Network Weaving for Regional Development on the Tip of the Northern Peninsula Project Report July 2011 Submitted to Northern Peninsula Regional Collaboration Pilot Prepared by Amy Tucker, Department of Geography, Memorial University Ryan Gibson, Department of Geography, Memorial University Kelly Vodden, Department of Geography, Memorial University June Holley, Network Weaver Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 3 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 7 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 HAWKE’S BAY-PORT AU CHOIX AREA ................................................................................................................................. 9 QUIRPON-COOK’S HARBOUR AREA .................................................................................................................................... 10 RODDICKTON AREA ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 STRAIT OF BELLE ISLE AREA ............................................................................................................................................... 11 EXISTING TOURISM OPERATORS, ATTRACTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS ...................................................................... 11 METHODS .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 SURVEYS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18 REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT: PROJECT FACILITATION GROUP, WORKSHOPS AND FOLLOW-UP SESSIONS ................ 19 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 A SOLID FOUNDATION - EXISTING TOURISM NETWORKS .............................................................................................. 21 TOURISM OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES .................................................................................................................. 24 SOCIAL NETWORK RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 26 NETWORK METRICS .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 PRIORITIES FOR MOVING FORWARD .................................................................................................................................. 35 DISCUSSION - NETWORKING IN THE NORTHERN PENINSULA REGION ........................................... 48 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................... 52 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Network Weaving for Regional Development Page 2 Acknowledgements The ability to document, illustrate and measure networks in the Northern Peninsula is a testament to the commitment of community members and organizations in the region. The project would not have been possible without the commitment of members of the Project Facilitation Group: Ken Carter, Gerry Gros, Carolyn Lavers, Darlene Newman, Joan Simmonds and Nina Mitchelmore. The project has also benefited greatly from the contributions of June Holley and Ken Vance-Borland and from the hard work and dedication of local Research Assistants Shauna Elliott and Margaret Myers. The project was made possible through financial contributions from MITACS (Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems) and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Rural Secretariat – Executive Council and the Department of Municipal Affairs in conjunction with the Northern Peninsula Regional Collaboration Pilot. Network Weaving for Regional Development Page 3 Introduction The many challenges faced by rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are well documented, including the collapse of the northern Atlantic cod and resulting moratoria, high rates of unemployment, low incomes and a declining, ageing population (Ommer & Sinclair 1999; Ommer et al., 2007). Rural Newfoundland and Labrador performs poorly relative to the province and Canada on most socio- economic indicators, yet highly on social capital indicators such as: engagement in child and elder care; sense of community; presence of social support networks; levels of charitable giving; and crime rates (Vodden, 2009a; Sorenson et al., 2005; CSC 2004; Statistics Canada, 2004, 2005). The concept of social capital has gained recognition as a significant contributor to social, ecological and economic well-being (Savitch & Kantor 2003; Wilson 1997). Putnam (1993, p. 167) defines social capital as “the features of social organization, such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions”. Networks are made up of sets of actors and their relationships. Social capital is based on contacts and exchanges that occur as people make and maintain relationships that enable them to work together to achieve things they could not achieve or could only achieve with greater difficulty by themselves (Barbieri, 2003; Field, 2008). Voluntary associations are but one example of such relationships (Grootaert & Van Bastelaer, 2002). A rapidly growing body of geographical literature exists on “networks of knowledgeable capitalism” at the regional scale, part of a body of regional economy studies that rely on network concepts (Hughes, 2007; Grabher 2006). New regionalist literature emphasizes the importance of „relational assets‟ within systems comprised of networks of linked actors with high levels of trust, reciprocity and norms that nurture creativity and innovation (MacLeod, 2001; Cook & Morgan, 1998; Storper, 1997; Goldstein 2005). In these “learning regions” networks foster the capacity to experiment, innovate and adapt to changing circumstances (Asheim, 2007; Florida, 1995; Cooke, 2001). The study of social capital offers ways to better understand the role of social attributes in development and adaptive capacity (Adger, 2003; Pelling & High, 2005). Evidence from collaborative initiatives in economic development, health care, and other social and more recently environmental issues increasingly suggest that efforts to strengthen local networks can result in improved local development outcomes (Manring, 2007; Holley, 2007, 2005a; Krebs & Holley, 2004a). Further investigation of this claim in varying contexts is needed. Dicken et al. (2001) state that analyses of network dynamics can illuminate causes and mechanisms of uneven development. Law (1992, p.380) adds that by studying how Network Weaving for Regional Development Page 4 “heterogeneous bits and pieces” organize themselves, including the institutional mechanisms used to initiate and manipulate or govern networks, insight is gained into how these actors shape power relationships and related development outcomes (Grabher, 2006). Network position can create competitive advantages for certain individuals or groups, for example, with better connected actors receiving better returns and particularly greater access to information (Burt, 2000). In Canada, many small, rural communities have weak formal market and bureaucratic relations, but strong associative or communal ones (Reimer, 2005). Network interactions in rural areas are often influenced by tradition and rich in informal methods of information distribution, but limited in access to formal facilities and support services (Lindsay et al., 2005). These rural characteristics are due, at least in part, to distance from the urban centres where services are concentrated. Geographers are engaged in an ongoing debate on the importance of spatial proximity in network interactions and outcomes. Also debated is the relative importance of strong ties and bonding social capital within the core of a network, and bridging ties that create diversity