Tipos de Riesgos

Smart decline is a theory related to the planning of shrinking places. Popper & Popper (2002, p. 23) define it as “ explicitly planning for less- fewer people, fewer buildings, fewer land uses”. Smart decline strategically plans for who and what remains by the reorganisation of provisions to communities and capitalises on existing competitive advantages rather than striving for new growth and attracting more people (Molotoch, 1976; D. Popper & F. Popper, 2002; Sousa & Pinho, 2015). Although Ruapehu District is in decline, this is forecasted to shrink at a slower rate than previously experienced. Despite its years of decline, Ohakune is projected to grow by 1.2% annually (Future Ruapehu: Long Term Plan 2015-2025, 2015). As the district overall is in decline, it is in a position to consider implementing Smart Decline. Data was obtained from participants on the perceptions of the

54

Ohakune community of the smart decline theory. Additionally, data was obtained on the planning for decline currently undertaken by the Ruapehu District Council by analysing the content of Council planning documents. The results indicate that there is the potential for the smart decline approach in the Ruapehu. However, the key informants suggest that resistance is likely from the community.

Secondary Data

There is no secondary data in relation to Smart Decline in the Ruapehu District. However, data on the changes in funding allocations and planning decisions over time could be useful to understand the applicability of Smart Decline in the Ruapehu, and the extent of service provisions in relation to the population over time. This data would reveal the true extent of planning for decline undertaken in the district. This is included as an emerging guideline for local authorities considering planning for decline.

Content Analysis

The results of the content have established that the LTP and EDS both perceive decline as a matter to be reversed. These documents take a traditional, anti-decline approach. Smart Decline is not explicitly referred to in the documents.

The EDS is an implicitly growth promoting and decline rejecting strategy. While the document acknowledges decline, the nature of the document results in no reference to the Smart Decline theory. This is not unexpected due to the innate growth orientation of local authority planning and the perception of negative outcomes of shrinkage by the community (Haase et al., 2014).

Despite not labelled explicitly as ‘planning for decline’, there is some evidence that limited expansion of Council services is part of the long term planning focus of Council. The LTP states that 95% of spending is in asset renewals, rather than expanding the services networks. This could indicate that the Council is in a position to adopt a Smart Decline type planning philosophy. This is also consistent with Hall (2009) and Gonzalez’s (2006) views which promote Smart Decline as the elimination of infrastructure and service expansions which allows focus to improve current built form, and the quality of life and place. This consistency suggests that the Councils desire for appropriate investment, town centre revitalisation and avoiding traditional decline could be addressed with Smart Decline in the Ruapehu District.

The literature also suggested that Smart Decline is not simply spending less. Bourne & Rose (2001) for example suggest that the public realm can benefit from the reduced pressure for growth by local authorities addressing neglected demands such as public infrastructure improvements and renewing spaces to help stimulate private consumption and investment. If Council were to adopt a Smart Decline approach, it is necessary to address the strategic re-allocation of funds rather than reducing spending, maintenance and renewals.

55

The Ruapehu District has the potential to explicitly plan for decline. However, Council is both incorporating measures to plan for decline in the LTP while also implementing the EDS. This suggests that the Council is simultaneously promoting a traditional growth orientated planning approach, but is also planning for a declining reality. This approach appears contradictory. While this is not a formalised ‘planning for decline’ approach, the existing planning provisions suggest that there is evidence towards the district being receptive of Smart Decline principals.

Key Informant Interviews

Upon explanation of Smart Decline each participant felt that while it is a sensible option overall the Ohakune community would be unlikely support the implementation in Ohakune. This potential community response is consistent with the literature. Elzerman & Bontje (2011), identify that people are naturally adverse to a label contrary to growth and that shrinkage is to be avoided and reversed while growth is desired and prioritised despite its many negative outcomes (Elzerman & Bontje, 2011). This expected rejection highlights the importance of public participation in planning for decline as identified in the literature. As smart decline is not always a socially just, democratic and equitable practice Hollander (2007 in Mallach, 2001 p.372) advocates that Smart Decline should be targeted to “‘each locality’s history, political and economic engines and existing power structures”. To achieve this, Smart Decline theory and practice should insist on wide spread consultation and community involvement as to avoid a system that does not reflect the local situation or people, is biased towards physical improvements and is focused on saving of funds in jeopardy of social considerations (Bontje, 2004; Selicato & Rotondo, 2010). This research does not reliably inform the Council of the opinions of the entire Ohakune and Ruapehu community so further research and consultation is recommended.

Discussion

This research explored the degree to which Council is already engaging in planning for decline and the potential acceptance by the Ohakune community to Smart Decline to discover the potential for the implementation of Smart Decline in the town or district.

Analysis of the LTP has revealed that Council is already be undertaking some planning for decline, although not explicitly labelling the planning approach as Smart Decline. The content analysis also revealed an inconsistency in the Councils priorities as the EDS and LTP have conflicting approaches to decline. However, the current approach taken in the LTP suggests that there is already an appetite and acceptance of Council to plan for decline. It can be assumed that there is also community appetite for this approach as the development of the LTP was undertaken with community consultation. The key informant interviews revealed that participants felt the community would not be accepting of Smart Decline. Further research is required into the appropriateness and implications of adopting a Smart Decline approach in the Ruapehu, or specifically in individual towns.

56 Emerging Guidelines for Local Authorities

When planning for decline:

x When planning for Smart Decline, local authorities should investigate the extent and outcomes of implementing Smart Decline on a case-by- case basis by considering the unique context of the region, district and town. This is necessary as each place is unique and Smart Decline needs to be implemented in a manner that reflects the local community, planning cultures and local power structures to be successful.

x If a Local Authority were to adopt a Smart Decline approach to plan for decline, while also planning for town centre revitalisation, it would be necessary to strategically re-allocate funds to town centre revitalisation. Smart Decline commonly includes town centre revitalisation when funds are reallocated to the town centre, not simply a reduction of funding provisions across all local authority provisions.

x Local Authorities need to be aware that Smart Decline may result in polarising views in communities, and so comprehensive community consultation is required when considering implementing Smart Decline. This will ensure that the needs and desires of the community are provided for as part of the implementation in order to provide for who and what remains. See further guidelines in section 5.8 relating to this.