Introduction:

It has been suggested that rural Australia has been in transition from a productivist society
toward a post-productivist and/or multifunctional society for the last 50 years. The
productivist era, during which state paternalism existed, can be depicted as a period of
intensification to increase productivity of the land, concentration of larger farm holdings as
small farms were absorbed and specialisation of farming operations (Argent 2002, 99). As
change occurs it is important to recognise the contribution that rural Australia offers the
whole nation; including food securities, climate change mitigation, bushfire, and flood
protection, and to ensure that policies and planning reflect the complexity (Connell & Dufty-
Jones 2014, 1). The following paper will begin with a brief historical overview and description
of the post-productivist and multifunctional society. Following which will be the discussion of
three planning challenges faced by rural Australia.

1) Background:

2.1 Historical Overview:

In the late 1890s and early 1900s the Australian government realised that economic
development would be heavily reliant on establishing a productive agricultural industry. This
was supported by state and federal governmental policies during a period of state
paternalism, which saw the provision of public services such as schools, hospitals,
infrastructure for communications, transport railway systems and settlement schemes
creating many small rural towns throughout regional Australia (Tonts & Jones 1996, 175). The
notion behind this approach was that a profitable and successful agricultural industry would
require a stable rural community (Tonts & Jones 1996, 173).

However, the early 1970s saw political and market influences shift from state paternalism to
a focus on neoliberalism and with it a retraction of state involvement. Neoliberalism involves
an approach to policies which considers population welfare to be most efficiently achieved
by minimising the role of the government and shifting the reliance onto market forces
(Pritchard 2005, 104). As such regional Australia saw the retraction of public services such as
education and medical provisions, as policies were refocused toward prioritising economic
efficiency instead of on building stable rural communities (Tonts & Jones 1996, 172). This
transition has been captured by the conception of rural Australia transitioning from a period
of production, into a period of post-production or multifunctionality, which will be discussed
in the following section.

2.2 Post-Productivist and Multifuntional societies in Australia.

Post-productivism recognises that increasingly the Australian countryside is being valued for
its lifestyle, beauty, and recreational value (Almstedt, Brouder, Karlsson & Lundmark 2014,
298). Resulting in alternative economic purposes such as leisure, service industries, and
consumption (Gibson 2014, 187). A post-productivist transition implies a shift away from
agricultural industry as the dominant force in rural Australia. The idea that rural Australia has
“transitioned” implies a change from one stage to the next, this chronological ordering
suggests a linear pattern in means to convey causality (Argent 2002, 106). However, according
to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Australia saw an increase in Agricultural businesses
in 2017, with 2400 more compared to the previous year. There was also an increase in the
amount of agricultural land in use, up 6% for the same period (ABS, 2018), which suggests this
concept may not capture the reality and complexity of what is happening in rural Australia.

Contention with post-productivists binary nature and inability to convey the complexities of
the reality of rural Australia, has contributed to the development of the concept
‘multifunctional rural transition’ (MRT) (Holmes 2006, 142). Whilst the MRT concept also
agrees that there has been a shift away from the previous era, MRT attempts to find a clearer
definition and direction of the driving forces behind the use of rural resources. Attempting to
encompass the range and diversity of land use values including commodity and non-

1
commodity products and the production, consumption and protection aspects of rural
Australia (Holmes 2006, 143-145).

How we view the Australian landscape has important implications for development and
planning (Almstedt et al 2014, 298). It is vital that policies acknowledge and protect the
diverse range of uses; consideration of the application of theoretical perspectives on change
in rural Australia has the power to effect policies and future planning (Almstedt et al. 2002,
300). This will now be investigated in the discussion of three planning challenges for rural
Australia.

2) Discussion:

This section discusses three planning challenges the post-productivist and/or the
multifunctional transition brings for rural communities and/or rural resource management.

3.1 Planning Challenge 1 – Digital connectivity

If rural Australia is to successfully transition toward a combination of production,

consumption, preservation, and protection; then digital connectivity is essential. There are
many benefits to rural Australia to be digitally connected, these can be seen in a range of
online services from medical and education, to business productivity and management of
natural resources. Online services are said to help overcome the inconvenience and barriers
of living long distances from larger service centres (Park 2017, 399-400). For these benefits to
be realised it requires not only quality high speed internet access, but also the inclination and
ability to navigate information and communication technology (ICT) effectively.

2
Unfortunately, some areas of rural Australia are still considered to be at a digital disadvantage
in contrast to their metropolitan equivalents (Park 2017, 399). Rural areas continue to have
lower internet uptake, experience poor quality connections and often pay more for the
service (Park 2017, 400) ; remoteness is a strong indicator of digital exclusion (Marshall et al.
2020, 197). Evidence shows that location, income, education levels and age are all
contributing factors in internet access and use (Park 2017, 401). Access can be assisted via
infrastructure polices, although the quality of service is of importance, as lower speed is often
equated to lower use which also negatively impacts user competence. Further action is
required for ensuring the population has the skills and awareness to utilise the services that
are of benefit (Park 2017, 400). This is of relevance to the future of business and therefore
the economic viability of rural Australia.

An example of the impact of digital connectivity can be seen in Australia’s agricultural

industry. The future of farming is heavily reliant on affordable, reliable, and fast internet
which offers digital solutions to businesses and help drive innovation (Marshall et al. 2020,
196). Unfortunately, farmers are facing significant digital inclusion issues, rating lower than
the national rating for rural Australia in the Australian Digital Inclusion Index (Marshall et al.
2020, 200). Mobile service, although not an equivalent service, may partly deal with the
inequality between urban and rural digital connectively (Park 2017, 405). However, with an
estimated 75% of Australia having no mobile service, this will not assist those in blackspot and
remote areas. The increase in digital connectivity is assisted by the government’s
commitment to provide highspeed broadband via the National Broadband Network (NBN),
which is said to be on track with 91% of homes and businesses outside major urban areas
already connected. The government’s $220 million Mobile Blackspot program is also in place
to assist with better mobile coverage (Australian Government 2019).

3.2 Planning Challenge 2 - Tourism

3
As post-productivist rural Australia looks for alternative employment sectors for economic
growth, the tourism sector has grown to become a significant option (Gibson 2014, 187). For
this to be possible, rural locations need to overcome negative connotations of ‘country’
Australia, whilst competing with the more popular destinations such as coastal or
international locations (Gibson 2014, 190-191). With further challenges in terms of creating
tourism attractions, accessibility, and the effects on housing affordability, which will be
discussed below.

The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) has stated government support for regions trying to
capitalise on their local attributes to benefit the economy via tourism (PIA 2010). However,
the question of how to capitalise on existing attributes or creating new attractions may be a
problematic issue for rural locations, with added pressure of generating a diversity of
experiences for longer stays. Additional issues include having sufficient staff, quality
accommodation options, dining, and shopping facilities to meet the expectations of incoming
tourists (Koster & Carson 2019, 183). Accessibility is also a challenge, as traveling some
distance is part of visiting a rural destination and therefore relies on quality roads and
infrastructure. However, if the region has a low economic and political status they may be
overlooked for transport upgrade investment (Koster & Karson 2019, 255). Housing prices
may be impacted by increased popularity as a result of successful tourism. A study in the US
found that in popular holiday destinations the majority of workers found it too expensive to
live in the town, which increased the number of cars in town everyday as many workers had
to commute. This added to the parking and congestion issues these regional tourist
destinations were experiencing. (Stoker et al. 2021, 28).

Australian Regional Tourism (ART) highlights a lack of national policy and strategy, with a need
to develop support systems and tools (ART 2021). To assist with accessibility issues, it was
suggested that transport and mobility improvements be investigated such as improved
sidewalks, free parking and protected bike lanes (Stoker et al. 2021, 28). The latest Federal
Budget offered substantial funds to assist rural towns with upgrading footpaths and
community facilities, improve road safety, telecommunications, digital connectivity, roads

4
and rail infrastructure (Babour 2020). This support has come in the form of multiple programs
such as the Building Better Regions Fund, Community Development Grants and the Regional
Growth Fund, which are aimed at improving infrastructure and community projects for the
social and economic viability of towns (Australian Government 2019). In regard to affordable
housing more work needs to be done as the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA)
and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) have not made significant impacts to
housing affordability in rural Australia (Haslam-McKenzie n.d., 6).

3.3 Planning Challenge 3 - Tree Changer Migration

The stagnation or reduction of population growth in rural Australia is negatively impacting

service delivery, this has been exacerbated with the retraction of governmental support for
public services in regional areas (Argent 2002, 100). Attracting people away from urban areas
into rural towns has been a longstanding objective and said to help in the retention of services
(Drozdzewski 2014, 85). A relatively new socio-graphical movement in Australia has been
occurring in the form of ‘tree changers’ (Ragusa 2011, 95). A ‘tree change’ (TC) refers to
migration of people inland to rural locations, which has been driven by cheaper housing,
environmental amenity, and a change of lifestyle (Drozdzewski 2014, 83). However, this poses
additional considerations; including increased road use, land use change and housing prices,
which will be discussed below.

Several potential planning concerns are a result of the influx of ‘tree changers’. With a
tendency for tree changers to migrate to areas that are 200km from capital cities or 1 hr drive
to large regional towns, as it is common for tree changers to retain existing employment and
social groups. This trend is supported by evidence that moving too far from established social
groups and family is a major deterrent to a TC (Connell & McManus 2011, 175). This causes
planning issues for increased road use, access to public transport and environmental
sustainability (Ragusa 2011, 93). Another issue from the TC movement is land use change;

5
where prime farming land is being developed into residential or hobby farm blocks
(Drozdzewski 2014, 92). This may add to future issues in food security, with an estimated
doubling of food production required by 2050 to feed the growing population (United
Nations, 2009). Land use changes can also negatively impact the rural aesthetic and can be a
common source of contention with existing residents (Ragusa 2011, 73. This presents the
issue of how to retain country charm whilst achieving the required level of growth to retain
amenities. Housing prices have also been negatively impacted by the TC movement; in some
regions rural house prices have risen by as much as 50% since 2006 (Ragusa 2011, 85).
Gentrification poses a problem to existing residents that may be on lower incomes who
become priced out of the market.

The counter-urbanisation movement has been supported by the Australian governments’

decentralisation agenda and commitment to support regional Australia, which aims to
increase long-term productivity, increase and spread economic growth and ensure wage
growth (Australian Government 2019). As previously discussed , this support has come in the
form of multiple programs with a financial commitment to making rural Australia more
accessible and connected; supporting the planning challenges of more people moving to rural
towns (Australian Government 2019). However, more research is required into the
environmental impacts of country to city travel, land use change and into the long-term
impacts of investment properties and residential development (Ragusa 2011, 96).

3) Conclusion

As rural Australia diversifies toward a post-productivist and/or multifunctional society, it is

vital that the research fully reflects the complexity and important contribution that rural
Australia offers the whole nation. Any term that is favoured or utilised requires an
understanding that change is varied and not absolute, particularly as change is a recurring

6
theme for rural Australia. The planning challenges discussed here included digital
connectivity, tourism and tree changer migration; and from this discussion, it is clear that
more research and direction are required in the uptake and utilisation of digital connectivity
in regard to tourism policies and strategies, affordable housing and the impact of tree
changers on sustainability. The Australian government’s funding into various rural and
infrastructure programs depicts a strong support of the growth of rural Australia. With this
continued support and deepening of our understanding, rural Australian can continue to
grow, enriching the lives of current and future residents and offer a variety of recreational
experiences for the Australian population.

7
 4) References

Almstedt, Å., Brouder P., Karlsson, S. and Lundmark L. 2014. Beyond Post-Productivism: from
Rural Policy Discourse to Rural Diversity, European Countryside, 4, 2014, pp. 297-306. DOI:
10.2478/euco-2014-0016

Argent, N. (2002) From Pillar to Post? In search of the post-productivist countryside in

Australia, Australian Geographer, 33:1, 97-114, DOI: 10.1080/00049180220125033

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2018. Land Management and Farming in Australia.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/agriculture/land-management-and-farming-
australia/2016-17

Australian Government. 2019. Australian Government Response to Regions at the Ready.

https://www.regional.gov.au/regional/publications/australian_government_response_regio
ns_at_the_ready.aspx

Australian Regional Tourism Ltd. 2021. Strategy – Priority Issues.

https://regionaltourism.com.au/about-art/#strategy

8
Barbour, L. 2020. Roads, infrastructure get regional Federal Budget boost as Government
pushes ahead with decentralisation. ABC Rural. https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-
10-07/roads-infrastructure-get-regional-federal-budget-boost/12732208

Connell, John and Dufty-Jones. 2014. Rural Change in Australia : Population, Economy,
Environment. Farnham: Taylor & Francis Group. Accessed January 10, 2021. ProQuest Ebook
Central.

Connell, John, and McManus, Phil. 2011. Rural Revival? : Place Marketing, Tree Change and
Regional Migration in Australia. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group. Accessed January
11, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Drozdzewski, D. 2014. ‘They have no concept of what a farm is’: Exploring rural change
through tree change migration. In Dufty-Jones and Connell, Rural change in Australia:
population, economy , environment, pp. 83-101.

Gibson, C. Rural Place Marketing, Tourism and Creativity: Entering the Post-Productivist
Countryside. In Dufty-Jones and Connell, Rural change in Australia: population, economy ,
environment, pp. 187-210.

9
Haslam-McKenzie, F. (nd). Senate Standing Committees on Economics - Affordable Housing.
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=f7044cfa-9322-435a-9934-
815496c683af&subId=205641

Holmes, J. 2006. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in the
research agenda. Journal of rural studies, 2006, Vol.22 (2), p.142-160.

Infrastructure Australia. 2019. Small towns, rural and remote areas. Australian Government.
https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-
08/Audit%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Small%20Towns%2C%20Rural%20and%20Remote.pdf

Koster, Rhonda L., and Carson, Doris A., eds. 2019. Perspectives on Rural Tourism Geographies
: Case Studies from Developed Nations on the Exotic, the Fringe and the Boring Bits in
Between. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. Accessed January 13, 2021. ProQuest
Ebook Central.

Marshall, Amber ; Dezuanni, Michael ; Burgess, Jean ; Thomas, Julian ; Wilson, Chris K. 2020.
Australian farmers left behind in the digital economy – Insights from the Australian Digital
Inclusion Index. Journal of rural studies, 2020-12, Vol.80, p.195-210

10
Park, S. 2017. Digital inequalities in rural Australia: A double jeopardy of remoteness and
social exclusion. Journal of rural studies, 2017-08, Vol.54, p.399-407

Planning Institute Australia (PIA). 2010. Rural and Regional Development.

https://www.planning.org.au/policy/rural-and-regional-development-1210

Pritchard, B. 2005. Unpacking the Neoliberal Approach to Regional Policy: a Close Reading of
John Freebairn's ‘Economic Policy for Rural and Regional Australia’. Geographical Research,
43: 103-112. https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2005.00302.x

Ragusa A.T. 2010. Seeking Trees or Escaping Traffic? Socio-Cultural Factors and ‘Tree-
Change’ Migration in Australia. In: Luck G., Black R., Race D. (eds) Demographic Change in
Australia's Rural Landscapes. Landscape Series, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi-
org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1007/978-90-481-9654-8_4

Stoker, P. , Danya Rumore , Lindsey Romaniello & Zacharia Levine. 2021. Planning and
Development Challenges in Western Gateway Communities, Journal of the American Planning
Association, 87:1, 21-33, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2020.1791728

11
Tonts, M. & Roy Jones. 1997. From state paternalism to neoliberalism in Australian rural
policy: Perspectives from the Western Australian wheatbelt, Space and Polity, 1:2, 171-
190, DOI: 10.1080/13562579708721762

United Nations (UN). 2009. Food Production Must Double by 2050 to Meet Demand from
World’s Growing Population, Innovative Strategies Needed to Combat Hunger, Experts Tell
Second Committee. https://www.un.org/press/en/2009/gaef3242.doc.htm

12