Bruny Island is distinct from its adjacent mainland as a function of islandness. It has a variety of landscapes within a compact space (Bruny is often described as a microcosm of Tasmania) and has several wildlife viewing locations on land and at sea. The Island has a culture (which is partly based on the shack culture) and way of life distinct from its mainland. These natural and social values, in addition to the common appeal of island places, combine to make Bruny Island attractive to tourists and to new temporary and permanent residents, particularly those seeking a sea change. Some of the challenges involved with living on Bruny Island include earning an income from the narrow economic base; social tensions that come with living in a diverse, small community; and problems of governance - both when the Island had its own local government and currently, under the jurisdiction of a mainland local government body. Considering that Hobart is a small city (population just over 200,000) which is typically characterised as laidback and ‘behind the times’ (in part this perception is based on it being the capital of an island), Bruny Island does not stand in stark contrast to, and is not dominated by, the capital city.
While some environmental impacts from tourism and residential developments are inevitable, there appears to be scope for some more compatible environment- development relationships on Bruny Island. For example, tourism can foster residents’ pride in their island and may lead to better environmental protection. Some new residents are reported as having a strong environmental ethic. However, seasonal and new residents can upset the social dynamics in small communities; but not necessarily for the worse: new residents appear to have rejuvenated the creative side of the community. However, if Bruny Island becomes an exclusive place for the wealthy then the laidback, relaxed character of the Island is likely to change.
Kingborough Council now has an island advisory group but the Council has replaced the
Bruny Island Planning Scheme with the same planning scheme that applies to the mainland. There are clear tensions between islanders’ desire for autonomy and reliance on mainland jurisdictions. Although the amalgamation is described as ‘unnatural’, based
on administrative efficiency (Haward & Zwart, 2000), it does not appear to be economically feasible to provide a local government body for a permanent population of less than 1,000.
A local ‘hideaway’ destination for some decades, Bruny Island is progressively being exposed to tourists, investors and developers from further afield. Having been ‘discovered’ by such groups, Bruny Island is prone to development pressures and subject to the influences of external governments:
[Property magazines have] targeted Bruny Island as the next big place for private investment and development. Federal and State Tourism as well, in their tourism development for Tasmania, have identified the really untapped resource that needs to be marketed. It is going to come under increasing pressure for development, serious pressure. I’d suggest there’s a lot of … offshore owners there now, just waiting to do something (D1).
If policy-makers, planners, developers and investors view offshore islands as untapped tourism destinations, development outcomes are likely to diminish their environmental and social values. While not denying the powers of external influences and the difficulties of integrating internal opinions, Bruny residents have the opportunity to have their say in the future of the Island through the Advisory Group and the review of the planning scheme, before developers pounce and the unique island character changes:
The biggest challenge for the Island is … the people together deciding what sort of place they want Bruny Island to be and then getting involved actively in the management of the Island to ensure that it heads in the direction they want it to go (LG4).Whilesignificant problems of development may not be evident now, things may be very different in the short-term future: It is managing okay but it is on the edge - Bruny could take off tomorrow and who knows what would happen then (SG1). Hence the importance of taking steps now to define an agreed desired future.
Marshall (1999: 111) notes that “while corporate and government planners may encourage the migration of people and dollars to the Island, the history and culture of Grand Manan suggest a level of resistance that may continue to ensure its insularity.” She argues that “insularity for Grand Manan will continue to mean a strong collective identity and community values associated with strength and flexibility, as well as
determination to define their own future” (Marshall, 1999: 111). Hence, local resistance to external forces and processes that could homogenise islands with mainlands may in fact reinforce islandness. If Bruny Islanders are able and willing to define their own future, such local input would present an opportunity for resilience against developments and exogenous changes imposed by mainland governments.
In analysing the key contemporary issues facing Bruny Island and its residents, I have sought to document how islandness interacts with the other key research themes: tourism and residential development, and governance for sustainability. Although Bruny Island has historically been protected from over-development by its geographic islandness (isolation and difficult access), its environmental and social values (also expressions of islandness) are now being recognised by the continental worlds beyond the Island. Such awareness is expressed in the increasing amount of tourism and residential developments; but these developments ultimately impact upon the Island’s environmental and social values. By virtue of its island status, Bruny attracts significant numbers of tourists, and an increasing number of seasonal and permanent residents, locally and globally. In this way, islandness is a positive feature economically, but can contribute to environmental and social vulnerabilities. While gentrification can cause social problems, particularly by displacing lower income residents, it may have environmental benefits, in that some newcomers have a stronger environmental ethic than some of the older, traditional ‘shoot and chop it’ residents. No doubt Bruny Island’s environmental assets and low population density were part of its attraction to newcomers in the first place, and so these residents would not want developments which could jeopardise their newfound lifestyle.
Bruny Island, like many offshore islands that are regarded as appendages to their mainlands, was liable to incorporation by a mainland local government. However, governance challenges were also identified when Bruny Island had its own local council (due to the small population and resulting diseconomies of scale and ‘almost petty corruption’). Hence, like many islands, Bruny Island is to some extent a victim of those economic, social, environmental and political features that characterise sparsely populated, isolated jurisdictions. However, rather than eroding islandness, systems of governance imposed from the mainland may strengthen the island identity of the
community (a social component of islandness) and help them to recognise what is distinct about their island as opposed to the mainland. Whereas governance by the Bruny Island Council appeared to favour certain local interests and thereby divide the internal community, governance from the mainland may result in greater recognition of islanders’ identity as expressed in calls for some form of island voice. However, islandness may be threatened if mainland policies and planning strategies do not recognise the particular problems facing island environments, economies and societies. In terms of tensions between the undesirability of external over-governance and inappropriate development, appropriate local influences are necessary but there is also a need to recognise the Island’s common good values to the wider (including international) community, while respecting local community values.
Islandness can be a source of resilience in terms of shaping identity and sense of place and in fostering social capital. In coping with isolation, islanders are often described as self-sufficient, independent people, and this seems to apply to permanent residents of Bruny, as noted above in the vision survey results, and by a participant: People need to be self-reliant as there is little infrastructure. There is no public transport; a higher cost of living; the long distance to travel for basic commodities (R3). Such independence stands in stark contrast to the demands of some new residents for urban comforts.
There are some opportunities for Bruny Islanders to maintain their islandness in the face of externally-generated changes. The island community has an important role in contributing to local sustainability. For example, it can leverage its social capital and contribute to good governance. Community visioning presents an opportunity for Bruny islanders to articulate the environmental and social values that are important to them. Integration of these visions into local government policies and plans may help to build resilience. Such recognition of environmental and social values does not imply resisting change altogether, but making appropriate decisions in regard to sustainable development. Resilience involves the capacity of humans to anticipate and plan for the future (The Resilience Alliance, 2005). Hence, the importance of both islander visioning and effective planning and management: if Council sets the right direction and locals set the right direction, they can get a good sustainable outcome (D1). Baldacchino (2000: 68) challenges the notion of small islands’ vulnerability and identifies their comparative
advantages - for example, limited exploitable resources can lead to a resourcefulness “which confirms that necessity is the mother of invention”. Well-defined boundaries allow easier monitoring of tourist arrivals and departures and provide research opportunities across a range of disciplines. Compared to its mainland, difficult access to Bruny Island has and can continue to constrain development, since materials need to be ferried across. Defined boundaries also present opportunities for better environmental management, quarantine, and branding of both island produce (as with King Island81, Tasmania) and the Island itself as a unique tourism destination.
Bruny Island has been subject to global trends such as the increasing accessibility of isolated places (which has in part changed perceptions of remoteness), the changing nature of the workforce and the flexibility in work practices that technology affords. As such, it is difficult to imagine a return to the hideaway that Bruny Island once was. With its proximity to a metropolitan centre, island appeal and low population, Bruny Island is on the edge of falling victim to development that destroys local values. However, it is also on the edge of possibility, as an example of a community that can influence change and define its own future (particularly through utilising the advantages that islandness confers) and possibly be a model for local sustainability; yet, to a large extent this now hinges on whether the mainland-based local government recognises the distinct challenges and opportunities that face Bruny Island, and that differentiate the Island from its adjacent mainland.
81
King Islanders have capitalised on economies of place – primarily the Island’s clean green nature - as recognised in their well-known fine food brands.