210
government tax revenue for more local spending. However, interviewees strongly
lamented the mining industry-centred nature of this development approach and how
benefits are offset by costs to other aspects of wellbeing. This approach stays away
from the responsible production practices associated with SDG 12. The wider business development of the region can be neglected, long-term prosperity made vulnerable to the fortunes of mining, lack of local leadership and empowerment to be in
control of their destiny and too much top-down imposition. There is also a rivet
effect (Martin and Sunley 2015) as any adversity experienced by the mining sector
can have knock-on adverse consequences for other dependent sectors such as retail.
Figure 13.2 then displays the key features, benefits and limitations of the entrepreneurship for community wellbeing approach. Based on the case data, three key
features of this approach are salient: (1) multidimensional wellbeing as the overarching framework for sustainable community development, (2) entrepreneurship
based on wellbeing deficiencies and (3) community-level governance of wellbeing
strategy. The Risaralda case illustrates the greater community support for this
approach and benefits in terms of resilience, community empowerment and control
and development for community wellbeing rather than just mining. From a resilience perspective (Martin and Sunley 2015), an industry-based approach reduces
modularity by building tight coupling of parts of a community to a mining core.
In contrast, a wellbeing approach increases modularity by increasing the diversification of business creation, thus not locking the community’s eggs into one basket.
Davies and Tonts (2010) argue that the more diverse a region’s economy, the more
socio-economically resilient it will be (also Gray et al. 2014). Importantly also, a
wellbeing approach builds emotional resilience by not centring the community’s
psyche on economic factors alone as constituting its quality of life. This approach
leads to better outcomes for community members from a perspective which recognises that wellbeing is about having, doing and being across multiple components
including economic, social, cultural, environmental, psychological, spiritual, material and physical. Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing though requires high
levels of community engagement to make it work. This assumes a willingness and
energy in the community to implement a wellbeing development agenda in connection with the SDG 12.
13.5 Impact Sustainability: Final Remarks
Our study set about to explore how wellbeing may be used to guide sustainable
development in small towns/communities. Our comparative case study showed that
when communities have an overarching multidimensional vision for community
wellbeing, they fare better in the longer term than those who are less mindful of the
full range of components which constitute human wellbeing. Setting this overarching vision provides the framework for guiding entrepreneurship initiatives by helping to identify wellbeing priorities in the community and where entrepreneurial
goods and services for wellbeing are most needed. In this way, communities develop
I. B. Franco and L. Newey
government tax revenue for more local spending. However, interviewees strongly
lamented the mining industry-centred nature of this development approach and how
benefits are offset by costs to other aspects of wellbeing. This approach stays away
from the responsible production practices associated with SDG 12. The wider business development of the region can be neglected, long-term prosperity made vulnerable to the fortunes of mining, lack of local leadership and empowerment to be in
control of their destiny and too much top-down imposition. There is also a rivet
effect (Martin and Sunley 2015) as any adversity experienced by the mining sector
can have knock-on adverse consequences for other dependent sectors such as retail.
Figure 13.2 then displays the key features, benefits and limitations of the entrepreneurship for community wellbeing approach. Based on the case data, three key
features of this approach are salient: (1) multidimensional wellbeing as the overarching framework for sustainable community development, (2) entrepreneurship
based on wellbeing deficiencies and (3) community-level governance of wellbeing
strategy. The Risaralda case illustrates the greater community support for this
approach and benefits in terms of resilience, community empowerment and control
and development for community wellbeing rather than just mining. From a resilience perspective (Martin and Sunley 2015), an industry-based approach reduces
modularity by building tight coupling of parts of a community to a mining core.
In contrast, a wellbeing approach increases modularity by increasing the diversification of business creation, thus not locking the community’s eggs into one basket.
Davies and Tonts (2010) argue that the more diverse a region’s economy, the more
socio-economically resilient it will be (also Gray et al. 2014). Importantly also, a
wellbeing approach builds emotional resilience by not centring the community’s
psyche on economic factors alone as constituting its quality of life. This approach
leads to better outcomes for community members from a perspective which recognises that wellbeing is about having, doing and being across multiple components
including economic, social, cultural, environmental, psychological, spiritual, material and physical. Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing though requires high
levels of community engagement to make it work. This assumes a willingness and
energy in the community to implement a wellbeing development agenda in connection with the SDG 12.
13.5 Impact Sustainability: Final Remarks
Our study set about to explore how wellbeing may be used to guide sustainable
development in small towns/communities. Our comparative case study showed that
when communities have an overarching multidimensional vision for community
wellbeing, they fare better in the longer term than those who are less mindful of the
full range of components which constitute human wellbeing. Setting this overarching vision provides the framework for guiding entrepreneurship initiatives by helping to identify wellbeing priorities in the community and where entrepreneurial
goods and services for wellbeing are most needed. In this way, communities develop
I. B. Franco and L. Newey