Publikacje
Alena Hrabiankova, Sławomir Kalinowski, Aleg Sivagrakau, Oskar Szczygieł
 |
Local Development Strategies Towards Rural Resilience: Integrating Knowledge for Improving Community-Based ApproachesWarszawa 2026, s. 170 Copyright © 2026 by Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw |
This publication was co-funded by the European Union within the EU4BELARUS – Support for Advanced Learning and Training (EU-SALT II) programme under the research project “Local Development Strategies Towards Rural Resilience: Integrating Knowledge for Improving Community-Based Approaches”. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Alena Hrabiankova, Sławomir Kalinowski, Aleg Sivagrakau, Oskar Szczygieł and do not necessarily reflect the vies of the European Union
Contents
Abbreviations 8
Introduction 9
1. Rural resilience and local sustainable development – theoretical foundations 13
The conceptualisations and definitions of rural resilience 13
1.1. The models and paradigms of local sustainable development 19
Five dimensions of local development 23
1.2. Defining the dimensions of local development – social, economic, environmental, institutional, and spatial 23
The authors’ definition of local sustainable development and rural resilience 26
1.3. A portion of practical experience – evaluating local-level sustainable
development strategies 28
The case of the town of Žaludok 29
The case of the Zalessie village 32
The cases of the city of Čavusy (with Čavusy district) and the villages of Orlia, Zdzitava, and Sporava 35
Conclusions 39
2. Research methodology and approaches to evaluating local strategies 42
2.1. A review of approaches and tools for the evaluation of the effectiveness of local sustainable development strategies 42
Self-assessment and participatory frameworks 42
Participatory evaluation approaches 42
Outcome-based assessment methods 43
Indicator-based assessment systems 43
Multi-stakeholder engagement models 44
Developmental and adaptive evaluation 44
Integrated assessment approaches 44
The limitations of the existing evaluation approaches and rationale for the adopted methodology 45
2.2. The principal assumptions behind the research approach 46
Evaluation as accountability versus evaluation as learning 46
The centrality of rural inhabitants 47
The differentiation of evaluative instruments 48
The unit of analysis and the levels of evaluation 48
Operationalising effectiveness in local sustainable development strategies 51
2.3. The mixed-methods research approach 53
The conceptual model of effectiveness evaluation 53
Survey design and objectives 53
3. The evaluation of local sustainable development strategies from a stakeholder viewpoint 56
3.1. Study sample characteristics 56
3.2. The perceived effectiveness of local sustainable development strategies 58
Overall effectiveness perceptions 58
Variation in effectiveness perception by stakeholder group 59
3.3. Quantitative assessment across sustainability dimensions 61
Overall dimension performance 61
Interdimensional correlations 63
Comparative analysis by stakeholder category 65
3.4. Key success factors – examining stakeholder perceptions 67
The quantitative rankings of success criteria 67
Qualitative findings from open-ended responses 69
3.5. The synthesis of key insights and its quantitative analysis 71
The synthesis of key findings 71
The quantitative ratings analysis of key findings 76
4. Different views on the effectiveness of local strategies, success factors, and territorial focus 79
4.1. Noticeable discrepancies in the assessments of strategy elements across
different groups of respondents 79
Quantitative ratings analysis 79
Open-ended analysis (34) – a categorisation of challenges and improvements 81
A deep analysis of open-ended responses 89
4.2. What matters most for success: community trust or cooperation with authorities? 103
4.3. Territorial scale matters – divergent assessments and strategic priorities 108
Overall effectiveness performance across territorial levels 109
A comparative analysis of mid-level governance – voivodeships and districts 111
Municipality challenges – administrative proximity without corresponding efficiency or higher expectations? 114
Sector specialisation across governance levels 116
The differentiation of success factors across governance levels 117
Implementation time horizons as scale differentiation 118
The universality of the spatial dimension 120
A comparative analysis of strategic priorities and reform orientations 121
5. Local v. all? Several surprises from the study 125
5.1. Attention to diversity and social capital 125
5.2. The participation paradox and other findings challenging conventional knowledge 130
The participation paradox 130
Critical engagement negativity 132
Role-based perception patterns 134
5.3. Clear concern and interest in improving rural development 136
Reasoning the discrepancies in the respondents’ perceptions 136
What the findings reveal about resident-centred assessment methodology 138
Conclusion 139
From the governance scale paradox to integrated multi-level systems 139
A synthesis of key findings – the multidimensional reality of rural development effectiveness 140
The participation paradox and community engagement reality 140
Stakeholder divergence and the institutional-resident perspective gap 142
The five dimensions in practice – integration and interaction patterns 142
Context-specific findings – a comparison between Poland and Belarus 143
Theoretical implications – towards systemic approaches to rural resilience 143
The evidence base for recommendations – leveraging five-dimensional assessment 144
Research limitations and directions for future inquiry 145
A forward-looking vision – institutionalising resident-centred, multidimensional rural development assessment 146
A final reflection – rural resilience as ongoing democratic engagement 146
References 149
Appendices 159
Appendix A. A glossary of sustainable development terms 159
Appendix B. The role and risks of state-sponsored NGOs in local development 162
Appendix C. A challenge sentiment analysis 163
List of Figures and Tables 167
