=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2761/HAICTA_2020_paper29
|storemode=property
|title=Catching the Digital Train? The Impact of Digital Technologies on Rural Communities' Capitals. The Case of Southern Manitoba, Canada
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2761/HAICTA_2020_paper29.pdf
|volume=Vol-2761
|authors=Sherine Salmon,Mikaël Akimowicz
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/SalmonA20
}}
==Catching the Digital Train? The Impact of Digital Technologies on Rural Communities' Capitals. The Case of Southern Manitoba, Canada==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2761/HAICTA_2020_paper29.pdf
Catching the Digital Train? The Impact of Digital
Technologies on Rural Communities’ Capitals. The Case
of Southern Manitoba, Canada
Sherine Salmon1, Mikaël Akimowicz2
1
Rural Development Institute, Brandon University, Canada; e-mail:
sherine.salmon@gmail.com
2
LEREPS, Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier, France; e-mail: mikael.akimowicz@iut-
tlse3.fr
Abstract. Uneven access to broadband has deepened a divide, which sees rural
residents struggling with digital technologies (DTs). This situation has resulted
in the emergence of creative attitudes to take advantage of the potential of DTs
even though full potentiality cannot be accomplished. In this paper, the impact
of the utilization of DTs is analyzed through the lens of the community capitals
framework. Focus groups and interviews were carried out with youth (out-
migration), seniors (ageing), and businesses (survival) in three communities of
southern Manitoba, Canada. Building on an emerging concern, two
complementary focus groups were conducted with emergency services
personnel and residents who experienced emergencies. The results show that the
interactions that exist between the resources of rural communities are being re-
shaped by the progressive adoption and utilization of DTs. Three conditions for
rural communities to take full advantage of digital opportunities are highlighted:
reliable access, cheap access, and digital skills.
Keywords: Digital technologies; Rural broadband; Community capitals;
Canada.
1 Introduction
Many perceive Digital Technologies (DTs) as instrumental to remedy extra costs
induced by the rural constraints of low densities and long distances to metropolitan
areas (Warren, 2007; Kilpeläinen and Seppänen, 2014; Salemink et al., 2017), which
stem in a rural urban divide. In this context, the role of DTs appears to be double-edged
and results in two discourses. A positive one depicts rural areas as alive, while a
negative one portrays rural areas as dying (Lundgren and Johansson, 2017). In
summary, DTs might be, under certain conditions, which we attempt to highlight in
this study, a transformative tool for rural development.
188
In Canada, pressure for better services is strong (Auditor General of Canada, 2018).
In 2016, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission recognized
affordable broadband access as a need and right of today’s world. In 2018, the
broadband standard included speeds of 50 Mbps download/10 Mbps upload for fixed
broadband services, unlimited data option for fixed broadband services, and the latest
mobile wireless technology available not only to all homes and businesses, but also
along major Canadian roads.
In this paper, we investigate the impacts of DTs on rural community capitals to
highlight whether DTs boost or hinder their potential and discuss whether rural
communities have achieved meaningful digital outcomes. We mobilize the
Community Capitals Framework (CCF) to highlight the impact of the adoption and
utilization of DTs on the stocks and flows of the diverse resources available at the
community level in a community-based approach. We conducted phone interviews
with businesses and focus groups with residents in three francophone communities of
southern Manitoba. Results show unlocking the potential of DTs requires quality
services, affordable access and digital literacy in order to boost the limited
entrepreneurial initiatives relying on DTs. In the following literature review, we
highlight the community capitals framework. We then describe the method and data
used for this analysis. We finally present the results and discuss them.
2 Literature Review
The multidimensionality and complexity of community capitals open the door for
varied dynamics of community development (Pigg et al., 2013). The CCF hypothesizes
that communities invest in their own resources to produce new ones (Flora and Flora,
2004). It is a flexible tool that allows interfacing at the community level with all its
resources and has the mechanistic ability to chart capitals’ progress. Table 1
characterizes the distinct features of each capital.
Table 1. Community capitals’ characteristics.
Capital Definition
Built Infrastructure or the planned construction in a community.
Cultural Shared worldviews framing decisions.
Financial Resources available for investment in capacity building.
Human The skills and abilities of healthy individuals in the community.
Natural Environmental resources and geographical features.
Political Influence a group may have on the allocation of resources.
Close connections that build trust and norms along with loose ones that
Social
diversify sources of information.
The CCF aids in visioning in a systemic approach the potentials that a community
possesses (Gutierrez-Montes et al., 2009). It presumes that strategies can be employed
to improve community capacity and economic development, even with drastic declines
in population and income per capita (Emery and Flora, 2006; Fey et al., 2006). Since
189
the utilization of DTs impacts several aspects of rural life, the CCF is relevant for
investigating the impact of DTs in rural communities. We also build on Jacobs’ (2011)
description of rural communities to include inflows and outflows of resources while
DTs can also contribute to fostering capitals interactions (Figure 1).
Capital Inflows
(e.g., Investment)
Community Capitals
Natural Built Social Cultural Political Human Financial
Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital
Capital dynamics stemming from the utilization of DTs
Flow of capitals
Capital Outflows
Interaction between capitals
(e.g., Welfare)
Fig. 1. A framework for analyzing the re-configuration of the community capitals
3 Method and Data
We used a combination of phone interviews and focus groups to tackle three major
issues faced by Canadian rural communities: the outmigration of youth, the increasing
share of seniors, and the survival of businesses. In addition, we also integrated the
emerging theme of safety issues.
We selected three rural communities of southern Manitoba (Figure 2), a polarized
Canadian Province where 61% of the population lived in Winnipeg metropolitan area
in 2016. The selection was based on complementary characteristics (population,
metropolitan influence, community area, and distance to Winnipeg), which make their
comparison relevant.
190
Fig. 2. Shows the location of the three communities in southern Manitoba, Canada.
Phone interviews with 28 business representatives (B) were structured around the
types of DTs used by employees, employees’ digital skills, the benefits and drawbacks
of using DTs, as well as the presence of businesses on social media and the internet.
Each interview lasted on average half an hour. Businesses were purposely selected to
reflect a wide range of activities ranging from banking to camping sites.
One focus group with youth and another one with seniors were organized in each
community. They focused on DTs utilization, access to devices, learning processes,
and safety issues. Youth and seniors volunteered in response to calls shared by
community leaders. A total of 16 youth (YFG), aged 16 to 25 years old, and a total of
20 seniors (SFG), over 65 years old, participated. In La Broquerie, focus groups with
emergency services personnel (ESFG) and residents who had experienced emergencies
(RFG) were conducted to tackle the emerging theme of safety issues.
In both cases, audio records were transcribed and coded using NVIVO.
4 Results
4.1 Built Capital: The Foundational Role of Digital Infrastructure
Built capital was participants’ primary concern. Youth, seniors and business
representatives across the three rural communities consistently acknowledged a lack
of infrastructure supporting the utilization of DTs. Participants felt limited in their
capacity to capitalize on digital products. The inconsistency of service placed a burden
191
on residents for daily actions. Dead zones forced most participants to plan their
location for efficiency and safety; knowing points of connectivity was a challenge.
Seniors were particularly concerned about their ability to call for help. Emergency
services personnel stressed the difficulty to provide effective responses due to both the
inability to communicate with each other and for victims to reach them.
4.2 Financial Capital: The Opportunity Cost of Staying Connected
Business representatives were particularly enthusiastic about DTs, which can
potentially lower their operating costs by saving time in communications and money
in paperless systems. A few senior and youth participants heralded the entrepreneurial
opportunities unlocked by DTs as they have developed presence on digital
marketplaces. Participants also commonly emphasized the benefits of on-line shopping
to access a wider product selection and having items shipped to close delivery points.
Businesses, seniors, and youth alike opted for a technology or a service that aligned
with their budgets. The range of affordability was wide, with participants transitioning
to smart houses to those that remained on frugal phone plans. Emergency services
personnel affirmed their inability to afford investing in satellite phones to eliminate
reliance on broadband. The cost of services, compared to urban areas, was a grievance.
4.3 Human Capital: Maintaining Capacities
Because seniors perceived that increased development of DTs could help them at
home, they were hopeful of a time when DTs would eliminate the option of
transitioning to care homes. Participants of the three communities also expressed the
advantage that DTs provide in the acquisition of knowledge. For instance, youth that
could not attend institutions, because of distance and affordability, took advantage of
digital distance-learning opportunities. Although both youth and seniors enjoyed the
digital learning opportunities, they still appreciated human contacts.
Learning approaches diverged significantly. Although both seniors and youth
showed capacities to learn about DTs, they seemed to learn at different paces, using
different methods. Whereas seniors tended to learn under the guidance of somebody
that they considered an expert, youth tended to learn more individually through trial
and error.
4.4 Social Capital: Coming Together through Social Connectivity
In the three communities, DTs tended to contribute to the development of social
capital through both the maintenance and the creation of relationships. For instance,
participants noted that DTs had assisted them in remaining in contact with family and
friends. Both youth and senior participants explained that shared digital challenges
provided a feeling of camaraderie and support. For youth, DTs provided greater access
192
and comfort for communication with teachers, parents, and seniors. In this regard, DTs
empowered youth by enabling them to share their input for local decision-making.
Distant communication enabled youth to break the ice with intimidating seniors; the
digital interface creates a non-threatening interaction. On the other hand, seniors
learned to appreciate and involve youth, because they began to understand that youth
had resourceful solutions and represented the future of the community.
4.5 Cultural Capital: Informing New Norms
Testimonies commonly aligned on the fact that DTs contribute to reshaping norms.
Both seniors and youth developed their own intra-generational culture, and both were
critical of the other group’s usage of DTS. Their testimonies highlighted a contention
between enjoying the benefits of DTs and mitigating drawbacks.
Participating youth relied extensively on social media, which were perceived as
delivering current view of fads, shaping careers, romantic relationships, and
personalities. The departure from how older generations forged lifelong relationships
also showed how DTs could trump traditional manners through the exposure to new
cultural standards. The youth were aware of how to maintain safety with online friends.
Some of these rules included: never meet someone alone (especially at night), always
have an image of the person you are meeting, always call the person before meeting
and know their voice.
5 Discussion
Results highlighted three conditions for a meaningful utilization of DTs: investing
in infrastructure, maintaining affordable access, and building digital literacy. Low
levels of built capital limit the utilization of DTs. Inflows of built capital require
investment (e.g., towers, fiber) while rapid technological turnover results in an outflow
of digital infrastructure as it outdates. While DTs can promote entrepreneurial
activities, DTs can also enable access to marketplaces outside the communities,
creating an outflow of financial resources, thereby limiting the accumulation process
underlying economic growth. The learning curve for using DTs, and acquiring relevant
digital skills, is another barrier that seems to slow down the meaningful utilization of
DTs for entrepreneurial pursuits. Interestingly, the learning process can add leadership,
which is particularly true for youth who can use their digital skills to lead their
community into new pathways.
6 Conclusion
While rural actors clearly perceive the benefits of DTs, be they financial (e.g.,
expand market, save resources), socio-cultural (e.g., maintain social connections,
define new norms), and human (e.g., access resources to develop capacities, improve
193
health), they also perceive the existence of risks, be they financial (e.g., outflow of
financial resources resulting from on-line shopping), socio-cultural (e.g., introduction
of new behaviors and norms), and human (e.g., more difficult access to resources
fostering knowledge creation). This contention between benefits and risks appears to
be associated with the lag characterizing digital infrastructure available in rural
communities. It appears crucial for rural communities to engage with DTs despite a
lag in infrastructure that hinders the impact of digital utilization.
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to warmly thank the participants for their
contribution, as well as MITACS, which funded the Manitoba Rural Broadband
project.
References
1. Warren, M. (2007) The digital vicious cycle: Links between social disadvantage
and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecommunications Policy, 31(6-7), p.374-
88.
2. Kilpeläinen, A. and Seppänen, M. (2014) Information technology and everyday life
in ageing rural villages. Journal of Rural studies, 33, p.1-8.
3. Salemink, K. Strijker, D. and Bosworth, G. (2017) Rural development in the digital
age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use
in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, p.360-71.
4. Lundgren, A. S. and Johansson, A. (2017) Digital rurality: Producing the
countryside in online struggles for rural survival. Journal of Rural Studies, 51, p.73-
82.
5. Auditor General of Canada (2018). Connectivity in rural and remote areas. Office
of the Auditor General of Canada. Report 1.http://www.oag-
bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201811_01_e_43199.html
6. Pigg, K. Gasteyer, S. P. Martin, K. E. Keating, K. and Apaliyah, G. P. (2013) The
community capitals framework: An empirical examination of internal
relationships. Community Development, 44(4), p.492-502.
7. Flora, C. B. and Flora, J. L. (2004) Rural communities: Legacy and change.
Westview Press: Boulder, CL.
8. Gutierrez-Montes, I. Siles, J. Bartol, P. and Imbach, A. C. (2009) Merging a
landscape management planning approach with the community capitals
framework: Empowering local groups in land management processes in Bocas del
Toro, Panamá. Community Development, 40(2), p.220-30.
9. Emery, M. and Flora, C. (2006) Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation
with community capitals framework. Community Development, 37(1), p.19-35.
10. Fey, S. Bregendahl, C. and Flora, C. (2006) The measurement of community
capitals through research. Online Journal of Rural Research & Policy, 1(1), 1.
194
11. Jacobs, C. (2011) Measuring success in communities: The community capitals
framework. Extension Extra. Paper 517.
http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/extension_extra/517.
195