A call for collaboration: linking local and non-local rangeland communities to build resilience

Keywords: adaptation, agriculture, grazing communities, outback, resilience of rangeland systems, social-ecological systems, tourism.

The people who live in Australia’s rangelands are vital to maintaining natural systems and infrastructure, implementing environmental programs, protecting ecosystem function and biodiversity (Woinarski and Lewis 2017), maintaining and developing pastoral and tourism industries, servicing transport operations within supply chains and more (Phelps and Kelly 2019). A large number of scientists and other professionals visit the rangelands to deliver professional services and undertake research. They are as passionate as the locals about wanting a positive future for the rangelands through improved land management, adaptation to climate change and enhanced livelihoods (Foran et al. 2019). In this paper, the members of this professional community who visit, but do not permanently reside in the rangelands, are referred to as non-local.

In this commentary paper we call for stronger links between the local and non-local rangeland communities for mutually beneficial outcomes, including building greater resilience for biophysical and socioeconomic rangeland systems. A call for greater collaboration in rural areas is not new, with examples from overseas (Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019) and in Australia (McAllister et al. 2008; Dale 2018; Foran et al. 2019; Kelly and Phelps 2019). We contribute to this discussion by using central-western Queensland (CWQ) as a case study region and provide examples of effective collaboration and networks which contribute to resilience. As a commentary paper, we do not seek to critically review the literature. Instead, we combine lived experience with a theoretical framework of social capitals to present ideas for other rangeland regions across Australia and internationally. Although more collaboration is called for, many examples of where people are successfully working together are provided and pathways are suggested for how non-local professionals can increasingly connect with locals.

Our premise is that more can be achieved through collaboration that generates benefits such as shared understanding and knowledge, combines resources and skills, and builds mutually beneficial outcomes. In some cases, collaboration may create opportunities that would not otherwise be possible.

The framework of bonding, bridging and linking social capitals (Putnam 1993; Szreter and Woolcock 2004) is used to explore collaboration within local groups, and between local and non-local groups in the CWQ case study region. The next section defines and discusses social capital from a theoretical perspective before outlining existing examples of each.

Social capital refers to ‘features of social organisation, such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions’ (Putnam 1993, p.167). From a networking or connecting perspective, the three main forms of social capital are bonding, bridging and linking, as defined below.

Bonding – where (generally) homogeneous groups of local people strengthen their ties through shared experiences, values and goals (Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019; Dressel et al. 2020).

Bridging – where local or regionally based people strengthen their ties through shared goals and desired outcomes, but are generally more heterogeneous in their values and experiences—often within structured settings (Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019; Dressel et al. 2020).

Linking – where local or regionally based people and groups strengthen ties with external individuals and groups, leveraging otherwise limited experience, knowledge, skills and resources, and often connects local citizen initiatives with formal institutions (Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019; Igalla et al. 2019; Dressel et al. 2020).

Bonding social capital corresponds with strong ties between individuals and homogenous groups, such as family and friends (Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019). Bridging can also correspond with strong ties through shared regional experience and contexts, whereas Linking social capitals tend to have weaker ties (Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019). These weak (or ‘wiry’) ties are important in rangelands, as they can provide efficient increase in resources in times of need (McAllister et al. 2011). Collaboration tends to be different between rangelands and coastal regions, partly because of vast distances with low population and huge climate variability over time – spatial and temporal differences impact the social capital.

Bonding and bridging appear to be the most common social capitals within rural communities (for example, Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019; in South America; King et al. 2019; in New Zealand). Many rangeland communities exhibit strong networks where local people support each other to manage in times of crisis (Rubin 2016). However, there are international examples where strong bonding ties can undermine cooperation with other stakeholders (Yoder and Chowdury 2018), or where bonding and bridging become parochial and insular, making it difficult for non-locals to link with locals (King et al. 2019). The same is likely to be true in the Australian rangelands, as strong internal bonding may exclude non-local participants (McAllister et al. 2008). Strong bonding social capital potentially can lead locals to reject knowledge and concepts that challenge their social norms (Smith et al. 2012).

Local and non-local knowledges develop in different contexts and are often communicated through language specific to each group (Brown 2010). Understanding these different languages and what knowledge is valued is one important step towards effective communication (Brown 2010; Ashwood et al. 2014). Both local and non-local communities need to accept and respect differing viewpoints. Non-local professional and scientist knowledge may be based in urbanised social norms as well as theoretical and academic knowledge. It is equally important for non-rangeland community members to understand the need to genuinely listen to local issues, and respect lived experience and solutions. Ashwood and colleagues (2014) propose that success arises through participatory deliberation, active information sharing and equality of knowledge value, which develops greater understanding for application to real-world issues.

There is evidence that community-based initiatives have the best success when all three social capitals are present (O’Brien et al. 1998; Halseth and Ryser 2007; Brown et al. 2016; Igalla et al. 2019; Igalla et al. 2020). The absence of linking social capital can lead to greater vulnerability (Straub et al. 2020), and by inference maintaining links between local and non-local networks is crucial for local resilience. We suggest that linking is the most important social capital to ensure resilience in CWQ. McAllister and colleagues (2011) agree with the need to develop and sustain efficient ties between local and non-local groups. A first practical step to enhance linking social capital is to introduce non-local professionals and researchers to existing local groups and networks. We draw on this concept from CWQ examples where collaboration through linking has been successful.

The next sections describe the CWQ case study region and outline existing opportunities for collaboration through local groups who have a proactive attitude towards engaging with non-local expertise, people and organisations. Then, examples are provided of mutual benefits of collaboration between local and non-local groups, and how this develops linking capital. The last section outlines potential lessons for other rangeland regions.

CWQ straddles the Tropic of Capricorn, from west of the Great Dividing Range to the Northern Territory and South Australian borders (see fig. 1 in Kelly and Phelps 2019). Compared with other rangeland regions mining occupies a relatively minor area (see Appendix 2 in Foran et al. 2019), and there is less land under Indigenous ownership or direct management than the rangelands of Western Australia or South Australia (see fig. 4 and Appendix 2 in Foran et al. 2019). Increasing collaboration and social capital in other regions would very likely need to include Indigenous communities as well as mining companies. The examples chosen from CWQ reflect the relatively high proportion of pastoral land, low proportion of Indigenous and mining land and high outmigration compared with other regions.

Vegetation is predominantly unmodified native grasslands, shrublands, open forest and desert ecosystems, which supports cattle and wool sheep production as the dominant land use (Phelps and Kelly 2019). The arid to semiarid climate is summer dominant with highly variable rainfall (Phelps and Kelly 2019).

The population is sparse and declining. The main towns of Barcaldine, Blackall, Birdsville, Boulia, Longreach and Winton each have populations of less than 4000 people (Kelly and Phelps 2019). Droughts have led to lower employment opportunities, and 20% of people migrated out of CWQ between 2007 and 2016 (Kelly and Phelps 2019). This leads to a smaller overall volunteer pool for leadership and governance roles, and less locally available skills, knowledge and ideas (described by Kelly and Phelps 2019 as the downward social cycle). From direct observation, there is an increasing tendency for the same individuals to hold leadership roles across multiple groups. There is evidence that community resilience declines as more groups become over-reliant on key individuals (McAllister et al. 2008), a risk of bonding and bridging social capitals being weakened, and a risk of accelerated loss of resilience (e.g. Straub et al. 2020). The declining population of CWQ increases the urgency for locals to collaborate with the non-local rangeland community.

CWQ has many examples of local groups with strong social, informal and formal ties which underpin bonding social capitals (Appendix 1). Groups and informal settings in local towns create social spaces for friends, family and neighbours to share ideas, socialise and form bonding social capital which develop and reinforce local norms (Szreter and Woolcock 2004; Smith et al. 2012).

Bonding social capital in CWQ occurs through either formal local structures such as arts, sports and service clubs or informal settings such as social gatherings of neighbours (e.g. ad hoc meetings between individuals in community spaces whilst grocery, rural supplies or hardware shopping). One example of a formal local group intentionally building social capital is the Rotary Club of Longreach. They recognised the need to bring rural neighbours together to support mental wellbeing during the current (2012–present) drought. This resulted in the Club hosting outdoor movies and meals in various locations around the region, with the specific aim of promoting social cohesion and maintaining strong bonding social capital between people who know each other (Phelps and Kelly 2019).

Bridging social capital in CWQ occurs primarily through formal groups, such as the Central West Rural Wellness Network (CWRWN) and the community led Western Queensland Drought Committee (WQDC) (Appendix 1). Both have established bridging social capital by bringing together disparate local people with different experiences, skills and knowledge (Kelly and Phelps 2019). The Remote Area Planning and Development Board (RAPAD) was established to connect the seven local governments within CWQ, bringing people together who may not know each other through shared goals, resources and a united voice (RAPAD 2018) thus developing bridging social capital.

Locally lead groups such as CWRWN, WQDC, RAPAD and others actively reach out to external groups to collaborate, build linkages and develop their programs (Appendix 1). These organisations offer opportunities for other non-local groups to build pathways. For example, the Longreach based Natural Resource Management Organisation, Desert Channels Queensland (DCQ) has worked with local landholders to identify high priority areas for weed eradication, linking this local knowledge with non-local government expertise and funding. This linking social capital has enabled a successful program to eradicate 317 613 ha of the invasive woody weed, prickly acacia, which was not achieved before collaboration being established (DCQ 2016, 2020). RAPAD collaborates with State and Australian government, accessing expertise and grant to develop programs to help create economic and population growth such as the renewal of the region’s sheep and wool industry (RAPAD 2018). These partnerships with government departments have successfully developed linking social capital.

Recent collaboration between the Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation and Griffith University is laying a strong ethical platform for Australian and international scientists to access culturally significant sites (Griffith University 2020). This partnership addresses strategic goals for both organisations. The Mithaka people aim to better understand their country and culture: ‘Understanding Mithaka Country, Culture and Mithaka people in the past and into the present is important to the Mithaka People. By integrating non-Indigenous scientific methods with Indigenous approaches and knowledge, we hope to build a thorough understanding of how Mithaka Country received her people and how she carried them in the past and will carry them into the future’ (MAC 2017). Griffith University aims to ‘establish trust between researchers and create a neutral platform for effective research; implement best practice research using culturally sensitive guidelines and principles; promote innovative research that traverses and benefits western and traditional knowledge’ (Griffith University 2017). This partnership will provide strong linking social capital through collaboration and the process of delivering on the strategic goals of both groups.

Many local groups provide less-formal pathways for non-local rangeland community members to engage. For example, the Rotary Club of Longreach welcomes guest speakers on a wide range of topics. Non-local scientists conducting long-term ecological studies into bird migratory patterns (Bino et al. 2020), resource web interactions (Moran et al. 2019) and small-mammal ecology (Dickman and Robin 2014) would be welcomed as guest speakers to share their experiences, skills and expertise with Rotary, other local community service clubs, Landcare groups, RAPAD and DCQ. Their knowledge would also be welcomed into local school classrooms (both physically and virtually) to inspire local youth through examples of science within their own region, potentially providing educational benefits to future generations (Schweisfurth et al. 2018). Even simple, less formal, interactions such as these examples create opportunities to establish linking social capital and build regional resilience.

Collaboration in CWQ has been initiated both by the local organisations (e.g. RAPAD) and by external organisations. One example of collaboration initiated by an external organisation is James Cook University (JCU), which employs staff in CWQ and maintains a telecommuting hub at Longreach as part of their undergraduate medical training. Students live in Longreach to gain experience in rural medicine through the public hospital and a private medical practice. Whilst in Longreach, the students are encouraged to volunteer with local groups to better understand and enjoy life within this rangeland community (Phelps and Kelly 2019). The bonds formed have increased the number of JCU graduates returning to a rural town as a qualified doctor (Woolley and Ray 2019).

The examples of collaboration provided indicate there are multiple opportunities for local CWQ and non-local groups to form linking social capital. CWQ is one rangeland region that proactively engages with non-local groups in a range of endeavours and there will be examples from other Australian and international locations. Importantly, these CWQ organisations tend to be open to approaches from non-local groups who can help achieve local goals, while achieving goals for the external group.

Not all local groups or non-local professionals may understand the potential shared benefits of collaboration. Some non-local groups have made efforts to collaborate and connect with local communities and groups; others have missed the opportunity to engage with locals. Possible reasons for a lack of collaborating include: (1) non-local organisations and individuals do not understand the wealth of knowledge and expertise grounded in local communities; (2) resource constraints within professional and academic institutions limit exploration (e.g. time, resources) of the potential co-benefits from engaging with local communities and groups; (3) non-local parties lack the knowledge of how to connect into local networks, or may assume that the locals do not wish to engage. The next section explores some of the benefits that have accrued to both locals in the CWQ case study region and to non-local rangeland professionals.

The range of semiarid and arid landscapes, ecosystems, land uses, communities and socioeconomic systems across CWQ has lent itself to research, development, extension and conservation programs from a wide range of organisations over many decades.

Conservation outcomes have been enhanced within CWQ through local engagement. The protection of the once-thought-extinct night parrot (Murphy et al. 2017) was enhanced through collaborative management based on listening to local knowledge, experience and values through interviews with local graziers (Garnett et al. 2016). Local knowledge has enhanced conservation outcomes for threatened mound spring ecosystems (e.g. Fensham et al. 2011), and contributed to a better understanding of tree thickening processes (e.g. Fensham and Fairfax 2005) than biophysical research would have in isolation. In these examples, non-local research and conservation goals were both advanced.

The agriculture industry has benefitted from formal processes which link local knowledge with Queensland and national beef research priorities (NABRC 2020). For example, the CWQ identified issue of on-going drought and high climate variability attracted Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), Australian and Queensland Government investment into research focussed on climate adaptation strategies (Climate Clever Beef, Bray et al. 2016). This has led to investment in research and extension services which links CWQ pastoral knowledge with the Bureau of Meteorology and the United Kingdom Meteorology Office for: (1) improved drought forecasts (through the Forewarned is Forearmed project; BoM 2020); and (2) enhanced climate products (through the Northern Australia Climate Program; NACP 2020). Research is stronger because of local knowledge, and local beef producers have benefitted as well as the cattle industry across northern Australia.

Local employment opportunities can be enhanced through collaboration. The Queensland Government’s Drought and Climate Adaptation Program has provided resourcing for additional CWQ based extension staff within the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and DCQ through the GrazingFutures project (DAF 2018), and employment of CWQ based climate extension specialists by the University of Southern Queensland through the Northern Australia Climate Program (NACP 2020). Jobs have also been created through conservation and natural resource management initiatives, with Bush Heritage Australia (BHA 2020) and the Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger Program (Queensland Government 2019) employing staff within CWQ. Sustained investment in agriculture and conservation programs help redress the decline in employment opportunities within CWQ (Kelly and Phelps 2019).

There are many opportunities to build on existing, and create new linking social capital between local residents and non-local experts to build resilience in CWQ (e.g. improved professional grant writing for community projects) and enhance research programs (e.g. deeper understanding and insight through shared knowledge). The existing examples of collaboration demonstrate many mutual benefits and can act as inspiration to forge new linkages for the future. For some non-local rangeland scientists, influencers and other professionals, there may be a lack of recognition that local communities wish to engage, or lack of recognition of the mutual benefits that could arise through linking. The locals should not expect to be approached by non-locals, and it is also incumbent on local groups and community leaders to extend a welcoming invitation for the non-local rangeland community to become involved.

Australia’s rangeland regions – and those around the world – require all three of the bonding, bridging and linking social capitals for a resilient future. Bonding and bridging usually develop naturally through existing informal and formal structures. Even though local volunteers and communities may be heavily committed, they tend to be strongly focussed on maintaining these social capitals. In the CWQ case study region, maintaining bonding and bridging social capitals is under increasing pressure from a declining pool of potential volunteers as the overall population declines. It is likely that local and regional groups (Appendix 1) will need to increasingly rely on non-local support for volunteers and resourcing to support solutions through local knowledge. Linking social capital is required to empower, inspire and support local and regional bonding and bridging ties.

For other rangeland regions, recognising the value of strengthening linking social capital is important. International evidence demonstrates that linking social capital is especially important during times of distress (e.g. disasters and drought). Rubin (2016 p402) made the case that ‘linking capital provides access to non-redundant and strategically important resources in times of distress’ and that it ‘enables groups to leverage resources, ideas, and information from formal institutions beyond the community … external assistance is often an important part of community adaptation’. Whilst Rubin (2016) discusses the case of natural disaster adaptation, we highlight that the concept equally applies to regions like CWQ that are under stress; where declining population and lost economic output during extended drought conditions (Kelly and Phelps 2019) means local resources are already at capacity. In these cases, non-local resources are necessary to support fully committed local resources in order to build resilience.

Regions need to proactively identify pathways to establish linking social capital, and also recognise there are likely to be challenges. The CWQ examples suggest that existing bonding and bridging social capital can be important foundations for establishing linking social capital. Groups such as RAPAD were initiated to build regional ties and thus enhance bridging social capital. This expanded to becoming proactive in establishing linking social capital through formal partnerships. Equally, there are opportunities to start less-formal arrangements such as guest speakers at local clubs or schools. We suggest there are many rangeland regions with the potential to utilise existing bonding and bridging networks as pathways for collaboration with non-local groups to develop stronger linking social capital.

Establishing, maintaining and linking social capital is likely to include challenges for many regions, which may result from differing communication styles or values. There is also evidence that challenges can arise from imbalanced power structures (Szreter and Woolcock 2004). There is a risk that rangeland regions, distant from large urban population centres and well-resourced organisations, can be overlooked in favour of regions with greater access to decision makers and more resources to champion their causes. CWQ has addressed this risk through: (1) on-going advocacy to non-local influencers; (2) creating pathways to develop linking through formalised structures and groups as well as through the informal networks of community leaders; and (3) ensuring that mutual benefits accrue for both local and non-local organisation, by developing compatible goals for all organisations involved. For example, the WQDC provided evidence of the impact of drought on local town based small business to advocate state and national decision makers for greater resourcing (Kelly and Phelps 2019; Phelps and Kelly 2019). The WQDC established pathways to build linking by including representatives from service clubs, church groups and local government within their governance structure, and informal linkages by utilising the networks of individual members. This has made it easy for non-local philanthropic organisations whose goals are to support people facing hardship during drought to direct resources into CWQ (Phelps and Kelly 2019). At a more personal level, it is important to build mutual trust and respect between local and non-local organisations through effective communication, seeking to share knowledge and understanding values and social norms that have arisen from different experiences. Establishing and maintaining linking social capital is likely to include challenges, but it can be achieved by local groups through a proactive approach to establish trust, good communication and mutual benefits.

There is a need to find mutual benefits to encourage collaboration between local and non-local rangeland communities. Locals can identify local issues and will have often discussed possible solutions and explored innovations over an extended period. However, locals can benefit from external perspectives and fresh ideas, and additional resources for implementation. Much can be achieved through concerted voluntary effort within existing or emerging networks and ties – but a more strategic and coordinated approach is necessary to address chronic issues. Declining resident populations, reduced livelihoods, increased vulnerability to drought and disasters and reduced capacity to manage land for productivity, sustainability and conservation outcomes requires the linked efforts of local and non-local rangeland communities.

Shared issues and solutions can contribute to mutually beneficial outcomes. Ten contemporary themes have been identified across Australia’s rangelands (Table 1, based on Foran et al. 2019; Nielsen et al. 2020). We suggest that linking social capital is the key gap for seven of these themes: ‘natural capital’; ‘governance’; ‘research and development’; ‘the social licence to operate’; ‘technology opportunities and threats’; ‘capital leakage’; and ‘human capacity and capability’ (Table 1). These seven themes either: (1) represent an externality where it is essential to link local solutions to the non-local source (e.g. the social licence to operate originates from external markets and societal values); or (2) a situation where local resources alone are inadequate to address the theme (e.g. with a declining total population in CWQ, strengthening ‘human capacity and capability’ requires both linking to non-local volunteers for additional capacity and training locals in areas such as governance to improve capability).

Table 1.  Key Australian rangeland themes (adapted from Foran et al. 2019; Nielsen et al. 2020) and a commentary on gaps in bonding, bridging and linking social capitals within CWQ which limit resilience

The lived experience from CWQ provides examples for other rangeland regions to adapt to their own context and seek opportunities to strengthen linking social capital to build resilience.

Linking social capital is crucial to building resilient communities and regions, generating shared knowledge and successful application of science to real-world problems. As the lived experience of CWQ and the literature (e.g. Fensham et al. 2011; Bray et al. 2016; Garnett et al. 2016; NACP 2020) indicate, the opportunity exists to develop linking social capital through engagement with existing local groups to benefit academic and conservation outcomes. A key challenge is in facilitating the first steps for engagement, and linking different knowledge systems to build a place of lasting trust and dialogue. Although a strategic and coordinated approach to developing linking social capital is needed to build resilience in the biophysical and socioeconomic systems of the rangelands, the shared passion of local and non-local rangeland communities provides a practical starting point.

Most rangeland regions have ample opportunities for non-local experts to engage with local and regional groups to build linking social capital, to share in rewarding discussion and undertake joint action. Shared knowledge will grow when non-local expertise is engaged with local knowledge and experience. Longer-term benefits will accrue by engaging with youth, for example if world-leading academics take the time to speak in classrooms this could inspire a new generation of scientists and leaders.

Many benefits can accrue for the non-local rangeland community if they engage with locals. We invite every rangeland professional to reach out to one of the many groups embedded in the region. Equally, we invite local groups and individuals to seek out the non-local rangeland experts working within their region and invite them to link more closely to the local community. Although CWQ was used as the example for this commentary paper, we have no doubt that the potential for collaboration, mutual benefits and building resilience is similar across all of Australia’s rangelands and in other parts of the world.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.