Rural Revitalization and Local Placemaking Require Deeper and Broader Social Mobilization on a Larger Scale of Community Building

Text / Tzeng Hsu-cheng (Professor, Graduate Institute of Architecture, National Tainan University of the Arts)

Local revitalization policies are unfolding in full swing. Faced with this wave, many people's first question is: "What is the difference between local revitalization and community building? Since there is still a community building policy, why do we also need a local revitalization policy?"

To answer this question, I always say that if your heart is broad and strong enough to expand the scope of community, then local revitalization and community building are actually the same in meaning. Both emphasize the local, spontaneity, and action; the only differences lie in the awareness of the problem and the scope of action. The primary problem local revitalization must address is the imminent aging population and population decline; the geographic scope of concern is also larger than that of community building, and the approaches are more cross-disciplinary, so that outmigration can be effectively reduced and young people can be called back to their hometowns or to relocate there.

(4) Community building methods and topics of concern have repeatedly innovated:

Over the past decade, many communities have begun to welcome artists and social enterprises, investing in the renovation of old houses and neighborhood regeneration, and promoting the welfare needs of the elderly. In industry, more and more communities are also running homestays, ecotourism, souvenir development, and dining improvements. However, whether these developments can increase employment, retain talent, or attract talent back to their hometowns is the key focus that community builders should zero in on in order to respond to the challenges of local revitalization.

(5) Community building leans toward the first and third sectors, neglecting the power of enterprises:

The community building policy was initially proposed by the central government and responded to by civil society groups. Unfortunately, a mechanism for enterprises to invest in community building has never been established, thus reducing vibrant private resources. In addition, among the three levels of government, there has always been a bias toward county and city governments, with less capacity-building for township and district offices, so that the autonomous bodies closest to the local level are instead the most alienated, which is a great pity. In the future, local enterprises should be invited more often to join in, and grassroots offices should be encouraged to achieve the goal of "administrative community building."

(6) Young new forces entering community building have indeed brought a different atmosphere:

In recent years, young farmers returning home, youth startup teams settling in small towns, and second-generation newcomers taking over old shops have indeed shown an increasing trend. They generally possess new knowledge and new skills, and with the convenience of internet connections, cross-professional collaboration has become routine. Observing this new generation engaged in community building, their mindset is relatively relaxed and their methods are relatively at ease, and they are worthy of support and encouragement. Their experience is an important reference for promoting local revitalization, and they themselves will also be an important force for local revitalization.

Local revitalization is community building on a larger scale, requiring deeper and broader social mobilization

Based on the above observations and analysis, in terms of the development trajectory of community building itself, there are several major challenges at the current stage awaiting breakthroughs, including that the scope of concern of community building actors should be expanded, enterprise forces should be actively introduced, and public offices should be incentivized and empowered, and so on. At the same time, these are also the prerequisites for local revitalization. We can say that local revitalization is community building on a larger scale, and in the past community building lacked attention to the issue of population decline. Now is the critical moment to face this problem together, requiring deep and broad mobilization of all levels of society to move together.

Referring to the development experience of community building policy, social mobilization must begin with discussion. Only after issues are spread, public opinion is stirred, and actions are explored will the problems and concepts take deep root in people's hearts, thereby supporting broader action. I look forward to local revitalization becoming a social movement, setting off a trend in which people value the development of their hometowns and work together to stimulate local vitality! Local revitalization should be a policy based on social mobilization; if society is not fully mobilized, the policy cannot succeed.

(In order to deeply grasp rural development and local revitalization within the real context of Taiwan, China, "Upstream and Downstream" has cooperated with the "Rural Development Foundation" on a "Rural Development Special Topic," using a series of articles to explore Taiwan's current situation and Japan's policy trends. To read the full series of articles, please click here.)