Flaherty, M. (1981) Resident attitudes toward exurban development in a rural Ontario township. The Professional Geographer 33(1), 103-112. Standback, J.T.M. (1991) The New Suburbanisation: Challenge to the Central City. Westview Press, San Francisco. Walker, G. (1987) The Invasion of the Countryside. York University/Atkinson College, Geographical Monograph 17, Toronto. Weber, M. (1956) Economie et socidt~. Tome premier. Librairie Plon, Paris. Vachon, B. (1993) Le d~veloppement local: th~orie et pratique. Gaetan Morin Editeur, Montrral. Zander, A. (1990) Effective Social Action by Community Groups. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.