Edinburgh Research Explorer 'Community': the ends and means of sustainability? Citation for published version: Creamer, E 2015, ''Community': the ends and means of sustainability? Exploring the position and influence of community-led initiatives in encouraging more sustainable lifestyles in remote rural Scotland'. Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 10. Oct. 2021 ‘COMMUNITY’: THE ENDS AND MEANS OF SUSTAINABILITY? Exploring the position and influence of community-led initiatives in encouraging more sustainable lifestyles in remote rural Scotland Emily Charlotte Creamer A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Edinburgh 2015 Declaration This thesis has been composed wholly by me, Emily Creamer, and is my own original work. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. Signature: Date: i Abstract This research explored the role of community-led initiatives in encouraging the uptake of more sustainable lifestyles within the social and physical context of remote rural Scotland. Participant observation with Arlen Eco Trust (AET) and Thriving Thornton (TT), two community-led sustainability initiatives funded by the Scottish Government’s Climate Challenge Fund (CCF), led to findings which challenge the common assumption that funding for community-led initiatives will be of net benefit at the local level. In line with the requirements of the CCF, both AET and TT define community in terms of geography. However, only a small minority of the members of the geographically- defined communities of Arlen and Thornton were found to be actively involved in the groups’ activities or objectives. Both Arlen and Thornton were observed to be segmented into multiple and diverse ‘communities within communities’ and, rather than representing ‘the community’, AET and TT can more accurately be understood as an example of sub-communities in themselves. This sub-division within the communities was found to be exacerbated by the fact that both the governance and management of AET and TT were observed to be undertaken primarily by individuals regarded as ‘incomers’ to Arlen and Thornton, which resulted in an ‘incomer’ identity being passed on to the group and its activities. Historic connotations with ‘incomers’ as disruptive to traditional ways of life were found to resonate with the suspicion and scepticism expressed by some ‘locals’ wary of ‘incomer’ groups that were actively trying to change local lifestyles. The groups’ ability to engage with the wider geographic community was also observed to be further weakened in several ways by the receipt of government grant funding. The short timescales and expected outputs associated with many funding schemes were found to be discordant with the long-term sustainability goals of the community groups studied, and participation in top-down funding programmes was found to reduce the time and resources available for ‘hands on’ community participation activities. Furthermore, the need for groups to adapt their ambitions and approach to align with top-down demands from funders is incongruent with the notion of a ‘community-led’ initiative. Together, these local conditions were found to have significant implications with respect to the impact and influence of AET and TT. The funding received by the groups was found to create pockets of social capital – rather than being distributed through the geographic community – which served to strengthen the group, but segment the wider population, implying that, rather than increasing local social sustainability, schemes such as the CCF may be undermining it. Overall, this thesis concludes that, whilst the CCF was observed to facilitate community as a means by which to reduce carbon emissions, ‘community’ was not being strengthened as a policy end. As such, it questions whether current mechanisms of central government funding for isolated, self-identified community-led groups to deliver finite, output-driven projects will inherently help to empower geographic communities to adopt more sustainable lifestyles. ii Acknowledgements There are a huge number of friends, colleagues, and acquaintances who have made a contribution to this project. I am not able to name all of these people here, but I hope that they know who they are and know that I am enormously grateful. My biggest debt of gratitude is to the residents of my two case study communities and to everyone who shared their stories with me. This thesis is a product of their cooperation and collaboration, and it is my earnest hope that all those whose words and actions I have reported here believe they have been represented fairly and honestly. This research was made possible by funding from the UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Scottish Government as part of the Sustainable Lifestyles Research Group (SLRG). I am grateful to Tim Jackson and Ian Christie at the University of Surrey for their expert guidance and leadership of the SLRG. I always came away from our meetings encouraged and enthused, and I feel very fortunate to have been part of such a friendly and vibrant group of researchers. The University of Edinburgh excited and inspired me from the moment I arrived, if not before, and I am grateful to everyone I have met here for never failing to reassure me that I was in the right place. Particular thanks go to my supervisors, Simon Allen and Claire Haggett, two of the humblest and most remarkable people I know. Simon is an extraordinarily generous and selfless teacher. He has been a constant source of wisdom and support, and his heartfelt advice has steered me through each and every stage of this project. Despite facing challenges far greater than mine, Claire’s insight and good humour never wavered. Her seemingly boundless kindness and compassion repeatedly rescued me in moments I didn’t think I could cope. Together, they have expressed enormous faith in me and my intellectual capabilities, which was perhaps my greatest motivation and inspiration. Any academic glory of mine is at least equally theirs. For their implicit and unconditional support in everything that I do, my mother, brother, and sister must always take significant credit: in this case, particularly Floss. Without her encouragement and generosity, from beginning to end, I can’t imagine how I would have got here. I am lucky, and extremely grateful, to have her as my sister. Finally, to David, who – despite never having signed up for it – came with me on this journey, patiently bearing the brunt of all my frustrations, gently easing my insecurities, and joyfully celebrating every tiny triumph along the way: to me, you are the world. Thank you. This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. William Shakespeare (1601) ‘Hamlet’: act 1, scene 3 iii Contents Declaration i Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Tables vi Figures vii Abbreviations viii PART I: Setting the Scene 1 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Project rationale 3 1.2 Research aim 7 1.3 Research questions 8 1.4 Terms of reference 10 1.5 Ethics and anonymity 11 1.6 Thesis structure 12 2 Sustainable lifestyles: a literature review 16 2.1 The rise of sustainability 17 2.2 Understanding (pro-environmental) behaviour 24 2.3 The role of community in encouraging sustainable lifestyles 37 2.4 Summary 39 3 Research context 41 3.1 The Climate Challenge Fund 42 3.2 Remote rural Scotland 44 3.3 Summary 52 4 Research methodology 53 4.1 The ‘multi-headed beast’ of social research methods 55 4.2 Methodological challenges 63 4.3 Research design 68 4.4 Profiles of the selected sites 74 4.5 In the field 76 4.6 Back home 80 4.7 Summary 83 PART II: Findings & Analysis 84 5 ‘Community’? 85 5.1 The birth of ‘community’ as a political tool 87 5.2 ‘Community’ as the means and ends of sustainability policy 93 5.3 Community in the CCF 97 5.4 Communities within communities 104 5.5 The role and form of community in AET and TT 106 iv 5.6 The ‘membership’ mirage 109 5.7 Implications for community sustainability 112 5.8 Summary 113 6 The influence of the ‘White Settler’ 115 6.1 Urban to rural migration: the arrival of the incomer 116 6.2 Incomers and locals in Arlen and Thornton 119 6.3 ‘White settlers’ and community-led action 126 6.4 Sustainable living is only for “posh incomers”? 132 6.5 Summary 134 7 The double-edged sword of grant funding 136 7.1 The influence the CCF in Arlen and Thornton 138 7.2 The double-edged sword of the CCF 149 7.3 The broader landscape of grant funding in Scotland 151 7.4 Funding community-led sustainability initiatives across Scotland 155 7.5 Summary 165 PART III: Synthesis 166 8 Discussion 167 8.1 The rhetoric and reality of ‘the community’