1 / 20

What do we mean by the evidence base?

The rural evidence base: what do rural social scientists have available and what do they need? Bill Slee Macaulay Institute. What do we mean by the evidence base?. A pool of appropriate data at suitable spatial scale to: Monitor change Address contemporary and likely future research questions

ksena
Télécharger la présentation

What do we mean by the evidence base?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The rural evidence base: what do rural social scientists have available and what do they need?Bill SleeMacaulay Institute

  2. What do we mean by the evidence base? • A pool of appropriate data at suitable spatial scale to: • Monitor change • Address contemporary and likely future research questions • Respond to policy needs (not just evaluation) • (from our institute point of view) to link land use and socio-economic data

  3. Our focus • The use in a rural context of SIMD and SNS • The blending of these with other statistics of relevance and interest

  4. Some recent experience • Exploring socio-economic change in Perth and Kinross • Scoping impacts of land reform • Understanding trends in land use in crofting counties • Examining the commercial recreation informal recreation interface for FCS • Examining the new entrant problem in Scottish agriculture

  5. Example 1: Perth and Kinross: big spatial units may harbour considerable diversity

  6. …and different stats use different spatial entities

  7. Upper Glen Lyon and Aberfeldy are one spatial unit with land use data

  8. SIMD - an urban indicator? • “Eilean Siar, Moray, Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands do not have any data zones in the SIMD 2006 15 per cent most deprived. This does not mean there is no deprivation in these areas rather that it is not concentrated in small areas” • Rural deprivation is not geographically concentrated but it does exist

  9. Example 2: Some observations on land reform and rural datasets • Community-based land reform is about community decisions- but it is not possible to baseline from existing stats • E.g. Gigha is a small part of one SNS data zone, yet Gigha is the relevant unit of change that we need to explore

  10. Data are often not available at the right spatial scale

  11. Example 3: Some observations on crofting • Land use and socio-economic datasets are collected on the basis of completely different spatial entities • Different admin bodies use different spatial units for data presentation • Ag holdings data (JAHC) and wider land use data are incompatible • A lack of key socio-economic info on crofts as socio-economic entities

  12. Example 4: Some observations on forestry and informal recreation • Good data on forest visits • Very poor data on state forest recreation-related expenditures at forest unit level (c. 600 in Scotland) • Quite impossible to ascertain where the forest recreation enterprise is breaking even with any accuracy

  13. Example 5: New entrants • Not clear how much land is under different tenurial categories which are neither under tenancies or owner occupancy • Therefore it is unclear who is working the land (grass lets, cropping licences, contract farming etc) • Thus the basic evidence lacking

  14. Some issues of social science • How ‘objective’ are the SIMD and SNS indicators- are they socially constructed around predominantly urban values? (the Mackay and Laing example) • Are some big dimensions of wellbeing and livelihoods missing? • A sense of greater control over resources and development • Tradeoffs between environmental quality and wealth • Non-market/ecosystem goods and services

  15. SIMD

  16. Conclusions • We now have quite good socio-economic ‘wallpaper’ as context • Often (in my experience) it does not help greatly to answer specific research questions • The land resource does matter and may become even more important with respect to climate change and sustainability agendas –its inter-relationships with socio-economic well-being are weakly documented • Trade-offs between different Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGSs) are complex and weakly understood

  17. The workshop format 14-30 to 15-15 hrs Break into small groups around tables Address the six questions listed (and add your own if you feel a need to) 15-15 to 15-30 hrs All groups together

  18. Stage 1 discussion • Can we find/cite examples of successful use of SIMD and SNS in the rural arena in policy relevant academic investigations? • Do SIMD and SNS capture the complexity of factors that underpin rural livelihoods? • What gaps exist with regard to socio-economic data and how important are they? • How could the academic community engage with the policy community in improving rural socio-economic data? • Are the policy and academic communities sufficiently engaged with the practice community? • What scope is there for innovation in dataset development?

  19. Bringing it together (i) What are the main data gaps? (ii) How can the different communities keep the conversation going? (and do they want to/need to?) (iii) Are academic and policy communities sufficiently engaged with the practice community

More Related