Asset-based Development

Mobilizing underutilized local resources to enhance the quality of life of community residents. Rather than focusing on the problems and weaknesses in communities, asset-based development emphasizes the strengths or resources that are often ignored. Assets can refer to the untapped skills, interests and experiences of individuals; to the potential social relationships based in community organizations; to the available resources of local institutions. In rural areas, natural resources and local culture are often critical assets in community and economic development. This article discusses basic elements of asset-based development, strategies for mobilizing local resources, and unique contributions of natural and cultural resources in rural community development.

From Needs Assessment to Asset Building

Most community development projects begin with a needs assessment (Green and Haines, 2007). Needs assessments document the problems communities face (e.g., lack of access to credit, unemployment or lack of affordable housing). Identifying the problem provides the basis for community organizing and/or a strategic plan of action. This approach to community organizing and development assumes that if residents locate the sources of their problems, they can identify solutions and take action to address them. It is important for activists to begin organizing efforts by identifying small (winnable) issues and problems. Successful community organizing efforts could then turn to the larger issue— the lack of power—that was the root cause of many of the problems in poor neighborhoods.

Jody Kretzmann and John McKnight turn this approach on its head and have proposed an alternative approach to mobilizing communities (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993). Rather than focus on problems, they argue it is preferable to begin with the strengths or assets in communities. Needs assessments are, in most cases, conducted by outside organizers, consultants or experts. Relying on external resources incapacitates communities and makes them dependent on experts to help address local needs. Experts have very little understanding of the local resources that can build community capacity (Chaskin et al., 2001). Focusing on local problems and needs also tends to distract residents from local opportunities and resources that are available to them.

Some commentators have interpreted the shift from needs assessment to asset building as a move away from conflict to consensus organizing. Probably a more accurate characterization would be that assetbased development provides the basis for a wider range of community organizing tactics than is offered by needs assessment. Asset-based development also is accused of focusing on local resources at the expense of external influences on communities. Although assetbased development does emphasize the importance of local resources, these frequently need to be leveraged to access external sources of resources that are needed to promote development.

Mobilizing Resources

Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) outline a strategy for mobilizing local assets that begins with a mapping process. Individuals often have experiences, skills or interests that are untapped. Identifying individual assets can be a valuable exercise for communities because they uncover, for example, the potential contributions of youth, retirees and disabled through this process. Each has the capacity to contribute to community well-being, but is often ignored by community organizers.

Most communities have numerous formal and informal organizations. These organizations are potentially powerful actors in the community development process because they hold social resources (relationships) that can be leveraged. Mapping the organizational terrain helps locate the levers for community change. One strategy in working with these organizations is to identify common values, interests and goals across organizations. These commonalities can serve as the basis for action.

Finally, the mapping process involves an assessment of how local institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals, libraries) can enhance the quality of life for community residents. Local institutions can change their policies and practices to better serve the community. For example, schools can change their purchasing patterns to support local businesses or their hiring practices to focus on the needs of local unemployed or underemployed workers. Libraries can open up their facilities for community meetings.

Once assets are mapped, it is possible for the community to develop a set of goals or a vision that will drive the development process. Mobilizing these assets requires broad-based support among the various organizations and institutions. The focus on local assets does not exclude accessing external resources. Local resources are leveraged to support community initiatives. This process also may involve a scan of allies and other potential sources of support that may be useful.

Valuing Natural and Cultural Resources in Rural Communities

Natural resources typically play a key role in rural development (Flora and Flora, 2008). The economic base of most rural communities is rooted in extractive industries, such as agriculture, forestry, mining or fishing. Natural resources are commodities that are extracted from the environment for external markets. Some of these commodities are processed locally, which retains much of the value added to the commodity in the regional economy. Exports inject income and add jobs to the local economy. Income from these exports also creates additional jobs and income as workers purchase goods and services in the community. Dependency on these extractive industries generates numerous obstacles for rural communities. These industries tend to fluctuate wildly, which produces the boom and bust periods in many natural resource-dependent communities. Because these industries tend to be in highly competitive (often global) markets, workers’ wages tend to be low and the profit margin very small for employers. Sustainability is often a more serious issue for natural resource-dependent communities. In some cases, the natural resources are public goods and there are inadequate protections for the natural resources. In other situations, competitive pressures can lead to unsustainable practices.

In many rural communities today the amenity (use) value of natural resources is much greater than the commodity (exchange) value (Power, 1996). Amenities are non-marketed qualities of a community that make it an attractive place to live, work or visit. There is growing evidence that amenity-led development has played a critical role in rural areas of the West, and even parts of the upper Midwest, over the last few decades. Coastal and mountain regions experienced the most population and employment growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Rural areas in relatively close proximity to urban areas were more likely to develop as tourist destinations and as sites for seasonal home development (Green et al., 2005). Natural amenities are highly elastic, which means that as income rises they are more valued. The economic expansion of the 1990s fueled the higher demand for living in these high-amenity areas.

The research on the outcomes and impacts of amenity-based development is somewhat mixed (Galston and Baehler, 1995). Amenity-based development contributes to income growth in rural areas, but has a negligible effect on income inequality and poverty in these regions (Green et al., 2005). In many high-amenity areas, communities struggle with providing affordable housing for service sector workers, and the fiscal demands of supporting the infrastructure can be very high for local governments. Finally, amenity-based development may also fail to manage growth, which potentially could destroy the quality of life that attracts new residents and visitors.

Cultural resources also are critical to asset-based development (Krannich and Petrzelka, 2003). Many rural communities continue to draw upon their ethnic and racial heritage and identity to promote tourism or the arts. A couple of examples can illustrate how cultural resources can serve as the springboard for assetbased development. New Glarus, Wisconsin, promotes itself as the “Little Switzerland” of Wisconsin. This community was settled by Swiss immigrants in the late nineteenth century. Thousands of visitors come to this small town to attend festivals, enjoy the Swiss cuisine, and learn about Swiss history and culture. Among the most popular festivals are the Heidi Festival, Volksfest, and Schuetzen Fest.

Pella, Iowa, is another example of a rural community that has drawn on its cultural heritage. The Dutch influence is evidenced in the architecture of most of the buildings downtown, the tulips planted throughout town, and the numerous festivals held to celebrate the community’s cultural heritage.

There are both benefits and costs to this form of asset-based development. It can promote cultural identity and a greater sense of community among residents through its celebrations and festivals. For tourists, it provides a richer understanding of the cultural heritage of residents. One potential problem is that the community may become too dependent on tourism, which may make it more difficult for other economic development strategies. Cultural tourism also has the potential of drowning out diversity in the community.

What’s So Different about Nature and Culture?

Asset-based development emphasizes mapping, controlling and leveraging local resources. It does not suggest that regional economies should become independent of the larger economy. Instead, local resources should be managed to minimize dependencies and to maximize benefits from the sale of goods and services outside the community. There are some important differences in natural and cultural amenities. Once destroyed, natural and cultural resources are very difficult to replace or replenish. Asset-based development encourages residents to think more carefully how economic development is related to local resources.

Most of the discussion has focused on how assets can contribute to economic development. It should be recognized that the direction of the relationship between natural and cultural assets and economic development can vary. On the one hand, preserving or enhancing natural and cultural assets may require a minimal level of economic development. Establishing a natural area for an ecotourism project may demand investment in land as well as infrastructure support. Maintaining a historical downtown area may necessitate public (government) expenditures or incentives.

On the other hand, nature and culture are unique resources that need to be managed carefully in the economic development process. Rapid growth can diminish the current or future amenity value of these assets. Once destroyed, they cannot be easily replaced or reproduced. In areas dependent on tourism, additional traffic, construction and population growth may diminish the use value associated with resources.

Finally, natural and cultural amenities also face the potential of serving primarily the interests of nonlocal consumers. These resources are public goods in many cases, which means that consumers cannot be excluded and it is difficult to compensate communities for the costs of maintaining and preserving these assets. We need equitable policies that do not place the entire financial burden for maintaining these assets on rural communities.

— Gary Paul Green

See also

Community Capitals; Development, Community and Economic; Economic Development; Sustainable Development

References

Chaskin, Robert J., Prudence Brown, Sudhir Venkatesh, and Avis Vidal. Building Community Capacity. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 2001.
Flora, Cornelia Butler, and Jan L. Flora. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change, 3rd Ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2008.
Galston, William A. and Karen J. Baehler. Rural Development in the United States: Connecting Theory, Practice, and Possibilities. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1995.
Green, Gary Paul. “Amenities and Community Economic Development.” Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 31, no. 2 (2001): 61-76.
Green, Gary Paul, Steven C. Deller, and David W. Marcouiller (eds.). Amenities and Rural Development: Theory, Methods, and Public Policy. Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005.
Green, Gary Paul and Anna Haines. Asset Building and Community Development, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.
Krannich, Richard S. and Peggy Petrzelka. “Tourism and Natural Amenity Development: Rural Opportunities?” Pp. 190-199 in Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century edited by David L. Brown and Louis E. Swanson. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003.
Kretzmann, John P. and John L. McKnight. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications, 1993.
Power, Thomas Michael. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies. Washington, DC Island Press, 1996.