Long-term effectiveness of sowing high and low diversity seed mixtures to enhance plant community development on ex-arable fields

Questions: How is succession on ex-arable land affected by sowing high and low diversity mixtures of grassland species as compared to natural succession? How long do effects persist? Location: Experimental plots installed in the Czech Republic, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Methods: The experiment was established on ex-arable land, with five blocks, each containing three 10 m x 10 m experiment tal plots: natural colonization, a low- (four species) and high-diversity (15 species) seed mixture. Species composition and biomass was followed for eight years. Results: The sown plants considerably affected the whole successional pathway and the effects persisted during the whole eight year period. Whilst the proportion of sown species (characterized by their cover) increased during the study period, the number of sown species started to decrease from the third season onwards. Sowing caused suppression of natural colonizing species, and the sown plots had more biomass. These effects were on average larger in the high diversity mixtures. However, the low diversity replicate sown with the mixture that produced the largest biomass or largest suppression of natural colonizers fell within the range recorded at the five replicates of the high diversity plots. The natural colonization plots usually had the highest total species richness and lowest productivity at the end of the observation period. Conclusions: The effect of sowing demonstrated dispersal limitation as a factor controlling the rate of early secondary succession. Diversity was important primarily for its 'insurance effect': the high diversity mixtures were always able to compensate for the failure of some species.

Community development in sustainable livelihoods approaches: an introduction

This article introduces sustainable livelihoods approaches, explaining what they are and how they have emerged. It examines how different organizations have taken up a sustainable livelihoods approach, and considers whether in so doing they have drawn on community development thinking and practice. It is found that community development is largely absent from sustainable livelihoods thinking and contended that part of the reason lies with the locally situated character of community development practice, which makes it difficult for externally driven sustainable livelihoods interventions to systematically incorporate community-level methods and practices. More fundamentally, sustainable livelihoods approaches embody a technocratic development drive, which is at odds with the principles, ethos and values that underpin much development work.

Tensions and dilemmas in community development: new discourses, new Trojans?

This paper begins by noting the range of contradictions and dilemmas facing those involved in community development today. It then draws on research into the operating frameworks that set the stage for much current community development activity. It discusses four key operating frameworks and how each framework can affect community development practice. The final section deals with the ways in which the frameworks, and the discourses associated with them, come together.

Community development orthodoxies

Drawing on recent research and reflections upon the role of community development in the twenty-first century, and discussion that have taken place in this Conference, this paper will examine constructions of community development and consider some of its key orthodoxies. Central to ideas of orthodoxy in community development is a conception of 'pure' community development. However, does the notion of 'pure' community development have practical and political value? If so, where are the boundaries? In answering these questions, this paper will explore elements of contemporary wisdom in community development, such as commitment to social change, participation, empowerment, capacity building, localism and the moral superiority of the oppressed.

Measuring wellness through interdisciplinary community development: linking the physical, economic and social environment

The aim of this study is to answer the question: Is there evidence that the quality of life of residents in a community that has had community development intervention is different as compared to the quality of life of residents in a nearby community that did not have community development initiatives? This was done by administering community development initiatives in a local area and comparing it to a similar community that did not receive this intervention. The residents of these communities rated the quality of their lives and communities in two purposively selected suburbs in Perth, Western Australia using the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index to measure individual and neighbourhood well-being. The quality of life of residents in both communities is then compared to national averages for quality of life or well-being. Answering this question provides empirical evidence of variation between ratings of quality of life of residents in different communities and highlights the utility of the Wellbeing Index for the evaluation of interdisciplinary community development

Community development today : taking stock

This paper examines some of the practices and assessments of community development today. It begins with two tales, one recounting the apparent unfulfilled policy promises for community development, the other recounting a situation where there is no community development policy agenda and no community development rhetoric, but where real grass roots community development is apparent. These two tales lead us to consideration of the nature of community development and the issue regarding the match between the discourses of community development with the practices. The paper moves to a discussion of reasons to celebrate community development in 2005. This discussion is followed by consideration of current contextual factors constraining the practices of community development. In the context of the arguments for optimism it is also important to recognise and reflect on the orthodoxies of community development. Six orthodoxies are discussed. The paper concludes with three practical suggestions for community development activities that could begin immediately.

Community development

This book introduces the key contemporary issues in the theory, practice and study of development, from economic growth, good governance and globalization to gender, security and the environment. It builds on the authors' extensive practical experience to offer a systematic assessment of the field and identify characteristics of successful development. Arguing that there can be no development without poverty reduction and the involvement of all key stakeholders, the authors show why it is important not only that the policies are right but that the right people are involved. Failure to do so leads on the one hand to aid fatigue, and on the other to distorted development, no development at all, or even negative development.

Community development and environmentalism : the dilemmas of being a good ecological citizen

This paper explores some of the dilemmas in operating as both a good community development practitioner and a good ecological citizen. It begins with a brief casestudy of an experience of community development engagement with nongovernment organisations (NGOs) concerned about illegal logging in a South East Asian country. This is followed by a discussion of the different ways of understanding and evaluating the threats to the natural environment today and the various strategies that might be invoked. The paper then considers why operating as a 'good ecological citizen' can be a challenging task for community development practitioners and it discusses some ways forward.

Community development and ecology : exploring the links

This paper will explore connections between the concepts of community development and ecology. Initially the tendency was to think there should be a total melding of the principles and practices of community development with those of an ecological understanding but on reflection this has not and indeed is not necessarily the case. The relative epistemological positioning of two different groups, one strongly associating with social justice and the need for people to be at the centre of our economic, environmental and social understanding; and the other clearly seeing the plant and ecology/environment being paramount. While there are a myriad of connections the focus of much community development has been around human welfare based on principles of social, political and economic justice. This has at times been to the detriment of ecological sustainability. Conversely ecology and particularly aspects of deep ecology have focussed on the 'other than human' aspects of the planet and at times seemed almost 'anti 'human and overlooking the need to work with the social almost entirely. This paper briefly outlines the historical separation of the social from the ecological then goes on to explore alternative understandings that bring together principles of community development and ecology. Three examples are used to highlight the principles and practices that are being used across diverse contexts but all informed by common norms and values that are consistent with both community development and ecology. Concepts such as subsidiarity, participation and empowerment that form the basis of community development praxis are critical to the development of local sustainability. The combination of these aspects is evidenced in the three examples. Each is very clearly located in the local context and is built on sound ecological and community development understandings but each is also well aware that the need for a broader perspective is imperative to achieving global goals.

Community development and ecology : engaging ecological sustainability through community development : selected papers from a conference held in Melbourne, 26-28 March 2008

The papers consider such questions as how to build community resilience in the context of profound environmental threat, how to ensure sustainability through community processes and how to assess community progress in responding to threats to the ecosystem.