People, Places and Landscapes
Landscape Series Volume 14
Series Editors: Henri Décamps Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Toulouse, France Bärbel Tress TRESS & TRESS GbR Munich, Germany Gunther Tress TRESS & TRESS GbR Munich, Germany Aims and Scope Springer’s innovative Landscape Series is committed to publishing high-quality manuscripts that approach the concept of landscape from a broad range of perspectives. Encouraging contributions on theory development, as well as more applied studies, the series attracts outstanding research from the natural and social sciences, and from the humanities and the arts. It also provides a leading forum for publications from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams. Drawing on, and synthesising, this integrative approach the Springer Landscape Series aims to add new and innovative insights into the multidimensional nature of landscapes. Landscapes provide homes and livelihoods to diverse peoples; they house historic – and prehistoric – artefacts; and they comprise complex physical, chemical and biological systems. They are also shaped and governed by human societies who base their existence on the use of the natural resources; people enjoy the aesthetic qualities and recreational facilities of landscapes, and people design new landscapes. As interested in identifying best practice as it is in progressing landscape theory, the Landscape Series particularly welcomes problem-solving approaches and contributions to landscape management and planning. The ultimate goal is to facilitate both the application of landscape research to practice, and the feedback from practice into research.
For other titles published in this series, go to www.springer.com/series/6211
Richard S. Krannich • A.E. Luloff Donald R. Field
People, Places and Landscapes Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas
Richard S. Krannich Department of Sociology, Social Work & Anthropology Utah State University Old Main Hill 0730 Logan, UT 84322-0730 USA
[email protected]
A.E. Luloff Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology Pennsylvania State University Armsby Building 114 University Park, Pennsylvania USA
[email protected]
Donald R. Field Department of Forest & Wildlife Ecology University of Wisconsin Russell Labs. Linden Drive 1630 Madison, WI 53706 USA
[email protected]
ISSN 1572-7742 e-ISSN 1875-1210 ISBN 978-94-007-1262-1 e-ISBN 978-94-007-1263-8 DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2011929882 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Acknowledgements
This book is in one sense the culmination of collaborations involving the three primary authors that have, at this point, extended over a period of many years and much of our respective careers. The opportunity to work closely with one another on this and several other projects, and the evolution of those professional collaborations into deep and lasting friendships, has been an incredibly positive experience for each of us. This study has benefitted greatly from input and assistance provided by several others who worked with us and contributed in key ways to the research effort. Dr. Richelle Winkler, who initially became involved in the project while pursuing graduate studies at the University of Wisconsin and continued to work with us in her current appointment with their Applied Population Laboratory, assumed a lead role in developing Chap. 4. Rebecca Schewe, currently a Visiting Research Associate at Michigan State University, played a central role in the preparation of Chaps. 3 and 5. Dr. Brian Jennings, who worked with us while completing doctoral studies at Utah State University and subsequently as a faculty member at Albright College, contributed to the development of Chaps. 6 and 7. Dr. David Mattarita-Cascante, previously a doctoral student at The Pennsylvania State University and now a faculty member at Texas A&M University, led the preparation of Chap. 7. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to each of these highly capable young colleagues. Several other former students also provided key research support during earlier periods of the study. Dr. Greg Clendenning, previously a doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin, contributed to design of the survey questionnaire adminis tered to residents of southwest Utah. During the course their doctoral studies at Utah State University, both Dr. Tracy Williams and Dr. Joan Brehm conducted a number of key informant interviews in the first year of the study effort. In addition, Dr. Williams assisted with questionnaire development and assumed major responsi bility for coordinating a large and highly complex survey research effort. We also want to thank Linda Keith, whose professional editing skills helped us bring individual pieces of the book together into a far more coherent final package than we could possibly have accomplished by ourselves. And, we extend a sincere “thank you” to Catherine Cotton, Senior Publishing Editor at Springer, for her patience and support as we struggled to meet, and on more
v
vi
Acknowledgements
than one occasion bypassed, target dates for completion of this effort. We hope the end product meets with her approval, and justifies her willingness to grant the extensions we requested! This project was conducted with major funding support from the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative Research Service, Grant #USDA CSREES 2003-35401-12889. Significant additional funding was provided by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Project #UAES 00839. Finally, we extend our deepest appreciation to people living in southwest Utah and elsewhere throughout the Intermountain West who in multiple of ways contributed to our understanding of change processes they and others living in the region’s rural communities experience on a daily basis. As social scientists who regularly ask residents of our study areas to allocate time and attention in response to interviews, surveys, and myriad other data requests, we fully realize our ability to pursue these kinds of studies depends entirely on their help and cooperation. We hope the results of our work will, in some ways, contribute to improved efforts to enhance the quality of life experienced by people living throughout the region.
Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................ Rationale for and Significance of the Study................................................ Organization of the Volume.........................................................................
1 3 6
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective.................................. Introduction.................................................................................................. The Growing Importance of Natural Resource Amenity Conditions..................................................................................... Toward an Integrated Theoretical Perspective............................................. Socially Constructed Landscapes............................................................ Structural Effects..................................................................................... Interactional Effects................................................................................ Applying Our Conceptual Framework.........................................................
9 9 16 18 21 22 23 24
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West..................... Introduction.................................................................................................. The Intermountain West............................................................................... Methods........................................................................................................ Patterns of Change at the Regional Level.................................................... Physiographic Provinces of the Intermountain West................................... Patterns of Change Across the Physiographic Provinces............................. Conclusions..................................................................................................
27 27 28 29 30 32 35 41
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective.......................... Introduction: A Transforming Rural Imagery.............................................. Exemplary Communities............................................................................. Old West and New West.............................................................................. Data and Analysis........................................................................................ New West and Old West in Southwest Utah................................................ Conclusions..................................................................................................
45 45 46 47 50 59 61
vii
viii
Contents
5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah...................................................................... Introduction.................................................................................................. Study Area................................................................................................... The Ecological Setting............................................................................ Social Setting.......................................................................................... Data and Analytic Approach........................................................................ Analysis Results........................................................................................... The Five-County Sociodemographic Landscape.................................... New Migrants and Longer-Term Residents............................................ Conclusions..................................................................................................
63 63 65 65 67 70 71 71 76 78
6 New West and Old West: Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Natural Resource Uses and Management............................. 81 Introduction.................................................................................................. 81 Natural Resource Uses and Behaviors......................................................... 84 Outdoor Recreation Activities................................................................. 84 Agency Contacts Regarding Environmental/ Natural Resource Issues..................................................................... 91 Values Regarding Natural Resources........................................................... 92 Attitudes Regarding Public Lands Resource Management Policies............ 95 Minerals Extraction................................................................................. 95 Timber Harvest........................................................................................ 96 Wilderness Designation........................................................................... 97 Endangered Species Protection............................................................... 98 Livestock Grazing................................................................................... 99 Taking Compositional Factors into Account............................................... 101 Summary and Implications.......................................................................... 106 7 Population Change and Contrasting Integration, Attachment, and Participation in the New West-Old West.................... Introduction.................................................................................................. Localities vs. Communities: The Relevance of Social Interaction.............. Sociodemographics, Participation, Integration, and Attachment................. Sociodemographic Characteristics.......................................................... Community Participation........................................................................ Community Integration........................................................................... Community Attachment.......................................................................... Implications..................................................................................................
109 109 111 113 113 114 117 118 120
Contents
8 Rural People, Places and Landscapes: The Changing Nature of the Intermountain West..................................... Positive Consequences and Potentialities of Amenity-Based Growth...................................................................... Limitations and Liabilities of Amenity-Based Growth............................... Implications for Community Development and Resource Management..................................................................... Conclusions..................................................................................................
ix
123 125 127 130 132
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology........................................ 135 References......................................................................................................... 153 Index.................................................................................................................. 165
Chapter 1
Introduction
Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Utah State University
Over the last several decades of the twentieth century America’s rural communities were confronted by an array of major economic, demographic, and social transformations. Historically, close linkages between natural resource-based industries and social, cultural, and economic structures had been crucial determinants of regional and local development contexts and trajectories throughout rural America. For the most part the economic and social character and development trajectories of its rural and small communities were closely tied to resource extraction and commodityproduction industries, with jobs in agriculture, ranching, forestry, mining, and fisheries dominating local economies. However, technological changes in the patterns of resource-based activities, the emergence of the global economy, and shifting societal R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_1, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
1
2
1 Introduction
values have in combination dramatically altered the qualitative and quantitative nature of these historic linkages. By the start of the twenty-first century, relatively few rural and small communities in the United States exhibited sustenance organization patterns reflecting traditional forms or levels of dependence upon resource-based rural industries. Instead, a myriad of nontraditional rural development patterns have emerged. While often remaining resource based, there has been a broadly experienced transition away from local employment and economic activities tied primarily to extractive industries. New forms of development involving tourism, recreation, and other activities linked to the attractions of rural landscapes and natural resources have evolved, especially in areas endowed with high natural amenity values. Such places are rich in scenic qualities and recreation opportunities asso ciated with a varied topography, ready access to open space and undeveloped landscapes, warm climates, and proximity to rivers, lakes, or seashores. Many areas exhibiting these characteristics have experienced substantial population growth in recent decades fueled, in part, by in-migration of retirees and young, professional, urban migrants. Other areas have become destinations for growing numbers of seasonal residents. Still other areas have attracted increased numbers of telecommuters and white-collar professionals, whose uses of communication technologies enable them to conduct business at a national or global scale while residing in relatively remote places. Such patterns of change are occurring in a variety of contexts. So-called “gateway communities” – those adjoining major destination attractions, including national parks and monuments – represent a common context for amenity-based growth. Other remotely located settings, particularly those characterized by a general ambiance associated with open space and surrounding natural landscapes or ready access to outdoor recreation opportunities, have also experienced growth. Amenityrich areas proximate to densely settled urban centers – commonly referred to as the wildland-urban interface – represent a third major constellation of settings affected by these larger forces of change. Remaining largely unknown are the implications of each of these amenity-growth contexts for the well-being of rural people and places, the trajectory of rural development initiatives, or the ways such patterns of change might affect natural resource planning, management, and use. This book addresses these knowledge gaps. It focuses on America’s Intermountain West region, and the economic, demographic, and social changes occurring across this highly varied and largely rural landscape. This region provides an excellent area for study. Over the past several decades many of its rural and small communities experienced substantial growth and development, accompanied by the arrival of new types of rural residents who often express different, though no less powerful, values about their new communities and about environmental and natural resource issues than those expressed by longer-term residents. These patterns of social, demographic, and economic change, which some observers have connected with the emergence of a New West (Nash 1993; Rudzitis 1993; Shumway and Otterstrom 2001), have the potential to significantly alter the social-ecological systems linking rural communities to surrounding landscapes.
Rationale for and Significance of the Study
3
In the chapters that follow, we review and analyze the emergence of these New West phenomena through a comparative examination of economic, demographic, and social changes that are occurring across the Intermountain West landscape and in the rural and small places scattered throughout the region. Doing this demonstrates many of the impacts associated with the shift in local economies from extractive industries to those based on construction, services, and tourism, and the effects of those shifts on the people – whether they be longer-term residents or relative newcomers, or year-round or seasonal residents – who call the region home. It also addresses the implications of such changes for community leaders, public officials, policy makers, and resource managers engaged in efforts to sustain both rural communities and the region’s natural resources.
Rationale for and Significance of the Study Changes in the array of localized economic activities and systems that in combi nation comprise what social scientists refer to as community sustenance organization contribute to a variety of transformations in local socioeconomic structures and processes. Population increases, especially as a result of increased levels of in-migration, routinely occur in conjunction with new patterns of economic activity, and often result in major shifts in the social characteristics of local populations and the social organization of rural and small communities. This is particularly the case when there is a selective migration of particular age groups, ethnic populations, and/or socioeconomic status groups into or out of specific areas. Not surprisingly, changes in a variety of social, political, and cultural patterns are associated with these transformations. The latter include shifts in established political structures and community leadership patterns, transitions in types of formal and informal social groups and organizations, changes in the roles played by these groups and organizations in community affairs, changing patterns of social interaction and participation, altered levels of localized social integration, and shifts in the capacity of rural communities to organize and pursue collective efforts to influence local development patterns. At the same time, levels of individual and collective well-being have been affected by such economic and demographic transformations. Changes in social inequality, economic status, and opportunity structures, conflicts over divergent values regarding environmental conditions and community development goals, and alterations to residents’ levels of community satisfaction reflect shifts in well-being tied to transitions in rural-area sustenance organization and ideas about sustainable development. As rural sociologist and community theorist Kenneth Wilkinson (1991) observed, individual well-being and the capacity to organize collective efforts to address community needs and concerns are closely linked to local sustenance conditions. Both individual well-being and community capacity are likely to suffer in areas confronted by extremely limited and deteriorating economic opportunities. Conversely, some dimensions of social well-being and community capacity can
4
1 Introduction
also be negatively affected by periods of rapid and chaotic growth and change, as has occurred in conjunction with large-scale resource development projects and/or extensive in-migration of population groups whose characteristics and values clash with those of established populations (see Doak and Kusel 1996; Smith and Krannich 2000; Smith et al. 2001). To date, most research addressing linkages between local sustenance conditions or rural economic development contexts and social well-being has focused on development circumstances which differ markedly from those associated with natural amenity areas. For example, numerous analyses have addressed the relationships between dimensions of well-being (especially poverty and economic inequality) and the changing structure of agriculture, particularly changes involving the increased dominance of large-scale commercial agricultural enterprise (see Gilles and Dalecki 1988; Goldschmidt 1978; MacCannell 1988; Green 1985; Harris and Gilbert 1982). Additional studies have focused on the effects of certain types of rural industrial development on community social and economic conditions and the well-being of rural-area residents. For example, Summers and his associates (1976) examined the effects of siting large-scale manufacturing facilities in a rural area of the American Midwest, and found that most newly created employment opportunities were captured by long-distance commuters and in-migrating workforces, while the local fiscal effects of providing public services, rising housing and property costs, and a substantial leakage of incomes to non-local commercial centers contributed to economic difficulties for the elderly, female-headed households, and others on limited or fixed incomes. Research focusing specifically on industrial developments in the western United States includes studies examining the effects of large-scale energy resource developments that impacted many rural and small communities during the 1970s and 1980s. This body of evidence suggests that during the boom period of such developments rapid growth and associated changes in rural demographic, economic, and social conditions contributed to deterioration in levels of community satisfaction, reduced social participation and social integration, heigh tened exposure to and fear of criminal victimization, and other changes indicative of deteriorating social well-being (see Smith et al. 2001). Such earlier studies provide useful insights into the ways rural communities respond to a variety of development patterns and transitions. However, they cannot be extended to changes accompanying amenity-based development. There is a clear need for research focused explicitly on the nature and consequences of amenitybased growth, given the differences in economic opportunities, the composition and nature of in-migration, the occurrence of seasonal residency, and the unique natural resource contexts of communities characterized by the kinds of amenity conditions that are spurring new patterns of economic, demographic and social change. In recent years a relatively small number of studies have focused explicitly on the relationships between growth and development occurring in natural amenity areas and various aspects of social change and well-being. At the macro level, Hunter et al. (2005) used national-level data to examine associations between natural amenities, population growth, and economic well-being, and found both household income levels and costs of living to be higher in high-growth amenity/recreation areas.
Rationale for and Significance of the Study
5
Stedman (2006) also conducted a national-level analysis and concluded growth in second homes was associated with lower levels of civic participation. Analyses focused on local communities or sets of communities have also been undertaken. For example, Krannich et al. (2006) studied several western U.S. communities and found while residents of communities characterized by amenity-based growth did not exhibit lower social integration or civic participation than residents of comparison communities, they did exhibit higher levels of community satisfaction and greater concern about land use changes and the adverse impacts of growth and development. In a study of two high-amenity locales in Utah and Wyoming, Brehm et al. (2004) found higher social attachment levels among longer-term residents than among more recent in-migrants, though attachments to the surrounding natural environment did not vary by length of residence. Stedman’s (2003) research on a high-amenity area in the lake country of northern Wisconsin found differences between year-round and seasonal residents in the ways “place” was socially constructed and in levels of place attachment. Yet, Clendenning et al. (2005) studied seasonal and year-round residents in northern Wisconsin’s Pine Barrens area and found only limited differences in attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife management. However, none of these recent amenity-based growth studies simultaneously examines macro- and micro-level data reflecting different scales of analysis to understand the structure and consequences of the amenity growth process. This book fills a substantial knowledge gap by focusing on regional, subregional, and local-level conditions in rural areas of the Intermountain West, where high-amenity landscapes are a key driver of economic, demographic, and social change. Understanding the implications of these patterns of change for social well-being and community capacity in natural amenity-rich rural areas is an important first step in developing a synthetic approach explicating: (1) the nature of the social and economic changes occurring; (2) the ways in which natural resource conditions shape, influence, and interact with these social and economic changes; and (3) the convergent implications of these forces for natural resource use and management and for sustainable community development and planning efforts. The key is to link the social context with the biological and physical characteristics of the landscape. The central purpose of this book is to provide a coherent framework and empirical evidence that enhances understanding of the implications of recent patterns of economic, demographic, and social change for social well-being, community adaptive capacity, and resource conditions in the natural amenity-rich rural areas of the Intermountain West. To achieve this, the book has four core objectives: (1) identify the nature of the economic and demographic changes occurring in nonmetropolitan areas of the Intermountain West; (2) determine the ways in which natural resource conditions shape, influence, and interact with economic, demographic, and social conditions occurring in this region and within a subregion where amenity-based growth and development are especially prevalent; (3) identify the consequences of these conditions and change patterns for community-level engagement and social integration; and (4) identify the convergent implications of these forces for natural resource use and management and for sustainable community planning and development efforts.
6
1 Introduction
Organization of the Volume The remaining chapters present an in-depth examination of the ways in which varied natural resource contexts link to patterns of change affecting the Intermountain West, across several distinct levels of analysis. Chapter 2 focuses on the ways in which rural and small communities have experienced shifts away from dependence on natural resource extraction, and examines the emergence of newer forms of resource-based economies and social structures tied not to extraction but to resource amenities and associated recreation and leisure activities. The chapter provides an overview of the macro-level economic, demographic, and social transformations affecting American rural communities, and an introduction to the forces contributing to population growth and change in resource amenity regions. In addition, the chapter presents a theoretical synthesis outlining connections between human behavior, community structure, and ecosystem change across time and space. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the demography of the Intermountain West region of the United States. Variations in patterns of growth and change across the region are emphasized, demonstrating that demographic change is not a uniform process and highlighting the fact that there are numerous magnets drawing people to specific areas. It assesses the ways in which these differential patterns of community growth and change vary across distinct geographic contexts. Chapter 4 examines the economic and demographic patterns and changes that have come to differentiate “Old West” areas where more traditional economic and social structures remain largely intact from places recently characterized by the “New West” title where traditional rural economies and social organization no longer prevail. We do this by using structural secondary data indicators associated with U.S. Census-designated places in the region to identify typical structures associated with “Old” and “New” West communities. The chapter ends with an identification of key “hot spots” where amenity-resource conditions have stimulated especially high levels of in-migration, development, and socioeconomic change. In Chap. 5 we apply what we found in the preceding chapter to a single subregion of the Intermountain West where amenity-based change patterns have become particularly evident. Our analysis focuses on a five-county area in southern Utah characterized by a diverse array of natural landscapes, extensive public lands, and several major National Parks and National Monuments. Here we adopt a less macro-level approach, shifting our scale of analysis to focus in part on individual rural places and communities scattered across this landscape. Chapter 6 addresses the question of how residence status (year-round or seasonal), time-in-residence, and other key sociodemographic characteristics of local populations may be related to variations in patterns of use and other behaviors linked to surrounding public lands, to residents’ value orientations pertaining to environmental and natural resource issues, and to attitudinal differences regarding the management of public lands and natural resources in the study area. It closes with a focused discussion of the key findings and their practical implications for natural resource
Organization of the Volume
7
managers who are confronted by increasingly diverse public values and expectations regarding the uses of public lands and resources in the region. In Chap. 7 our focus shifts from natural resources to social conditions, and the ways in which various elements of social and collective well-being may vary across residence categories. Using evidence from the same survey of adult residents in the southern Utah study area, we provide profiles of seasonal and year-round residents and compare the ways in which levels of participation in local community life, social integration, and community attachment vary across residence groupings and across time-in-residence categories. The chapter closes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for local citizens, community leaders, and community development specialists whose focus is on efforts to direct local development patterns and pursue community sustainability in these rapidly changing contexts. The final chapter encapsulates our findings, bringing together the biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural changes associated with amenity-based develop ment and the emergence of the New West. A detailed discussion of implications and applications of our findings is advanced. It provides a synthesis of the reasons linkages between natural resources, demography, and community-level social and economic change need to be considered in attempts to facilitate adaptive success and enhance prospects for future sustainability. An appreciation of these issues will be especially useful for federal and state resource management agencies attempting to prepare management plans for parks, forests, and refuges; for community leaders struggling to integrate new residents and seasonal residents into community affairs; for rural development practitioners and county officials seeking opportunities for taking advantage of amenity-based resources; and for social scientists and conservation, park and recreation professionals interested in understanding the patterns of change and adaptation that are unfolding as the New West continues to evolve.
Chapter 2
Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
Richard Krannich
Introduction Patterns of growth and decline in rural America represent a focus of social science investigation that has received considerable attention for many years. Among rural sociologists in particular, much of this attention has included an explicit recognition of the ways in which the social organization of rural life across space and time is linked to land use patterns and natural resource conditions. Rural economies, social structures, and life-ways have been and remain closely tied to nature. At the same time, the character of those relationships has shifted in a number of important ways over the years. R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_2, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
9
10
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
Until approximately the middle of the twentieth century, the social and economic conditions and trends characteristic of rural America were tightly bound to extractive and commodity-production industries, including farming, fishing, forestry, and mining. Indeed, some past attempts to define what it meant for a place and a people to be classified as “rural” explicitly incorporated reference to economic and occupational factors involving high levels of dependence on such industries (Sorokin and Zimmerman 1929; see also Blakeley 1984; Deavers and Brown 1985; Miller and Luloff 1981; Smith and Zopf 1970). A century ago, rural America’s demographic and economic character was inexorably linked to commodity-based uses of land and resources. Indeed, in 1910, the major extractive sectors comprising the traditional “core” of rural economic organization – agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining – combined to account for over one-third of the U.S. labor force (see Carter et al. 2010). As McGranahan (2003:135) noted: “… people originally moved into rural America to take advantage of its natural resources, whether through hunting, fishing, gathering, farming, mining, or forestry.” Such activities remained central to the character of much of rural America well into the twentieth century. However, the past 100 years have been characterized by major shifts in the nature and structure of rural resource-based economic activities, accompanied by equally dramatic changes in rural demographic and social conditions. Over this period, economic reliance on extractive and commodity-production activities became less important as a defining attribute of rurality across much of the American countryside, particularly during the last half of the twentieth century. For example, while in 1920 slightly more than one of every four labor force participants in the United States worked in the agricultural sector, that percentage dropped to 12% by 1950, 3.6% by 1970, 2.5% by 1990, and less than 2% since 2000 (Dimitri et al. 2005; Sobek 2001; World Resources Institute 2007).1 Over approximately the same time period, the sharp declines in agriculture-based employment were paralleled by similar trends in both the forestry and mining sectors, largely reflecting the shift from labor intensive to capital intensive, high-technology production systems (see Freudenburg 1992; Freudenburg et al. 1998). As a result, by 2009, employment in the combined farming, fishing, and forestry sectors accounted for just 3.2% of total U.S. employment, and the mining sector accounted for less than one-half of 1% of total employment (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010). By the end of the twentieth century, at the national level, the effects of technological changes, capital intensification, market globalization, and economic restructuring had dramatically reduced the relevance of economic dependence on agriculture and other extractive industries as the defining factor in differentiating rural from urban communities (Brown and Swanson 2003). Even in regions such as the western United States that often were viewed as being characterized by more
At the same time, agricultural production increased so that American farm output remained capable of meeting demand with far fewer employees, making it the most efficient agricultural production system in the world.
1
Introduction
11
traditional economies and cultures, major transformations and restructuring occurred. As Gosnell and Abrams (2009) observed: … extractive and manufacturing activities that have traditionally anchored western economies are now dwarfed in importance by service-sector and high-tech industries … and the region’s scenic landscapes are increasingly valued more for the aesthetic and recreational amenities they provide than for their stocks of precious metals, timber, or forage.
Such changes reflect a shift away from traditional land uses, economic activities, and social structures to what some observers have characterized as “postproductivist” landscapes (see Gosnell and Abrams 2009; Holmes 2002; Wilson 2001). Inevitably, major changes in the demographic and social landscapes of rural America have accompanied these economic transformations. During much of the twentieth century, and especially between approximately 1940 and 1970, the “push” of declining rural economic opportunities combined with the “pull” of jobs available in urban centers produced a sustained out-migration from many rural areas, particularly those characterized by high levels of economic dependence on agriculture and natural resource extraction. While on the whole America’s nonmetropolitan2 population continued to slowly expand, due primarily to a positive ratio of births to deaths, net migration patterns for the nation’s nonmetropolitan sector were negative in every decade prior to the 1970s (see Johnson 2003). By the 1960s, the continued erosion of traditional economic opportunities and accompanying depopulation of many locales across rural America had generated broad-based concerns among social scientists and policy makers alike (see Beale 1964; Black 1969). Rural sociologists and community development specialists commented extensively about the problems confronting rural places and communities “left behind” (Fuguitt 1971; Whiting 1974) and expressed serious concerns about “dying” rural communities (Gallaher and Padfield 1980). As Brinkman (1974:53) observed, in many cases America’s rural communities were characterized by a seemingly irreversible “self-perpetuating downward spiral of decreasing employment, out-migration and deteriorating community life.” These conditions and associated problems of unemployment, underemployment, poverty, erosion of human and social capital, and generally low levels of collective well-being were especially prevalent in spatially isolated agriculture-dependent and natural resource-dependent rural areas (see Elo and Beale 1985; Weber et al. 1988; Lichter and Costanzo 1987; Krannich and Luloff 1991). However, by the mid-1970s, demographers and social scientists identified an unprecedented migration trend. For the first time in modern American history, greater population movement from urban (metropolitan) settings to rural (nonmetropolitan settings) occurred, bucking the longstanding national trends of rural
It is important to recognize that definitions of rural and agricultural, for example, have not been constant so making comparisons across time is often not direct or easy. In the 1970s, the use of larger designations – metropolitan and nonmetropolitan – to identify county population groupings became widespread. We use the terms nonmetropolitan and rural interchangeably for ease of communication but recognize the distinct differences in these terms.
2
12
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
economic stagnation and broad-based outmigration. Calvin Beale of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service titled his seminal report on this turnaround simply – The Revival of Population Growth in Nonmetro politan America (1975). This phenomenon was one of six important demographic surprises of the 1970s not anticipated on the basis of long-term trends or experience. According to Beale (1982), these changes included the fall in the birth rate and decline in death rates, movement to the South and West, an increase in illegal immigration, and the growth of nonmetropolitan populations. The latter was evidenced by the faster rate of growth of such counties than their metropolitan counterparts. Between 1970 and 1980, each of the four major census regions (Northeast, North Central, South, and West) increased in population – with a substantial portion of this growth rooted to large increases in the number of nonmetropolitan residents. All of this occurred following a decade (1960–1970) of traditional net outmigration from nonmetropolitan areas (a loss of 1.74 million people) coupled to a large in-migration flow to metropolitan areas (a gain of 4.6 million people). Naturally, such a shift created quite a stir among social scientists, politicians, and the like. Simply said, it was unprecedented. Little attention had been given to the implications of such growth – after all, the issues typically addressed by research up to this point were related to decline of rural populations and how to provide or maintain the myriad services required for residents of places confronted by stagnation rather than growth. Beale’s 1975 brief national-level report stimulated much research activity at land grant universities, think tanks, and foundations. As a result, in a relatively short time several excellent volumes appeared addressing both the scope of and the reasons for this change (cf., Brown and Wardwell 1980; Hawley and Mills 1982; Ford 1979; Morrison and Wheeler 1976). Moreover, detailed reports on the consequences of population change and redistribution were completed by three regional research projects which focused entirely on these issues (Brown and Wardwell 1980; Sofranko and Williams 1980; Roseman et al. 1981; Steahr and Luloff 1985). These works suggested the unanticipated change in internal migration flows was a result of the confluence of many factors, including a substantial relocation of U.S. manufacturing facilities (and jobs) from urban to rural places (see Summers et al. 1976), a general diversification of economic structures, the emergence of new nonfarm employment opportunities across many nonmetropolitan areas (Greider and Krannich 1984), and a growing propensity and ability among many Americans to act on broadly shared cultural preferences to live in “small town” settings and opencountry rural areas as opposed to large urban centers (DeJong and Sell 1977). Although not fully recognized at the time, this “turnaround” was also linked to a growing will and capacity among Americans to pursue opportunities for living in “high amenity” areas. In combination, the emergence of new and more diversified economic opportunities in at least some nonmetropolitan settings and the strong attraction among many Americans to the mountains, forests, rivers and lakes, open spaces, and scenic vistas characterizing large portions of the rural landscape attracted considerable in-migration and new forms of economic development to areas exhibiting a variety of natural-amenity conditions (see Gosnell and Abrams 2009; Marcouiller and Green 2000; McGranahan 1999; Shumway and Davis 1996).
Introduction
13
In addition, this fundamentally different migration pattern was linked to multiple federal policy decisions following the end of World War II that spurred massive technological, social, economic, and cultural changes and fundamentally reshaped life in America. This was, in part, evidenced by the creation and support of a national interstate highway system which brought previously remote areas into regular and easy contact with larger urban centers. When coupled to the passage of loan programs providing more than 11 million mortgages for returning servicemen and the allocation of federal funding for furthering these veterans’ education (and naturally expanding the colleges and universities available to serve them), these acts set the stage for the building boom now recognized as the beginning of suburban sprawl (Duany et al. 2000:7–8). Although jobs remained concentrated in core/central cities for several years after the war, by the 1960s and 1970s many corporations had moved to the suburbs, and increasingly to rural-urban fringe areas where most of their workforces lived. At the same time, the development of new communication and transportation technologies brought previously isolated rural areas into the economic and cultural mainstream. And, the remarkable growth of the national economy created a large middle class which increasingly populated previously rural and nonmetropolitan areas as former urbanites moved into newly constructed single-family homes, and which also allowed more and more Americans to afford seasonal and/or second homes in areas even further removed from central cities. These policy-aided conditions of the 1950s and 1960s greatly reduced rural isolation. Indeed, the enormous improvements in communication and transportation networks greased the wheels of the population turnaround process that was about to unfold. Other developments such as the surfacing of roads, widespread ownership of motor vehicles among farmers and small-town residents, rural electrification, and the introduction of radio and television made rural areas increasingly appealing areas for new residential development (Hawley and Mills 1982). Some urban geographers labeled the process an exurbanization of America, as the nation’s core metropolitan areas stretched further and further into the hinterlands. A number of more macro-level economic factors have also been linked to this rural renaissance (Morrison and Wheeler 1976). One such factor with significant current resonance was the first OPEC driven energy crisis of the 1970s. The resulting surge in efforts to develop domestic sources of energy favored some regions with rich reserves of uranium, oil shale, coal, and gas. The exploitation of these resources led to a wide spate of activity which contributed to “energy booms” in many relatively isolated rural areas (Beyers and Nelson 2000; Smith et al. 2001). At the same time, the guns and butter economics of the recently ended Vietnam War contributed to what Bluestone and Harrison (1982) labeled the emergence of “footloose industry.” Traditional core nondurable manufacturing and assembly plants no longer had fixed ties to communities, and moved with increasing frequency to locations where they could obtain the best deals in terms of tax incentives, a cheaper labor force, and adequate access for transportation of their products. Moreover, the growth in wealth accumulation during this period and the aging of World War II era veterans and their children led to increased demands for health care and related services, recreational opportunities, and a wide range of activities and services for the rapidly emerging and expanding retirement industry. Taken together, these shifts also helped fuel the turnaround process.
14
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
Yet, even as various observers were proclaiming the emergence of a “rural renaissance” and the “rebirth” of rural America (Morrison and Wheeler 1976; Sofranko and Williams 1980), the patterns of rural economic and demographic change shifted once again. Widespread outmigration and population losses re-emerged across much of nonmetropolitan America during the 1980s. Not surprisingly, this reversal was linked to a variety of factors, including a broadly experienced “farm crisis” that shook the economic foundations of America’s Midwest and other areas heavily dependent on agriculture (Adams 2003). Moreover, a pattern of “deindustrialization” involving the relocation of many American manufacturing facilities – including those that had previously moved into nonmetropolitan areas – to offshore locations occurred (see Bluestone and Harrison 1982). And, the broadly experienced impacts of a major economic downturn/recession that began in the late 1970s and continued through the first half of the 1980s contributed to the muting of many Americans’ ability to prioritize residential preference factors associated with the attractiveness of rural lifestyles and natural landscapes. In short, personal and local economic circumstances once again overrode residential relocation decisions. The unpredictability and unevenness of these patterns of change affecting rural America were reinforced when a “rural rebound” was discovered. During much of the 1990s, a return to more rapid population growth and higher levels of in-migration to nonmetropolitan areas were once again in evidence across much of the nation. According to McGranahan (1999), both the southern and western regions of the nation experienced especially high nonmetropolitan in-migration during the 1990s. Much of this growth was in amenity-rich areas. Destination counties which attracted retirees and or recreationists experienced the highest rates of growth among all rural counties (Beale and Johnson 1998). Nearly nine of every ten nonmetropolitan recreational counties experienced population gains during the early 1990s (88% of the total [283] of such counties; Johnson and Beale 1994). According to Beyers and Nelson (2000:461) retirement, amenity-driven migration, and an emphasis on quality of life fueled the recent turnaround. Significant evidence of the relationship among amenity-related values and migration has emerged in much of the current literature, a theme which is nicely captured by Brehm et al. (2004:408): Today there is increased recognition of an interest in the link between migration and non-economic amenity variables like climate, topography and proximity to water.
Climate, topography, and proximity to water all helped fuel the extraordinary patterns of rural population growth during the 1990s that was evident in nonmetropolitan America overall, and especially across the American West (Johnson and Beale 1994; McGranahan 1999). Simply said, nonmetropolitan counties that were destinations for retirement-age migrants or centers for recreation were the fastest growing counties during the early 1990s. However, researchers documented a waning of this “rebound” beginning in the late 1990s that continued through most of the ensuing decade (see Johnson and Cromartie 2006; Johnson et al. 2005; Miller 2009). Thus, in the span of only
Introduction
15
40 years, overall trends in population change affecting nonmetropolitan America shifted substantially on multiple occasions. This timeframe is marked by several periods of major reversal, as longstanding patterns of population decline and net out-migration gave way first to growth and in-migration, only to be followed by a return to decline, and then to renewed growth, and then to slowed growth and even decline yet again. Such episodic fluctuations in national-level patterns of change over the past 40 years highlight and clearly reinforce the variability and complexity of change processes that have altered and continue to influence economic, demographic, and social conditions across rural America. Patterns of growth and change are considerably more uneven and complex than often recognized, with a “cycle of rural instability” far more common than stasis in most rural areas (Krannich and Luloff 1991). Indeed, the temporal variations characterizing patterns of change affecting America’s rural communities comprise one key aspect of what we term the “rural paradox.” This rural paradox is reflected in the fact some rural areas and communities continue to struggle to survive while others, even neighboring communities and areas, experience extraordinary periods of expansion and develop ment. What makes this paradox even more difficult to explain and understand is that the nature of these differences is itself unstable, with shifts across time more common than not. An additional source of complexity in the patterns of growth and change affecting rural America involves the ways in which regional, subregional, and localized economic and sociodemographic conditions and trends are linked to spatial variation in the characteristics of surrounding landscapes and natural resources. Even during periods when national trends have involved accelerated in-migration and population growth in nonmetropolitan areas of the United States, some rural areas and communities – particularly those tied to primary extractive industries and in spatially remote locations – have continued to bear the brunt of economic instability, population declines, and associated deterioration of human capital, services, and local community vitality. At the same time, some American rural communities have experienced unprece dented population growth and rapid economic development even during periods when national-level trends have involved stagnation and decline. Continued patterns of exurbanization and expanding urban fringe development have introduced new housing and economic opportunities for rural commuters and urbanites seeking to escape the city (Audirac 1999; Fishman 1990; Mills 1995; Nelson and Dueker 1990). Rural communities located proximate to metropolitan areas and along major highways and transportation corridors have routinely captured opportunities for growth and development. The patterns of growth experienced by counties within commuting distance of urban areas and in counties with towns of at least 10,000 people have been well documented (Johnson and Fuguitt 2000; Frey 1987; Frey and Johnson 1998; Johnson 1989; Johnson and Beale 1998). Such areas often bridge the gap between rural and urban America and regularly attract economic and social opportunities generally less evident in more isolated rural settings.
16
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
The Growing Importance of Natural Resource Amenity Conditions Meanwhile, more remotely located areas situated well beyond the rural-urban interface have also experienced major growth tied to seasonal housing and other forms of recreation-based growth and development. While seasonal and recreational housing numbers increased by 77% nationwide between 1960 and 2000 (Green and Clendenning 2003), growth in seasonal housing has been far more prevalent in some regions and locales. Between 1990 and 2000, the western region of the United States experienced a larger percentage increase (27.3%) in seasonal home development than occurred in any other region, with several western states exhibiting seasonal housing increases in excess of 40% for the decade (see Jennings 2009). In recent years, the American West has been characterized as a region experiencing especially high rates of growth as a consequence of “amenity migration” (Gosnell and Abrams 2009; Otterstrom and Shumway 2003; Travis 2007). There are many well-known examples of places throughout this region where tourism-based development produced a much different and more rapidly expanding economic base and much more substantial population growth than has been the norm across other rural areas within the same region or subregion. Some towns, like Breckenridge, Colorado, and Park City and Moab, Utah, have grown from isolated rural communities with a history of stagnation and decline asso ciated with dependency on extractive industries to booming and vibrant hubs of international tourism and new growth. In general, it has become increasingly clear that recent migrants to rural areas are in many instances motivated by perceived quality-of-life assets of amenity-rich areas (Daniels 1999; Gosnell and Abrams 2009; Halfacree and Boyle 1998; Smutny 2002), and by social constructions of ideals linked to rural landscapes and life-ways in such settings (Bell 2007; McCarthy 2008; Nelson 2002). However, natural amenity-based growth and development are by no means new phenomena in rural America. Internal movement from place to place has been a signal characteristic of American life. From its earliest days of settlement to today’s information age, residential shifts have been common occurrences. Consider that in its formative stages, the United States was settled by those with European roots who enjoyed patterns of “holidays” away from their primary homes. Many of the more affluent of America’s new citizens likewise sought refuge from the congestion and heat of urban centers in more rural, less inhabited fringe areas relatively distant from their normal residences. Rural tourism-based and seasonal home communities were well established in a number of areas during the first half of the twentieth century, including the mountain and lake areas of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire in the Northeast, the “lake country” areas in northern portions of the upper Midwest, and in “gateway” areas near or adjacent to major recreational destinations and/or national parks (Howe et al. 1997; Moss 2006; Rothman 2000). The completion of major highways and thoroughfares made rural areas increasingly accessible and prime for development.
The Growing Importance of Natural Resource Amenity Conditions
17
Many of these areas – especially those endowed with rich natural resource amenities – became the destinations for urban and suburban residents seeking escape and refuge from the daily patterns of life in metropolitan America. Naturally, when people moved to new areas, demand for residences and/or places to park their motor homes also increased. Clearly, secondary home ownership is not a new phenomenon in the United States. Such homes and their ties to amenity resources – lakes, rivers, mountains, either warmer or cooler climates – provided the impetus to escape both urban ills and undesirable seasonal climates. Indeed, they were so popular both Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward catalogues included pre-fabricated, second home kits (Massey and Maxwell 1993). The marketing and sales of such homes were accelerated by several events. Again, the post-World War II policies of the federal government made access to such areas easier and helped fuel the creation of a large middle class able to afford entry into such a market; seasonal and vacation homes were no longer the “exclusive rights” of the nation’s upper and wealthier classes. More importantly, with the emergence of this new market, shrewd land developers and entrepreneurs realized the potential of creating destination communities to attract new second home buyers who could be seeking retirement and/or recreational locales. As early as the mid-1950s, several of these developers began marketing their strategies on the nation’s newest mass communication device – television – encouraging, indeed enticing residents of Northeastern and Northcentral states to buy building lots in what was, for example, open desert country in Arizona. Of course, these advertisements and enticements were not limited to a single state or location. Attention was also focused on development and land purchase opportunities in a number of other states in what has come to be known as the Sun Belt – including Florida, Texas, California, and New Mexico. This expansion of second-home development across multiple states and regions was occurring simultaneously with, and was to a degree fueled by, a burgeoning growth in Americans’ pursuit of outdoor recreation activities. As a result of these efforts, huge parcels of land across the nation were bought and subdivided and numerous “planned” communities as well as more haphazardly developed residential areas arose in many of these areas. Not surprisingly, the model driving these development patterns and successes was copied and applied in a wide range of other locales, including the coasts of North and South Carolina, and mountain and lake regions of northern New England, the Great Lakes, and the Intermountain West (cf. Stroud 1995). All of these regions increasingly provided access to year-round recreational activity, and all experienced substantial levels of amenity-driven growth and development. According to Glorioso (2000), natural resource amenity-driven migration was spurred by two major factors – those which increased motivation for such migration and those which contributed to greater mobility. Among the former were such things as higher valuation of the natural environment, cultural differentiation, and of leisure, learning, and spirituality. Among the latter were increased discretionary time and wealth, and increased access to such areas via less expensive information and communications and transportation technology (Jennings 2009). These factors
18
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
are often reflected in differences between secondary, nonpermanent homeowners and year-round residents. A series of studies (Ragatz and Gelb 1970; Clout 1972; Jaakson 1986; Girard and Gartner 1993; Green et al. 1996; Smith and Krannich 2000; Clendenning et al. 2005; Matarrita-Cascante et al. 2006; Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 2008) have highlighted significant differences among these groups on the basis of age, education, income, occupation, attitudes, values, and behaviors. Evidence of such differences has contributed to the emergence of what is known as the “culture clash” literature, which addresses the potential for and occurrence of tensions and at times conflicts between longer-term rural residents and various types of “newcomer” populations (cf. Smith and Krannich 2000). Clearly the influence of natural-amenity conditions as a factor influencing rural growth and change has expanded significantly in recent decades. However, even the earlier nonmetropolitan turnaround growth that emerged during the 1970s was found to be especially concentrated in areas characterized by high levels of service and tourism/recreation employment (Fuguitt 1985). McGranahan’s (1999) influential report furthered our understanding of this relationship by demonstrating the role of natural amenities (involving mild climate conditions, topographic variation, and the presence of water areas) on spatially differentiated patterns of population growth in nonmetropolitan America. From 1970 through 1996, U.S. nonmetropolitan counties rating high on six natural amenity factors (warm winters, winter sun, temperate summers, low summer humidity, topographic variation, and water areas) grew by an average of 125%, compared to an average growth of just 1% among counties rating low on these same measures. Subsequent work reported by Johnson and Beale (2002) reiterated the important role of natural amenities and recreation attractions as drivers of population growth and economic expansion in America’s rural counties between 1970 and 2000. In short, the sweeping transformations and restructuring that have been experienced across rural America in recent decades have been and remain closely linked to the character of natural landscapes and resources and the ways in which land and resources are used and managed. And, the nature of those linkages has clearly shifted across time, and is highly influenced both by spatial variations in landscape and resource conditions and by the ways in which societal values and cultural transfor mations have altered the social constructions of rural areas and natural environments.
Toward an Integrated Theoretical Perspective We appreciate how human-induced disturbances profoundly alter the biophysical landscapes of non-urban America. Residential, commercial, and industrial development and their accompanying infrastructure needs have been recognized as primary causes of anthropogenic landscape change. In the Great Lakes Region, for example, human settlement patterns generated their most profound effects in the outlying fringes of metropolitan areas and in more remote regions with attractive recreational and aesthetic amenities where recent growth rates were the highest (Gobster et al. 2000).
Toward an Integrated Theoretical Perspective
19
Land use and development decisions are associated with water pollution accompanying erosion, runoff from areas treated with fertilizers and pesticides, sewage seepage, and flushing of paved areas (Kusler 1970; Mallin et al. 2001; Todd et al. 1989). Environmental impacts are linked not only to individual-level decisions (i.e., timber harvests or agricultural application of pesticides), but also to community-based decision processes (such as the expansion of housing and commercial developments across the landscape, increased road construction, or increased recreation development). The interactions between social structure and function and the structural and functional attributes of the biophysical landscape foster distinctive social-cultural systems. They also shape the manner in which environmental dimensions are incorporated into these systems. For example, in communities with growing elderly populations, as in many high-amenity natural resource regions (Johnson and Beale 1994), attitudes towards nature conservation and management may differ markedly from communities with a younger age structure. The occurrence of such differences reinforces the need for a language and conceptual framework capable of communicating a characterization of people and social relations on a biophysical landscape. It is possible to make explicit the comparability and linkages between social and biophysical measures in an integrated social and biophysical framework that embraces social and demographic elements and processes as part of the structure, function, and change in landscape patterns. At the same time, a more integrated framework could provide a base for generating better understanding of the relationships and flows between and among human populations and the biophysical environment (Field et al. 2005). Including a more coherent characterization of people, organizational structure, and social relations on the land is essential to this understanding. The population and housing growth occurring in rural eco-regions characterized by extensive natural resource amenity values contribute to the emergence of new patterns of social interaction and economic activity in areas formerly dominated by single extractive industries. An understanding of these changing social structures and relationships can have profound impacts on public and private land management. For example, as human populations increase in formerly remote wooded areas, forestland routinely becomes fragmented and/or parcelized into smaller acreages. This contributes to severe reductions in timber harvests with subsequent impacts on the forest products sector of the economy (Barlow et al. 1998; Sampson and DeCoster 2000; Luloff et al. 2000; Wear et al. 1999). In addition, population growth in amenity rich regions can change the social context of forest management with new community views and emphases affecting traditional land uses, forest management, and economic development. The latter can lead to negative perspectives about timber management as well as changes in management priorities (Dwyer and Stewart 1999; Egan and Luloff 2000; Lee and Field 2005). Such changes can place forest and wildlife management in direct competition with recreation and second home development (Radeloff et al. 2005, 2010). This growth is also increasingly occurring proximate to reserve areas and in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). With heightened wildfire events associated with the WUI, critical arguments over the objectives and roles of firefighting activity have been enjoined. The crush of new and different populations, and the housing and support structure needed to
20
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
Fig. 2.1 Integrating human behavior, community structure and ecosystem change across time and space
meet the needs of these new seasonal and/or year around residents, necessitates a multi-level, mixed method examination of natural resource-related amenity growth. To address these concerns we present a framework informed by three complementary literatures (see Fig. 2.1) – social construction (cf. Berger and Luckmann 1967; Blumer 1969; Goffman 1974; Denzin 1970; Greider and Garkovich 1994; Bridger 1996), structural effects (Blau 1960, 1977; Miller 1976), and interactional effects (Kaufman 1959; Kaufman and Wilkinson 1967; Wilkinson 1970; Wilkinson 1991). The interdependence of socially constructed landscapes, the extant community structure, individual land parcel ownership, and the relationships among those living on these parcels with others and with the resources thereon is a core characteristic of this framework. We believe multi-level, temporal, and spatial analyses are facilitated by a perspective which capitalizes on information about the ways structural and interactional parameters influence the social construction of natural resources. Human ecologists, geographers, and community scholars have for many years explored social behavior, social organization, and institutional structure as these relate to spatial scale and context (cf. Galpin 1915; Kolb 1933; Lobao 1996). Space is an ever-present element in human interaction and interdependence (Hawley 1950). It plays a central role in the basic social relations characteristic of individuals at home, in a cafe, sitting on a park bench, at the beach or campground, or in a public park or forest (Burch 1965). Behavior shapes space, and at the same time space shapes behavior. How humans socially construct space gives the latter its identity.
Toward an Integrated Theoretical Perspective
21
Socially Constructed Landscapes Early scholars focused on spatial analyses of human behavior in order to understand the organization of rural life. For example, Galpin’s pioneering rural sociological work focused on rural trade centers and was premised on his belief that the survival of such communities depended upon a town’s relationship with its adjoining countryside. From his perspective, each trade center was surrounded by a zone of land, irregular in shape and subject to expansion and contraction with the ebb and flow of community growth (1915:6). Kolb (1933) both replicated this work and expanded it by studying patterns of social interaction among rural residents along a range of spatial dimensions. This helped him define rural social networks and identify trends in the growth and decline of socially constructed neighborhoods. Regional demographers, including Vance (1935), linked agricultural production regions with population and settlement and called them cultural landscapes. He believed such landscapes informed the configuration of socially constructed land forms (Vance 1935:14). More recent studies have focused on a variety of other settings. For example, Edgerton (1979) focused on the social order of a California beach. He noted its changing nature, with early morning use by families with children, late afternoons dominated by teenagers and other single adults, and early evening use by mature couples. Burch (1965) found the campground’s social order was defined by the dynamic nature of changing campers acting out various rituals. Lee’s urban park study (1972) indicated how people transformed recreational spaces into their own culture and experiences. Clark and Stankey (1979) suggested a social definition of place was established by linking the sociocultural background of campers to the extant local facilities. Similarly, Cheek et al. (1977) indicated a mutual influence of a group recreating and the kinds of facilities available led to social imprints on natural resources. Others have described the constructed landscapes of inner cities, including gang lands, no-man’s lands, night as frontier, and the differences in social order between neighborhood tavern and cocktail lounge (cf. Gottleib 1957; Melbin 1978; Whyte 1955). Clearly, the social meanings of space vary with time and season and the individual or group in that space. Janet Fitchen’s discussion of place and space in rural America nicely captured the essence of socially constructed landscapes: The land that makes up rural space includes … one’s privately owned land [and] entire landscape that surrounds people. [It] is a … space in which people operate … and … space has the power to modify activities that take place within it (1991:250–251).
From our perspective, space is best viewed as a biophysical environment which often acts as the backdrop or stage for human activities. The socially constructed landscape is inextricably linked and reciprocally related to the biophysical environment. Greider and Garkovich share this frame as indicated in their characterization of landscapes as “… symbolic environments created by the human act of conferring meaning to nature and the environment (1994:1).” Consistent with these approaches, we define socially constructed landscapes as spatial areas in which the sociocul tural and institutional structure has meaning for and frames and is framed by the
22
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
ecological questions being addressed. While much of our study focuses specifically on southwest Utah, these linkages between the sociocultural realm, the institutional realm, and the biophysical context are important across the Intermountain West as well as other areas with significant amenity and natural resource features. The landscape concept implies a diverse collection of social, cultural, and biological features linked across time and space. Moreover, social and biophysical landscapes are dynamic entities with changing meanings across temporal and spatial scales. Ecological meaning is drawn both from the product of the distribution of humans and of human behaviors in varying biophysical settings and from the influence of those settings on human and community behavior. For this reason, it is not our intent to broadly generalize. Equivalent human behavior does not have equivalent ecological implications across diverse biophysical settings. Nor do equivalent biophysical settings engender equivalent human behavior within a particular biophysical landscape; a diversity of cultural attributes, attitudes, and values significantly impact natural resource uses and conditions.
Structural Effects In a classic contribution to sociological theory, Peter Blau suggested the existence of two kinds of social facts (1960:178): The … first was the common values and norms embodied in culture or subculture, and the … second [was] embodied in the networks of social relations in which the processes of social interaction become organized and through which social positions of individuals and subgroups become differentiated.
Blau also distinguished macro attributes (community and cultural characteristics of the social structure) from individual behavior and values (see also Miller 1976). Further, he indicated there was a difference between a value’s prevalence in a community or group and whether an individual held that value (1960:180).3 We have interest in both sets of facts. The first provides an understanding of the context for human action, while the second focuses on the networks of social actors who make communities function. Both are central for addressing changes occurring in rural communities in amenity rich regions. The structural effects of these shifts have
This distinction is related to that discussed by Mills (1959) in The Sociological Imagination where he draws the important distinction between personal troubles and public issues – the former tied to the individual and the latter to larger society. Troubles are personal, routinely addressed within the individual’s local social environment, and typically involve threats to personally-held values (cf. Adams 1986; Coltrane and Hickman 1992; Summers and Brown 1998). On the other hand, issues are public. They move beyond the individual’s immediate social milieu to include a broader social setting, and are considered a threat to more widely-held values shared by individuals in a range of groups (Mills 1959; see also Adams 1986; Sacco 1995; Wolfmuller 2010).
3
Toward an Integrated Theoretical Perspective
23
direct consequences for public land management issues and require an ability to analytically distinguish values and behavior held by individuals from common values vested in the broader community or larger collective. Each must be considered separately. We also need a better understanding of the growing disconnect between new landowners in amenity rich areas and long-term residents. Seasonal and year-round residents own land for different reasons (Jennings 2009; Matarrita-Cascante et al. 2006, 2010; Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 2008). For high-amenity areas in and/or proximate to forests, an increasingly large percentage of housing growth and area development is associated with increased habitat fragmentation and land parcelization. This creates increased opportunities for new, different, and significantly more ownerships, exacerbating the difficulties of properly managing lands and resources (Egan and Luloff 2005). Similar breakup of subalpine, chaparral, and high desert landscapes creates similar issues in portions of the Intermountain West (Inman et al. 2002).
Interactional Effects Interactional theory begins with the assumption that the community is the primary setting for contact between the individual and society. While recognizing the massive changes in social life that have occurred since World War II, primarily associated with the urbanization, industrialization, and massification of society (cf. Nisbet 1953; Bell 1956, 1960; Mills 1956; Rosenberg and White 1957; Greer 1958; Shils 1972; Warren 1978; Luloff and Wilkinson 1990), and acknowledging that community is not the holistic, integrated unit it once was, the local community remains a critical aspect of people’s lives from an interactional perspective. This perspective routinely identifies three components: (1) a shared geographic territory or locale; (2) a local society comprised of social institutions, organizations, and associations; and (3) collective actions and mutual identity, usually emerging as a result of actors’ participation in associational action. Through the latter interactions people develop a social definition of self and beliefs about how society operates. As indicated by Wilkinson (1991:17): Community … is a natural disposition among people who interact … on matters that comprise a common life.
When people share a common life, a local orientation emerges. This orientation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for creating a shared, generalized bond, that “… cuts across and links special interest activities within the local territory” (Wilkinson 1991:37). When crosscutting and generalized bonds exist, special interest demands are minimized. Moreover, where collective community interests and actions are well-established, collaborative processes and broad-based cooperation in response to threats emerge more readily than in places dominated by special interests and fragmented communal ties.
24
2 Putting Rural Community Change in Perspective
Applying Our Conceptual Framework Our research illuminates how this social landscape framework can help to enhance an understanding of key patterns of change occurring across time, space, and dimensions of social organization. The five-county (Garfield, Iron, Kane, Washington, and Wayne) area in southwestern Utah that is the focus of detailed analysis in Chaps. 5–7 is characterized by vast tracts of public lands. Its eastern portions encompass parts of the Colorado Plateau, where high-desert sagebrush tracts are interspersed among towering red rock structures, deep slot canyons, and forested, snow-capped mountains. Extending westward, it encompasses both highelevation forested lands of the Markagunt Plateau and lower-elevation arid deserts representing a transition to the vast Basin and Range geographic province. Over time, some portions of this area have experienced limited biophysical and social landscape changes. To a large degree, these changes reflect management practices which preserved large tracts as undeveloped lands. These tracts have been used primarily for recreation or seasonal grazing, profiting from their remote locations.4 At the same time, other areas have experienced dramatic changes in population size, land use patterns, resource utilization, and social organization. This is particularly evident in and around Washington County. Fifty years ago this previously remote locale was a sparsely populated desert area with a combined county population of about 10,000. Then, economic activity was centered largely on irrigated agriculture along with the tourist trade associated with the presence of Zion National Park. However, conditions changed dramatically in subsequent years as high levels of retirement-age in-migration contributed to unprecedented rates of population growth and extensive land development activity in the city of St. George and extending beyond this growing urban center into surrounding areas of Washington County. Our framework highlights the importance of spatial context as a factor influencing patterns of growth and change at the landscape level. Located less than 5 hours south of the Salt Lake City metropolitan area, Washington County has become a popular warm-weather destination for golfers, recreationists, and retirees seeking a warmer place to live, whether year-round or seasonally. This location is also about a 2-hour drive northeast of Las Vegas and has become a popular destination for seasonal home owners and recreationists from there. The spatial transect approach can also be applied within a more localized area to illuminate patterns of human settlement and land development. For example, it can be used to demonstrate how growth
Recent work suggests United States housing growth in and near protected areas – places set aside for the conservation of species – has limited the effectiveness of such areas in attaining these ecological objectives (Radeloff et al. 2010). In their analysis, housing within 50 km of wilderness areas experienced a fourfold increase in the 1940–2010 period. More alarming was the more than fivefold growth in numbers of housing units within 1 km of a wilderness area. Clearly the social landscape has been significantly altered by the presence of high-amenity natural resource conditions, and by associated amenity-related growth and development. 4
Applying Our Conceptual Framework
25
centered in and around St. George now extends in all directions, especially northeast along the I-15 highway corridor toward the Virgin River corridor and Zion National Park, west toward a spatially distinct area of suburban development surrounding Santa Clara, and north toward an area of extensive second home development in the Pine Valley Mountains. Contemporary trends transforming formerly rural landscapes and surrounding expanses of public lands require integrated social and biological information if relevant policy formation by decision makers is to occur. The social organization of rural America has always been a story of the relations of people and natural resource systems. As noted elsewhere, rural sociologists have attempted to integrate biological systems to better understand human behavior on the land (Field et al. 2002). Our framework and the analytic chapters that follow are intended to facilitate further progress on this front.
Chapter 3
A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West*
Richard Krannich
Introduction As we have detailed in the preceding chapter, rural America has experienced unprecedented demographic and social changes over the past half-century. Rapid population growth has occurred in some areas, while at the same time other rural communities have experienced significant population decline and economic stagnation. These changes are altering the foundations of rural American communities and
*
Chapter authored by Rebecca Schewe, Donald R. Field, Richard S. Krannich, and A.E. Luloff.
R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_3, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
27
28
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West
reshaping their economic, social, and resource bases. This paradox of rural growth and change, in which some areas and locales prosper and at times grow too quickly while others wither, represents a crucial challenge to rural development policy and practice in the twenty-first century. In this chapter we examine 30 years of sociodemographic change in the Intermountain West region, highlighting the role of the environment and natural amenities in advancing growth and development. Consistent with the multi-level analytic strategies that inform our approach to this study, our focus in this chapter is initially on the region as a whole. After providing a regional overview, we shift the analytic scale to examine similarities and differences across eight spatially distinct physiographic provinces differentiated by terrain and topography across this vast and wide-ranging region. The findings detailed in the following pages highlight substantial variability in patterns of growth and change that occurred in recent decades across these physiographic provinces, and help illuminate some important ways in which spatially differentiated environmental and landscape contexts interact with and influence social and demographic conditions and trends. In brief, those physiographic pro vinces advantaged by a concentration of highly desirable natural amenities – the Rocky Mountains and the Colorado Plateaus – consistently demonstrate high levels of growth and development. In contrast, the less amenity-rich Great Plains and Wyoming Basin provinces have struggled to capture their share of population and economic growth. The variation in sociodemographic change patterns observed across the physiographic provinces of the Intermountain West reaffirms the important role of resource conditions, natural amenities, and recreation opportunities as major drivers of population growth and development in modern rural America.
The Intermountain West The western portion of the United States has experienced rapid population growth during recent decades, moving from the least populous region in 1980 to the thirdmost populated region in the nation by 1990 (Perry 2002). This rapid growth continued through the 1990s, with Park, Elbert, and Douglas counties, Colorado, registering the highest rates of growth within the region during the decade, and Maricopa County, Arizona, and Clark County, Nevada, registering the largest numerical increases. In terms of population loss during the 1990s, however, the two largest declines in the West occurred in Sweetwater and Carbon Counties, Wyoming (Perry 2002), both of which had previously experienced extensive growth related to energy resource development during the 1970s and 1980s. In this sense, the western United States helps define the rural paradox, simultaneously demonstrating growth and decline across spatially-differentiated locales throughout the region. Our focus in this chapter is on the Intermountain West, a region exemplifying the full spectrum of economic and sociodemographic transformations affecting much of rural America. The Intermountain West includes portions of Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana and contains some of the nation’s most rapidly
Methods
29
expanding rural areas (portions of Colorado and Utah), as well as agricultural areas of the Great Plains that have experienced sharp and sustained decline. The area is home to the Rocky Mountains, Yellowstone National Park, and thousands of acres of public forests, parks, monuments, and lands with unique natural resources that have been and remain highly important in shaping the economies and the social structures of rural communities throughout the region.
Methods All data used for analysis in this chapter are drawn from the United States Decennial Census for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. The historical census data were derived from the GeoLytics census software packages for 1970 and 1980; 1990 and 2000 data were obtained through the Census Bureau’s web-resource, American Fact Finder. For the purposes of the ensuing analysis, we defined the nonmetropolitan Intermountain West at the county level, excluding metropolitan counties surrounding Salt Lake City, Utah, and Boise, Idaho. In total, the nonmetropolitan Intermountain West includes 134 counties, with 130 of those counties classified into a primary physiographic province constituting at least two-thirds of the county’s land area. Key sociodemographic data were initially analyzed at both a state and physiographic provincial level.1 The variables of comparison included: total population, population 65 years of age or older, total number of housing units, number of vacant housing units for seasonal or recreational use, percent of the population with at least 1 year of college education, median family income, and families with incomes over $50,000. Our analysis is based upon the physiographic regions of the United States as defined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) North American Tapestry Project. The spatial data for these regions were also provided by the Project.2 The USGS classifications are based on Nevin Fenneman’s 1931 report on the physiographic regions of the United States and utilize his three-tiered classification system. We chose to perform our analysis at the provincial level in order to balance the specificity and diversity of the area’s regions with the need for identifying generalizable trends. Provincial categories provided the most appropriate level of geographically specific data upon which to base our analysis and conclusions.
After analyzing the data with counties grouped at the state level versus counties grouped by physiographic province, we determined the physiographic level better represented the patterns of change. There were more similarities among counties within the same physiographic province than among counties within the same state. 2 The Basin and Range province contains 11 counties, Colorado Plateaus 23, Columbia Plateau 17, Great Plains 9, Wyoming Basin 8, Northern Rocky Mountains 34, Middle Rocky Mountains 14, and Southern Rocky Mountains 16 counties. Within the Intermountain West, the largest land area is in the Northern Rocky Mountains, followed by the Colorado Plateaus, with the Southern Rocky Mountains having the smallest surface area. 1
30
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West
Patterns of Change at the Regional Level The Intermountain West experienced important changes over the last 30 years of the twentieth century, exemplified by a number of basic sociodemographic shifts. The region’s population increased from 1.6 million people in 1970 to almost 2.8 million in 2000. This 68% growth was nearly double the national growth rate during the same period (38.43%). The largest growth rates occurred during the 1970s and 1990s. Rural portions of the Intermountain West experienced substantial population growth over this period – indeed, rural areas as a whole grew significantly faster than their urban counterparts, a fact often lost in popular understandings of rural America. Table 3.1 summarizes the sociodemographic changes for the five states, the portions of the states included in the Intermountain West region, and the comparison to national rates of change. The Intermountain West also experienced growth of over 118% in the number of residents of retirement age, 65 years or older. In many ways this change mirrors the aging of the U.S. population overall as baby boomers continue to move through the life course. The U.S. population 65 years and older totaled 8,436,167 persons in 1970. That number grew to 34,991,753 in 2000, a 315% increase over 30 years. By comparison, over the same time period, the Intermountain West has clearly experienced a smaller increase (118%) in the number of people over 65. Nevertheless, growth in the retirement-age population has outpaced overall growth within the region (68%) over this time span, a pattern of change that has contributed
Table 3.1 Percentage change in key sociodemographic indictors from 1970 to 2000 for states and portions of states in the Intermountain West region At least Median family Housing Seasonal units housing Population Pop. > = 65 1 year college incomea Colorado 94.90% 131.80% 21.10% 209.61% 138.80% 478.50% IMW 98.60% 132.60% 18.50% 143.01% 168.10% 757.90% Colorado Idaho 81.60% 125.40% 15.90% 166.75% 115.70% 394.20% IMW Idaho 59.80% 115.80% 15.00% 133.76% 92.90% 383.20% Montana 29.90% 82.40% 16.60% 138.63% 67.30% 378.80% IMW 39.10% 89.90% 18.50% 107.55% 81.30% 398.10% Montana Utah 110.80% 157.90% 15.90% 183.27% 143.40% 765.90% IMW Utah 123.40% 177.90% 12.70% 126.69% 170.70% 1019.90% Wyoming 48.50% 97.90% 16.50% 109.22% 92.40% 821.00% IMW 49.40% 103.50% 16.50% 97.77% 96.10% 732.30% Wyoming IMW Total 67.80% 118.20% 16.30% 156.25% 112.50% 595.20% Total U.S. 38.43% 315.00% 88.36% 60.00% 68.75% 105.00% a Median family income represents the change from 1980 to 2000
Patterns of Change at the Regional Level
31
to a reshaping of Intermountain West economies and communities. As the population ages and as in-migration of retirees increases, the human face of the Intermountain West has inevitably shifted as well. Tied to its rapid population growth, the Intermountain West also experienced substantial growth in the number of housing units between 1970 and 2000. Housing units more than doubled during the study period, a level of increase that significantly surpassed the region’s overall population growth. The difference is explained in large part by the considerably more rapid growth in seasonal housing units in the Intermountain West. The number of seasonal housing units increased from less than 19,000 in 1970 to nearly 130,000 in 2000, nearly seven times the number of units that existed 30 years earlier. The most rapid growth occurred during the 1980s. This is indicative of a dramatic increase in the number of parttime residents across the region. Such growth in seasonal populations has been shown to have important consequences for the structure and function of rural areas, contributing to changing local economic bases and a diversification of populations that can simultaneously enhance and detract from community capa city and local quality of life. While seasonal population growth can contribute to new economic opportunities as demand for housing construction and goods and services expands, there is also potential for a variety of less positive consequences. For example, growth in the number of seasonal residents may generate both economic and social strains in settings where property values and taxes increase or where differences in values and preferences about community conditions, environmental and resource use and management priorities, and cultural traditions contribute to clashes between new populations and long-term residents (Clendenning and Field 2005; Stynes et al. 1998; Stedman 2002; Egan and Luloff 2000; Krannich and Petrzelka 2003; Krannich et al. 2006; Krannich and Smith 1998; Smith and Krannich 2000). The Intermountain West has also seen a dramatic spike in family income levels as new residents moved into the area. From 1980 to 2000, median household income more than doubled, well above the 60% increase for the nation as a whole. Also, there were more than ten times the number of families reporting incomes above $50,000 in 2000 than in 1970. Overall, the growth in income levels reflects substantially increased economic vitality that has simultaneously resulted from and helped to stimulate population growth across the region over the past several decades. During this period, the region also experienced an increase in the percentage of residents with at least 1 year of college education, although the increase was fairly modest and considerably below what occurred for the nation as a whole over the past three decades. In 1970, fewer than 15% of residents across the region had this level of education, compared to 30.13% in 2000. The most dramatic increases in educational attainment occurred during the 1970s, a period when population growth and in-migration to the region were unusually high. This is consistent with general and well-documented tendencies for migration to be more prevalent among persons with higher levels of educational attainment.
32
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West
Physiographic Provinces of the Intermountain West The Intermountain West encompasses a broad spectrum of geomorphic or physiographic regions, each characterized by its own rock types, geographic structure, terrain, and history. Based upon Fenneman’s (1931) divisions, the Intermountain West encompasses all or portions of eight physiographic provinces: the Basin and Range, the Colorado Plateaus, the Columbia Plateau, the Great Plains, the Wyoming Basin, and the Northern, Middle, and Southern Rocky Mountains. These eight provinces span our study area, representing the diverse environments found within the Intermountain West. The locations of each of these spatially distinct provinces are depicted in Fig. 3.1. The Basin and Range province lies west and south of the Colorado and Colombia Plateaus, stretching across the western United States south into Mexico. In our study area, it includes western Utah and a portion of southeastern Idaho. The province is bounded by the Sierra Nevada mountain range on the west, the Columbia Plateau to the north/northeast, and the Colorado Plateaus to the south/southeast. The Basin and Range province is climatically distinguished by its aridity and extremely low precipitation; overall the province is the driest place in the United States. The province contains several key amenity features of interest, including portions of the Dixie, Fishlake, Uinta, Wasatch, Cache, Caribou, and Sawtooth National Forests; Great Basin National Park; the Great Salt Lake; and several reservoirs and intermittent lakes (Fenneman 1931; USGS 2008). Approximately 4.2% of the population is employed in tourism and recreation, four times as many as are employed in extractive industries. The Colorado Plateaus province encompasses southern and southeastern Utah and western Colorado. The boundaries of the province are defined by steep changes in elevation from the Basin and Range and Wyoming Basin provinces and from the high mountains of the Middle and Southern Rocky Mountains provinces. The pro vince’s magnificent canyons and red rock formations are geologically young features resulting from dramatic erosion of the province’s hard rocks encouraged by terrain uplift. The Intermountain West portions of the Colorado Plateaus province include a number of major recreation destination areas and amenity features of interest, including Zion, Capitol Reef, Canyonlands and Arches National Parks; Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; Canyon De Chelly and El Malpais National Monuments; and several national forests. This province is home to many of the Intermountain West’s most distinguishing features and areas of high recreation potential (Fenneman 1931; USGS 2008). More than any other area of the nation, it has experienced significant growth in tourism and recreation-driven employment – to the point that such jobs were held by about 12% of the employed population by 2000. The Columbia Plateau is the last province within the Intermontane Plateaus division. It encompasses about 100,000 square miles of land and is bounded by the Cascade Mountains on the west and the Rocky Mountains to the north and east, with the Great Basin to the south. In our study area it encompasses the western and southwestern portions of Idaho. This province holds the Sawtooth and Payette
Physiographic Provinces of the Intermountain West
33
Fig. 3.1 The Intermountain West physiographic provinces
National Forests and the Craters of the Moon and the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monuments (Fenneman 1931; USGS 2008). Less than 1% of employment in this province involves work in tourism-based sectors. The Great Plains physiographic province stretches from the Canadian border beginning in Montana and North Dakota south to west-central Texas. In our study area, the Great Plains province covers the easternmost edge of the Intermountain
34
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West
West region – portions of Wyoming and Montana. The most striking feature of the Great Plains province is its exceptional flatness, with an eastern tilt to the landscape. The province has historically been dominated by agriculture and ranching, and has maintained this traditional base. The Great Plains province includes portions of the Lewis and Clark National Forest and several smaller state and local parks; it is home to the fewest public lands and parks in the study area (Fenneman 1931; USGS 2008). In contrast to the tourism-dependent provinces, extractive industries remain a significant portion of the economy, with over 15% of the population employed in agriculture. The Wyoming Basin province interrupts the higher elevation landforms that characterize much of the Rocky Mountain system. It is a deep basin of nearly 40,000 square miles located in the center of an otherwise mountainous region. The Wyoming Basin covers central and southern Wyoming and a portion of northeastern Colorado. The basin contains the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area and portions of the Bridger, White River, Medicine Bow, Routt, Ashley, and Wasatch National Forests (Fenneman 1931; USGS 2008). The Wyoming Basin also continues to maintain significant extractive employment, with more than twice as many employed adults in the extractive industry as in tourism-based employment. The Northern Rocky Mountains physiographic province includes the portion of the Rocky Mountain range located north of Yellowstone Park and extending toward the Canadian border. This mountainous province covers all of northern and western Idaho and the majority of Montana within our study area. The province contains significant natural resources that have been a variable focus of economic activity and development over time, including an important lead industry, vast expanses of timber, and substantial tracts of agricultural lands located within the basins and river valleys. It is home to several areas of extremely high recreation potential, including Glacier National Park, while nearly two-thirds of its land area falls within the boundaries of multiple national forests. In 2000, over 10% of the labor force in the province was employed directly in tourism-based industries (Fenneman 1931; USGS 2008). The Middle Rocky Mountains province covers the portion of the Rocky Mountain range extending from the Yellowstone Plateau to the Wyoming Basin. It covers the northern and western borders of Wyoming, the northeast corner of Utah, the southeast corner of Idaho, the south-central border of Montana, and a small portion of the northwest corner of Colorado. The Yellowstone Plateau is the most prominent feature of the province. This province includes some of the most popular recreation areas of the United States. Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and several national and state forests are located in this portion of the study area. Yellowstone National Park alone attracts approximately three million visitors annually, making it one of the nation’s most popular parks. Grand Teton averages over two million visitors per year and is also a nationally and internationally important recreation destination. Tourism has become a major component of the economic base of the province, employing twice the number of persons as was the case in traditional extractive industries as of 2000 (Fenneman 1931; USGS 2008).
Patterns of Change Across the Physiographic Provinces
35
The Southern Rocky Mountains province includes the portion of the Rocky Mountain range bordered by the Wyoming Basin to the north, the Basin and Range province to the south, the Great Plains to the east, and the Colorado Plateaus to the west. It covers the eastern portion of Colorado and the southeastern corner of Wyoming. The province is home to several of the nation’s largest and most popular downhill ski resort destinations, including Crested Butte, Aspen, Breckenridge, Vail, and Winter Park. The province contains Rocky Mountain National Park, the most heavily visited park within our study area (over three million visitors annually), and contains large public land areas administered by the Pike, Roosevelt, White Mountain and several other national forests (Fenneman 1931; USGS 2008). It includes several important areas for our study that exhibit extremely high recreation potential. Within this physiographic province, employment in tourism-related businesses is now more than five times greater than for extractive industries that at one time represented the dominant sources of employment across the province and the region.
Patterns of Change Across the Physiographic Provinces The varied experiences of the Intermountain West’s physiographic provinces can be used to illustrate the uneven patterns of growth and development that characterize the rural paradox. Each province has exhibited its own types and rates of change during the 30-year time period considered in our analysis. Amenity-rich areas have generally experienced rapid and dramatic growth, while other areas without such amenity endowments have often struggled to maintain populations and sustain traditional economies. The variation across physiographic provinces indicates the growing importance of resource-driven migration and development as urbanites, retirees, and seasonal residents increasingly make relocation decisions based upon quality-of-life factors. For each of the comparisons presented in the remainder of this chapter we present data on change patterns in terms of both absolute numbers and percentage change. The tables present information on percentage change over time, while information presented in charts focuses on numerical change. It is important to examine both sets of information, because of the significant variation in baseline conditions across the provinces. For example, the starting population of the Northern Rocky Mountains province in 1970 was 456,222. In contrast, the starting population of the Southern Rocky Mountains province in 1970 was only 78,171. Because of these dramatically different baselines, analyzing solely percentage changes can be misleading, as the smaller denominator for the Southern Rocky Mountains leads to much higher percentage changes relative to those that would occur in the Northern Rocky Mountains when numerical increases are similar. By including both sets of change measures, a more clear-cut picture of both relative and absolute change can be presented. Population. Findings highlighted in Table 3.2 and Fig. 3.2 reveal that while no province of the Intermountain West experienced net population decline over the
36
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West
Table 3.2 Percent change in population, by province
Basin and Range Colorado Plateaus Columbia Plateau Great Plains Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Middle Rocky Southern Rocky Total U.S.
70–80 30% 44% 24% 5% 60% 24% 34% 31%
80–90 16% 9% 3% −3% −12% 5% 12% 14%
90–00 39% 16% 16% 6% 8% 39% 32% 43%
70–00 108% 82% 47% 8% 52% 80% 98% 114% 38%
Population Growth by province 900000
Total Population in province
800000 700000
Basin and Range
600000
Columbia Plateau
Colorado Plateau Great Plains
500000
Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Mountains
400000
Middle Rocky Mountains
300000
Southern Rocky Mountains
200000 100000 0 1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Fig. 3.2 Change in total population, by province
30-year period, there has been considerable variation across the provinces in rates of growth. The lowest growth, less that 8% overall, was in the Great Plains province. Overall, the Plains areas within the Intermountain West region have maintained their population over this period, and experienced no significant growth. In contrast, the Northern, Middle, and Southern Rocky Mountain provinces, the Colorado Plateaus, and the Basin and Range province each experienced major percentage increases in population during this 30-year period, at 80%, 98%, 114%, 82%, and 108%, respectively. The Wyoming Basin, Great Plains, and Columbia Plateau provinces experienced the smallest percentage growth in population. There is also significant provincial variation with respect to growth in the retirement age population. As indicated in Table 3.3 and Fig. 3.3, the highest growth rate occurred in the Basin and Range province, where the population age 65 and older increased consistently over the entire 30-year period considered here. In contrast,
Patterns of Change Across the Physiographic Provinces Table 3.3 Percent change in population age 65 and older, by province
Basin and Range Colorado Plateaus Columbia Plateau Great Plains Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Middle Rocky Southern Rocky Total U.S.
37 70–80 46% 40% 41% 24% 27% 36% 38% 27%
80–90 41% 31% 16% 13% 29% 22% 15% 28%
90–00 46% 26% 17% 21% 29% 45% 29% 42%
70–00 200% 132% 92% 70% 111% 142% 105% 132% 315%
Retiree Population by Province 120000
Total Population in province
100000
Basin and Range Colorado Plateau
80000
Columbia Plateau Great Plains Wyoming Basin
60000
Northern Rocky Mountains Middle Rocky Mountains
40000
Southern Rocky Mountains
20000
0 1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Fig. 3.3 Change in total population age 65 and older, by province
the Great Plains province once again registered the lowest rate of change and lowest absolute change, reflecting the overall lower level of population growth linked to in-migration in this portion of the study region. Although all provinces fell below the national growth rate of 315%, there was clearly significant variation across the provinces with respect to their ability to attract and retain population in the 65 years and older age bracket. Table 3.4 and Fig. 3.4 depict changes across the eight physiographic provinces in the percentage of the population with at least 1 year of college-level education. The largest increases occurred in the Southern Rocky Mountains province, where the percentage of the adult population with this level of educational attainment grew from under 15% in 1970 to nearly 40% by 2000. The lowest increase in this indicator of educational attainment occurred in the Columbia Plateau province,
38
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West
Table 3.4 Percent change in the percentage of the adult population with at least 1 year of college-level education, by province
Basin and Range Colorado Plateaus Columbia Plateau Great Plains Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Middle Rocky Southern Rocky Total U.S.
70–80 10% 11% 11% 9% 11% 12% 13% 21%
80–90 4% 5% 3% 6% 6% 5% 3% 3%
90–00 −1% 0% −1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2%
70–00 13% 16% 12% 16% 17% 18% 17% 26% 88%
College Educated Population by Province 45.00%
Total Population in province
40.00% Basin and Range
35.00%
Colorado Plateau 30.00%
Columbia Plateau Great Plains
25.00%
Wyoming Basin
20.00%
Northern Rocky Mountains Middle Rocky Mountains
15.00%
Southern Rocky Mountains
10.00% 5.00% 0.00%
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Fig. 3.4 Change in the percentage of the adult population with at least 1 year of college-level education, by province
where increases observed during the 1970s tapered off during the 1980s and shifted into a period of modest decline during the 1990s. There was a statistically significant difference in this change pattern among the provinces, with the Rocky Mountain provinces leading the pace in terms of increased educational attainment, followed again by the Colorado Plateaus. Like the Intermountain West generally, all eight provinces experienced significant growth in median household income during the study period. As the data summarized in Table 3.5 reveal, the largest percentage increase occurred in the Basin and Range province, while the Wyoming Basin and Great Plains provinces experienced the lowest increases in median incomes. Further, as indicated in Fig. 3.5, the Basin and Range and Colorado Plateaus provinces had more than 30 times the
Patterns of Change Across the Physiographic Provinces Table 3.5 Percent change in median household income, by province
Basin and Range Colorado Plateaus Columbia Plateau Great Plains Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Middle Rocky Southern Rocky Total U.S.
39 80–90 75.84% 60.90% 64.74% 55.43% 28.38% 50.40% 56.62% 56.09%
90–00 44.16% 50.77% 46.00% 28.61% 41.54% 43.54% 55.53% 50.37%
80–00 153.49% 142.59% 140.51% 99.90% 81.71% 115.89% 143.59% 134.72% 60.00%
Number of Families with income > = $50,000 by province
Total Population in province
90000 80000 Basin and Range Colorado Plateau Columbia Plateau Great Plains Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Mountains Middle Rocky Mountains Southern Rocky Mountains
70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Fig. 3.5 Change in the number of families with income above $50,000, by province
number of families with incomes over $50,000 in 2000 as was the case in 1970, a shift substantially beyond what occurred in the region’s other provinces. Again, the Great Plains province experienced the lowest growth in terms of actual median income and number of families with incomes over $50,000. Housing. All provinces in the Intermountain West study region experienced housing growth during 1970–2000, but there were important differences amongst them (see Table 3.6 and Fig. 3.6). The number of housing units in the Southern Rocky Mountains province more than tripled during this period, while the Great Plains province experienced only a 39% increase and the smallest absolute increase with most occurring during the 1970–1980 period. Along with the Great Plains, the Columbia Plateau and Wyoming Basin also lagged well behind the other provinces with respect to increases in the number of housing units over this period. In absolute terms, the Northern Rocky Mountains had the highest increase in the number of housing units, but it had only the fourth highest percentage change because of its significantly higher baseline in 1970. However, the Northern, Middle, and Southern
40
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West
Table 3.6 Percent change in the total number of housing units, by province
Basin and Range Colorado Plateaus Columbia Plateau Great Plains Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Middle Rocky Southern Rocky Total U.S.
70–80 46.50% 61.55% 38.70% 25.19% 82.37% 47.24% 55.59% 97.12%
80–90 22.86% 20.92% 5.42% 2.77% 3.39% 12.72% 21.57% 31.74%
90–00 37.95% 15.49% 16.41% 7.94% 6.51% 37.97% 29.98% 24.26%
70–00 148.30% 125.60% 70.20% 38.87% 100.82% 128.98% 145.88% 222.70% 68.75%
Housing Unit Growth by Province 450000
Total Population in province
400000 Basin and Range
350000
Colorado Plateau 300000
Columbia Plateau Great Plains
250000
Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Mountains
200000
Middle Rocky Mountains 150000
Southern Rocky Mountains
100000 50000 0 1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Fig. 3.6 Change in the total number of housing units, by province
Rocky Mountains and the Basin and Range provinces all experienced significant growth of housing in both percentage and absolute terms. Finally, as is evident from the data summarized in Table 3.7 and Fig. 3.7, all provinces exhibited growth in seasonal housing units at a rate substantially greater than their population growth. At the same time, variation across the individual provinces was substantial. The outliers with respect to this indicator were the Great Plains and Northern Rockies provinces, with by far the lowest rates of seasonal housing growth. The Northern Rocky Mountains province actually had the second highest absolute growth in seasonal housing, behind only the Southern Rocky Mountains, but had the highest baseline level in 1970. The Great Plains, in contrast, had the lowest growth both in terms of percentage and absolute units. This is why it is important to analyze both percentage and absolute change over time. The Basin
Conclusions
41
Table 3.7 Percent change in the number of vacant housing units designated for seasonal/ recreational use, by province
Basin and Range Colorado Plateaus Columbia Plateau Great Plains Wyoming Basin Northern Rocky Middle Rocky Southern Rocky Total U.S.
70–80 110% 25% 116% 17% 70% −15% −13% 267%
80–90 345% 401% 190% 295% 315% 321% 540% 140%
90–00 53% 19% 28% 1% 3% 22% 55% 12%
70–00 1,332% 649% 702% 366% 628% 337% 759% 885% 105.00%
Seasonal Housing Units by Province 40000
Total Population in province
35000 Basin and Range 30000
Colorado Plateau Columbia Plateau
25000
Great Plains Wyoming Basin
20000
Northern Rocky Mountains
15000
Middle Rocky Mountains Southern Rocky Mountains
10000 5000 0 1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Fig. 3.7 Change in the number of vacant housing units designated for seasonal/recreational use, by province
and Range province exhibited the largest percentage increase in seasonal housing. In all areas other than the Southern Rockies, seasonal housing growth occurred most rapidly during the 1980s, while the rate of increase declined sharply across all provinces during the 1990s.
Conclusions Comparing sociodemographic conditions and trends across the distinctively diffe rent physiographic provinces of the Intermountain West region enables us to better understand how spatial variations in geography and natural amenities influence
42
3 A Sociodemographic Portrait of the Intermountain West
patterns of social and demographic change in rural regions. While it is clear the human face of the Intermountain West is changing, it is also clear that sociodemographic changes have not occurred equally across provinces. In subsequent chapters we further explore differences among communities throughout the Intermountain West and the spatial patterns of variation that characterize this complex and rapidly changing region. Portions of the Intermountain West that fall on the “upside” of the rural paradox have experienced unprecedented growth and change over the past 30 years. These areas have attracted a different, more educated, and wealthier population base. Their populations have increased dramatically, and aged even more dramatically as factors contributing to general population growth seem also to be contributing to growth in the retirement-age population. The seasonal housing boom is also reshaping economic and social networks of some rural areas as they become increasingly dependent upon seasonal residents for work and tax support while at the same time experiencing growth-related strains and social tensions. These changes, along with variation demonstrated across physiographic provinces in the increasing percentages of college-educated adults, have undoubtedly contributed to significant shifts in the social dynamics of many regional communities. The Intermountain West, as a whole, is indeed transitioning to become a New West (see Riebsame et al. 1997; Travis 2007), with economic, demographic, and social conditions changing rapidly as it grows and develops. Examining these key sociodemographic variables by both percentage growth and changes in total numbers, it is evident the Southern Rocky Mountains, Basin and Range, and Northern Rocky Mountains provinces have consistently experienced the highest levels of growth and change over the past three decades. These portions of the Intermountain West region share two critically important attributes – indisputable aesthetic qualities and abundant recreation potential. The dominance of public lands in the Northern Rocky Mountains and the combination of public lands and private ski resorts located in the Southern Rocky Mountains contribute to their attractiveness as high-amenity areas. The Basin and Range Province is also dominated by extensive public land areas and scenic vistas offering great potential for amenity-driven development and growth. The consistently high growth of the Middle Rocky Mountains, Colorado Plateaus, and Columbia Plateau, all of which also contain high amenity areas with aesthetic and recreational value, further demonstrates the significance of the natural environment in driving rural growth and change. Those provinces with natural resource conditions that dovetail with the socially constructed ideals of urban-origin in-migrants and seasonal homeowners seeking beautiful natural environments in which to escape city life and practice their preferred recreation activities are experiencing the most rapid rates of change. On the “downside” of the rural paradox, the Great Plains province has consistently exhibited the lowest growth overall, and the least evidence of changes linked to the emergence of a New West. The lagging of the Great Plains province supports our conceptualization of the role of natural resources and amenity factors as key drivers of sociodemographic change. In short, relative to other portions of this region, the Plains area simply has less to offer in terms of unique, culturally valued,
Conclusions
43
high-amenity natural resources and landscapes; as a result, this subregion has not experienced the rapid growth observed elsewhere in our study area. This is the paradox of rural America: exceptional growth tends to occur in some locales even as simple survival becomes a concern in neighboring areas. The provincial differences in growth and change evident across the Intermountain West illustrate the ways in which sociodemographic change is tied to the natural resources of an area. The demographic and social changes affecting parts of rural America on both sides of the rural paradox are driven and shaped by the specific natural resources available in spatially-differentiated locales. As Americans increasingly make location decisions based on quality-of-life indicators linked to natural amenities, we can expect such patterns of change to persist and, perhaps, strengthen. The implications of this change for rural communities are vast, as some struggle to maintain their populations and build new economic bases while others attempt to control forces of rapid growth and change that can at times threaten cultural traditions, adversely impact environmental conditions, and overwhelm the adaptive capacity of local social structures.
Chapter 4
“Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective*
Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Utah State University
Introduction: A Transforming Rural Imagery As we documented in the preceding chapter, the Intermountain West region has experienced substantial and sustained demographic, social, economic, and cultural change for more than 30 years. These shifts have been so significant as to have led *
Chapter authored by Richelle Winkler, Donald R. Field, A.E. Luloff, and Richard S. Krannich. An earlier version of this chapter was published in Rural Sociology 72 (3): 478–501, 2007; some of that content appears here with the permission of the Rural Sociological Society. We would like to extend our appreciation to Bill Buckingham of the Applied Population Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for his excellent cartographic work and for calculating spatial distances.
R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_4, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
45
46
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective
to a purported transformation from an Old West economy and culture to what has been coined the “New West” (Abbott et al. 1997; Nash 1993; Rudzitis 1993; Riebsame et al. 1997; Durrant and Shumway 2004; Rasker 1995; Robbins et al. 2009; Travis 2007; Wright et al. 2003). Ranches, timberlands, dusty cattle drives, and sleepy, homogenous communities are routinely included in Old West images. By contrast, the New West is associated with the arrival of diverse new populations with substantially different backgrounds and life-ways – urban in-migrants wearing Patagonia fleece and western jeans, professionals working remotely from distant urban and metropolitan centers, retirees seeking a life-style tied to the natural environment and slower pace of country living, and seasonal residents dividing their time between city and country. The relatively rapid migration of such people into selective locations has contributed to a transformation of the region’s small and rural places. Many have become homes to new professional businesses and an expanded array of tourism, construction, and consumer service industries, reflecting a fundamental shift from the extractive industries historically dominant in a region where natural resource dependency has been a common attribute of most rural areas. Second homes, condominiums, and ‘trophy home’ developments have become increasingly common as both year-round and seasonal residents are drawn to the recreational and aesthetic values of the region’s natural landscapes and the quality-of-life attributes associated with rural settings. Not all of these changes have occurred to the same extent in communities across the Intermountain West (Robbins et al. 2009). Some remain oriented towards a more traditional western economy and lifestyle, even as others exhibit few connections to their historical natural resource and cultural backgrounds. This chapter explores the economic and demographic patterns that have come to differentiate Old West areas where more traditional economic and social structures remain largely intact from places recently characterized by New West social, demographic, and economic changes. We do this by analyzing socioeconomic data for communities in the Intermountain West to identify typical structures associated with Old and New West communities. We construct a continuum that measures the extent to which rural communities present more Old or New West characteristics at the time of the 2000 Census. The chapter ends with an identification of key ‘hot spots’ where at the beginning of the new century amenity resource conditions have stimulated especially high levels of in-migration, development, and socioeconomic change.
Exemplary Communities Situated where the Swan River runs into Flathead Lake (the largest natural freshwater lake west of the Mississippi), Bigfork, Montana, is a prototypical New West community. Bigfork is one of those picturesque places where people who might otherwise simply drive through on their way to Glacier National Park decide to
Old West and New West
47
stop and spend a few hours, a few days, or a lifetime. It was recently named one of the 50 Great Towns in the West, one of the 100 Best Small Art Towns, and recognized in National Geographic’s Guide to Small Town Escapes. Bigfork’s upscale boutiques, restaurants, art galleries, repertory theater, coffee shops, outdoor recreation opportunities, and scenic views attract recreationists, retirees, second-home owners, boaters, artists, golfers, and other seekers of scenic small-town charm. Like many western communities, Bigfork was initially organized and populated around the use and development of natural resources. It was founded in 1901 in conjunction with the construction of a dam, hydroelectric plant, and road by Bigfork Power and Light. The dam and heavy logging in the local area supported the economic development of the community. It wasn’t until the 1980s and especially the 1990s that Bigfork became a chic destination (www.bigfork.org/bigfork-profile). Today, it is a quintessential New West community of about 1,400 year-round residents. About 30 miles north of Bigfork and just 10 miles east of Glacier National Park, another group of communities founded in conjunction with hydroelectric development and logging lie along the northern shore of Hungry Horse Reservoir. While the communities of Hungry Horse (population 934), Martin City (population 331), and Coram (population 337) attract some tourists and outdoor recreationists, not many of these visitors invest in the community long term. These Hungry Horse area communities have few second homes and have experienced little in-migration from more urban areas. They remain deeply connected to the logging and hydroelectric industries and typify what many people think of as a more traditional western “cowboy” culture. In contrast to Bigfork, the Hungry Horse area communities are “likely to be overlooked as visitors make their way onward to Glacier National Park” (http://www.hungryhorse-montana.com). The Hungry Horse area, despite experiencing some tourism-related development and change in the last 20 years, remains rooted in the cultural and economic traditions of the Old West. Bigfork and the Hungry Horse area exemplify two very different types of communities in today’s Intermountain West. Bigfork is an “Aspenized” place – where middle- and upper-class people from around the world vacation, purchase second homes, and/or relocate. It is similar to other western communities like Keystone, Colorado; Park City, Utah; and Sun Valley, Idaho. On the other hand, the Hungry Horse area is the kind of place where local folks continue to make a modest living from local natural resource assets. It is similar to many small towns across the American West that maintain a more traditional character, including Minersville, Utah, and Riverton, Wyoming. These two kinds of places are different demographically, socially, economically, and culturally – moreover, they simply feel different.
Old West and New West In recent decades, and especially during the 1990s, nonmetropolitan counties endowed with rich natural amenities and recreation resources located across the United States have experienced substantially higher rates of in-migration and
48
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective
population growth than either metropolitan counties or other nonmetropolitan counties across the United States (McGranahan 1999; Johnson and Beale 2002). The growth and change occurring in high-amenity areas created distinctively new and vibrant social and economic conditions in those settings, a sharp contrast to the conditions evident in areas that remained dependent on more traditional commodity production and extractive industries or were located in regions characterized by the stagnation and despair of persistent rural poverty (Hamilton et al. 2008). While a surge in amenity-driven growth has been evident across several distinct regions of rural America, the Mountain West region experienced especially rapid population growth due to amenity-based in-migration (McGranahan 1999; Otterstrom and Shumway 2003; Travis 2007). As with the late 1970s and early 1980s migration research conducted on the nonmetropolitan population turnaround in the United States (Fuguitt et al. 1998; Wardwell and Copp 1997; Johnson 1993; Johnson and Beale 1994), recent research on amenity-driven growth in the New West indicates people migrated to this region largely for non-economic reasons, and that quality of life factors dominated migration decisions (Cromartie 1998; Williams and Jobes 1990; Rudzitis 1999; Beyers and Nelson 2000; Jones et al. 2003). As new seasonal and permanent migrants moved to the Intermountain West or relocated from metropolitan to nonmetropolitan areas within the region, they contributed to major transformations within it. Research has found that New West changes affect community social structure (Travis 2007), economic well-being (Power 1996; Power and Barret 2001), cultural conditions (Travis 2007; Jobes 1995), and land uses (Robbins et al. 2009; Gosnell et al. 2007). Areas affected by in-migration and new development are likely to witness the emergence of new types and forms of social interaction and organization. The arrival of new residents, with their diverse organizational and leadership skills, has the potential to contribute to a larger critical mass of residents needed to reinvigorate local organizations and institutions and can enhance community capacity and well-being. At the same time, population growth and change also regularly places new demands and strains on informal social structures as well as public institutions and formal organizations. Moreover, it is not uncommon for the values, attitudes, beliefs, and morals of longstanding rural residents to clash with those of newcomers (Johnson 2003; Rudzitis 1999; Salamon 2003; Smith and Krannich 2000), contributing to strains that reduce the potential for civic engagement and limit capacity for collective action in the pursuit of common interests (Wilkinson 1991). In short, the structure of rural economies and associated social and demographic patterns are key components in the functioning of rural communities and the well-being of rural people. Old West-New West discourse has become popular in discussions about how the western United States has been transformed culturally, environmentally, socially, and economically. Competing visions of the ‘American West,’ both descriptive and prescriptive, have contributed to debates and tensions over what the West “is” and/ or what it “should be.” Riebsame et al. (1997:46) said:
Old West and New West
49
Westerners disagree mightily about just what the West is or should be. To some the New West is a post-industrial high-tech society riding hard in the saddle of a beautiful but fragile landscape. Others see a West still rooted in its natural resources, sporting a facile New West patina of software firms, service workers, and city slicker cattle drives – a thin veneer that will soon erode, they claim, because you’ve got to produce something physical and concrete – lumber, beef, molybdenum – to be a real and lasting economy.
The central aesthetic values of surrounding natural landscapes coupled with the forces of commodity industry changes and global economic restructuring have helped, and in some cases forced, rural communities throughout the region to move away from traditional economies toward more diversified local employment bases. Often, tourism and other amenity-based developments have been an integral part of such diversification (Power 1996; Reeder and Brown 2001). Particularly in so-called “gateway” communities located adjacent to national parks, destination ski and winter sports resorts, and other major attractions, tourism and related patterns of development have a well-established history (Rothman 1998). Not surprisingly, amenity-based development and population growth are increasingly affecting communities located in other settings where national forest lands, river and lake resources, mountain environments, and other natural attractions provide both recreational opportunities and attractive aesthetic backdrops. In such settings, craft shops, village general stores, small-town cafés, and mom and pop groceries regularly lie juxtaposed with large condominium complexes, major hotel chains, gourmet restaurants, theme parks, multi-tiered retail centers, craft breweries, and new-age coffee houses. These are all signs of a fundamental transformation in the context and character of local economic and social structures and cultural identities. More than in any other region of the country, the geography of the Intermountain West region is marked by the presence of large expanses of public lands. These lands have played and will continue to play a fundamental role in the economic and cultural transformations associated with the emergence of a New West. Across the Intermountain West, the federal government owns just over one-half of all land area (Jackson-Smith et al. 2006). Traditionally, these lands were the critical sources for much of the region’s commodity production – they were logged for timber, mined for minerals, drilled for oil and gas, and grazed by hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep. In contrast to such traditional extractive uses are the more contemporary emphases on preservation and protection of public land resources, as evidenced by the implementation by federal agencies of management plans that placed increased emphasis on recreational uses, the protection of ecologically sensitive areas, and the designation of wilderness areas, national monuments, and national parks where extractive activities and motorized access are severely restricted or prohibited. This shift in management priorities helped attract growing numbers of in-migrants and seasonal residents seeking naturally beautiful settings and outdoor recreation opportunities (Power 1996). Thus, public lands continue to play a pivotal role in the transformation of the Old West to the New West. At the same time land use patterns have affected migration patterns and the degree to which New West patterns emerged, New West demographic and cultural
50
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective
changes have also shaped land use. The relationship is reciprocal and interdependent. According to Robbins et al. (2009:365): Unquestionably, the in-migration of people with new ideas for land use leads to material changes in New West communities. Large, open, productive ranchlands can give way to dense condominiums, to hobby ranches, and to easement tracts, each with very different implications for habitat fragmentation, water quality, soil conditions, flooding, and biodiversity.
To summarize, New West-Old West imagery and conditions have become increasingly important in both academic and popular discussions of the Intermountain West. The concepts refer to social, economic, demographic, and cultural conditions and changes occurring in specific areas across the region. These conditions are important because they are closely related to land use and resource management decisions, population growth and/or decline, and social and economic well-being for communities, families, and individuals. Yet, while many communities in the Intermountain West have been reported as experiencing a shift toward New West characteristics, the phenomenon is not distri buted evenly across space (Shumway and Otterstrom 2001). Communities located in attractive, high-ambiance rural settings, including places adjacent to national parks, in the foothills and valleys adjoining national forests, along waterways, and against the backdrop of mountain peaks have been especially likely to experience the kinds of demographic, social-cultural, economic, and ecological transformations that are the focus of our analysis. At the same time, other areas within the region are experiencing few if any of these changes and remain more closely associated with traditional economies and social structures. The Intermountain West is a large and varied region that provides an interesting context for examining demographic, social, and economic changes associated with the notion that a New West is emerging to compete with and perhaps supplant the Old West.
Data and Analysis The purpose of this chapter is to document the emergence of the New West phenomenon by examining the social, demographic, and economic characteristics of Intermountain West communities and spatially analyzing where different types of communities are located. New West communities have a decidedly different social structure (as exhibited by the sociodemographic characteristics of local populations and employment structures) than communities that are strongly dependent on extractive economies. We illustrate this relationship by using principal factor analysis of census data to create a continuum of “New West-ness” for Intermountain West communities. We use this New West continuum to classify places into four subgroups: “Model New West,” “New West,” “Old West,” and “Classic Old West.” Finally, we map these communities and examine the spatial relationships between them. The spatial analysis demonstrates New West demographic and economic structures do not occur uniformly across communities in the Intermountain West,
Data and Analysis
51
and the degree of “New West-ness” a community exhibits tends to be related to the characteristics of neighboring communities. The unique physical and geographic attributes of the Intermountain West, and its recent history of widespread amenity-based growth and development, make this region an ideal site for evaluating variables associated with the existence of a New West, the extent to which New West phenomena occur, and the spatial variation of New West characteristics. Focusing on the Intermountain West, this chapter addresses three questions: (1) How do multiple demographic, social, and economic variables fit together to characterize the ideas associated with a New West? (2) How widespread is the New West phenomenon in the Intermountain West? and (3) How do New West characteristics vary spatially across the region? To better understand how New West characteristics vary across the InterMountain West, we conducted a principal factor analysis and applied the resulting factor scores to Census Places located throughout the five states (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming) comprising the Intermountain region. Census Places include both incorporated places and other unincorporated U.S. Census-designated places. Doing this shifted our analysis from the more typical county-based frame to one organized around more localized community-level settings. Counties in the West generally cover large geographic areas that often span a variety of social, biological, and topographic systems. Using smaller Census Places allowed for greater analytical precision by identifying and distinguishing differences across the region at a scale that focuses on locations within counties. Small cities and towns have long served as social and economic hubs for their surrounding hinterlands in this sparsely populated region, where a concentrated town and village settlement pattern remains far more common than the dispersed farmstead patterns evident in other parts of the United States (Nelson 1952). Because of this, data pertaining to incorporated places and other U.S. Census-designated places are generally assumed to adequately reflect the make-up of immediately surrounding areas. Although such an approach excludes populations living in more dispersed open country areas, our analysis of Census Places included 77% of the total regional population living in the counties of interest. Because the large expanses of public land and the mountainous and wild topography of the Intermountain West continue to concentrate the vast majority of the population together in valley locations where incorporated places and U.S. Census-designated places exist, relatively few people live in the open country areas not included in this analysis. Principal factor analysis allows us to quantitatively assess the ways in which variables associated with the New West fit together to jointly inform what it means to be New West. The method assumes complex relationships among measures, and makes use of the variance among all of the measures to identify and generate factors accounting for the common variance among them. Given our interest in identifying what the New West implies, we included eight measures, each drawn from the 2000 U.S. Census data. Each of these measures has been used independently in various earlier studies of social and economic change in the American West (cf. Bennett and McBeth 1998; Nash 1993; Power 1996; Rudzitis 1999; Shumway and Otterstrom 2001). These measures reflect patterns of population
52
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective
change, sociodemographic composition of populations, housing characteristics, and local economic conditions. The following eight items were included: 1 . Percent of 2000 residents living in a different state in 1995; 2. Percent of 2000 residents living in a metropolitan area (or different metropolitan area) in 19951; 3. Percent of workers employed in finance, insurance, or real estate industries; 4. Percent of workers employed in extractive industries (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining); 5. Percent of all housing units occupied for seasonal or occasional use; 6. Percent of all specified owner occupied housing units valued at $200,000 or more; 7. Percent of all people age 25 and over with a 4-year college degree; and 8. Percent of workers employed in a tourism-type industry. In-migration from outside the area (and especially from more urban areas) is a key variable indicative of the emergence of New West characteristics. Those communities with a higher proportion of recent in-migrants likely experience other New West characteristics as well. Similarly, measures of the prevalence of seasonal housing and tourism employment indicate the extent to which visitors frequent the community, bringing in new people, ideas, and demand for different kinds of services which can change social and economic structures and culture. Employment in finance, insurance, and real estate industries, as well as high housing values, represent demand for housing in a local area and the development of financial markets both of which would be expected to be heightened in New West communities. At the same time, employment in extractive industries measures the extent to which traditional natural resource based economies remain important to the local area (an indication of Old West conditions). Finally, the proportion of people with a college degree reflects the notion that the people and jobs in New West vs. Old West communities will tend to have differing education levels. Our model indicated in-migration from metropolitan areas and from out of state, employment in finance, insurance and, real estate or tourism-related industries, seasonal housing, high housing values, and college education rates were strongly associated with one underlying dimension. This dimension, accounting for 94% of the common variance, represents our New West factor.2 Employment in extractive industry was negatively associated with our New West factor – an indication that places with more employment in extractive industries have less New West character. Such findings are highly consistent with observations present in much of the New West literature pertaining to the economic and demographic changes that have been occurring throughout the region (Power 1996; Rudzitis 1999).
For places in nonmetropolitan counties, this measure was simply the percent of people who lived in a metropolitan area in 1995. For places in metropolitan counties, this measure was the percent of people who lived in a different metropolitan area in 1995. 2 For more details regarding the factor analysis methods or results, see Winkler et al. (2007) or contact the authors. 1
Data and Analysis
53
Two particularly important contributors to a New West character were the prevalence of seasonal housing and a high rate of in-migration from metropolitan areas. Taken together, this suggests the arrival of new people (either through permanent or seasonal in-migration) into these areas is an important element of what it means to be a New West community. Such communities were also characterized by high housing values and populations that were well-educated overall; enjoyed above-average economic well-being; and were marked by widespread employment in tourism, and in finance, insurance, and real estate. Next, we applied the New West factor loadings to individual Census Places to rank Intermountain West communities along a New West continuum. Larger positive values indicated a place exhibited more New West conditions while more negative values reflected the Old West. Examining values on the continuum clearly indicated that the sociodemographic landscapes of the Intermountain West region reflect qualities commonly presumed to be associated with the New West phenomenon – several communities displayed significantly positive values. At the same time, there was considerable variation in the extent to which such characteristics dominated the regional landscape – several other communities exhibited negative values, indicating Old West conditions prevailed. In essence, some communities were New West, while others were not. To allow us to compare places experiencing profound New West change with those which remain rooted to more traditional Old West contexts, we categorized places into two main groups. Specifically, New West places were those that exhibited values above zero (positive) on our factor score, and Old West places were those that exhibited scores below zero (negative). This is a significant distinction because extractive industry employment loaded negatively on our scale. As a result, those places with negative values were identified by employment in extractive industry and the absence of other characteristics more closely associated with the New West. To gain a more nuanced perspective on this distinction, we then divided New and Old West places into two sub-groups each to produce a four-category classification – Model New West, New West, Old West Transition, and Classic Old West. To distinguish between Model New West and New West communities, we used a factor score of 0.9 as the division point between categories; places represented by scores higher than 0.9 were classified as Model New West. We did this because there was a clear break in the scatter plot of points between 0.83 and 0.92. Using this division, 100 places fell into the Model New West category and 164 into the New West category. We used a similar procedure for dividing the Old West categories, with the division point between the two categories set at −0.5. Those places scoring −0.5 or lower on the factor score had substantial levels of employment in the extractive industry and very few New West attributes. There were 224 such places, referred to as Classic Old West areas; the remaining 292 Old West places were classified as Old West Transition areas. More than a quarter of the residents in Model New West communities had recently moved from metropolitan areas and/or from out of state. This stands in marked contrast to the percentages of in-migrants from metropolitan areas (5.9%)
54
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective
and from out-of-state areas (6.8%) observed for Classic Old West communities. Employment patterns also illustrated clear differences between New and Old West communities. Although extractive and manufacturing employment comprised only a fraction of total employment in any of the four community types, employment in extractive occupations and manufacturing was considerably more prominent in Old West communities than in New West communities. In contrast employment in the tourism, professional services, and finance, insurance and real estate categories was more prominent in New West communities. These traits are summarized for each group in Table 4.1. The local housing market reflected the most dramatic difference between New West and more traditional communities. In Model New West communities, over 20% of houses existing in 2000 were constructed between 1995 and 2000. For Classic Old West communities this figure was much lower – only 8.6%. More importantly, housing values varied drastically across the New West – Old West continuum, ranging from a median value of about $81,000 in the Classic Old West Table 4.1 Characteristics of Old West and New West places, 2000 Intermountain West communities on New West continuum Factor analysis variables Classic Old West Old West New West Model New West Percent In-migrants from out-of-state 6.77 In-migrants from met area 5.92 College-educated 10.87 Extractive industry employment 14.78 Seasonal housing 4.01 FIRE industry employment 2.27 Tourism industry employment 7.34 Housing valued at 1.62 $200,000 or more Additional variables Percent Professional services employment Manufacturing employment Construction industry employment In-migrants from other county Housing units built since 1995 Housing valued at or above $500,000
11.91 11.28 15.22 8.56 4.17 3.37 9.70 3.63
16.44 16.98 21.88 5.62 8.93 4.94 13.43 13.62
25.60 28.66 39.62 2.71 28.86 8.30 21.68 59.33
2.26
2.59
3.43
6.31
10.48 9.33
9.70 9.72
8.27 11.97
4.25 12.54
15.76 8.60 0.15
22.32 9.84 0.16
28.19 14.76 0.62
38.78 20.73 15.05
526 130,910
832 238,970
845 331,433
51,509
79,489
63,690
Values ($) Median rent 312 Median value 80,696 owner-occupied hsg Median household income 35,652 Statistics are averaged for each classification Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000), SF1 and SF3
Data and Analysis
55
places to $331,000 in Model New West areas. Less than 2% of the housing units in Old West communities were valued at $200,000 or more, while 59% of Model New West units were valued this high. Even more striking, over 15% of the homes in Model New West communities were valued at $500,000 or more, while homes of this value were virtually non-existent in more traditional communities. Such differences in housing values demonstrate the premiums placed on living in natural amenity-rich areas and are indicative of the types of on-the-ground changes these communities have experienced in recent years. Housing has traditionally been an obvious, visual symbol to residents and visitors of the extant social structure and local status differentials. As such, it may well be the most noticeable indicator of a transition towards the New West. Great differences in housing values may also suggest areas where long-term and/or less affluent residents are increasingly priced out of local housing markets. Not surprisingly, median income tended to be higher in New West places than Old West places. At the same time, it initially seems surprising that income levels were lower in Model New West places than in those classified as New West places. New West places enjoyed a median income of $79,500, while Model New West places had appreciably lower median income (less than $64,000). These differences likely reflect the generally higher levels of economic diversification and more urban nature of New West places, especially when compared with Model New West places, which tend to be linked to major destination resorts and other especially high-amenity attractions. In the latter settings, the dominance of employment in relatively low-wage industries (like tourism and services) was coupled with high housing values, reinforcing the potential for substantial segments of local populations to experience difficulties in securing affordable housing. Places scoring highest on the New West continuum, and subsequently classified as Model New West, included major destination ski resort areas (e.g., Keystone and Breckenridge in Colorado, and Park City and Brian Head in Utah) as well as other very high-amenity destinations such as Bigfork, Montana, and Alpine Northeast, Wyoming (an unincorporated area located just outside the boundary of Grand Teton National Park). Such places tended to be small rural communities subsumed by a recreation-based and/or natural and cultural amenity driven economy. Places classified as New West tended to be more populated; several were larger cities or were located near larger cities. Perhaps because of their larger population size, they tended also to be more diverse demographically and economically, and reflected greater variation within the category. Examples of places classified as New West included: St. George, Utah; Missoula, Montana; and Sandpoint, Idaho. Old West Transition communities tended to either be larger cities retaining a connection to traditional extractive economies or more rural places in relatively undeveloped, but natural amenity-rich, areas that were only beginning to experience seasonal housing development. Examples of Old West Transition places included: Butte and Coram, Montana; Twin Falls, Idaho; Casper, Wyoming; Escalante, Utah; and Craig, Colorado. Finally, we labeled those places scoring the lowest on the continuum as Classic Old West areas. These were mostly rural and remotely located, and did not exhibit
56
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective
Table 4.2 Old West/New West categories by state Intermountain West communities on New West continuum Classic Old West Old West New West Model New West Number of places in each state that fall into each category Colorado 11 27 28 43 Idaho 77 70 31 11 Montana 28 68 39 14 Utah 58 77 44 20 Wyoming 50 50 22 12 Total 224 292 164 100 Percent of places in each state that fall into each category Colorado 10.1 24.8 Idaho 40.7 37.0 Montana 18.8 45.6 Utah 29.1 38.7 Wyoming 37.3 37.3
25.7 16.4 26.2 22.1 16.4
39.4 5.8 9.4 10.1 9.0
Percent of places in each category that are located in each state Colorado 4.9 9.2 17.1 Idaho 34.4 24.0 18.9 Montana 12.5 23.3 23.8 Utah 25.9 26.4 26.8 Wyoming 22.3 17.1 13.4
43.0 11.0 14.0 20.0 12.0
New West traits. Some representative examples of the places included in this category were Dinosaur, Colorado; Riverton, Wyoming; Minersville, Utah; and Martin City, Montana. Next, we turned to an examination of the spatial locations of New West places. Are New West places clustered together in certain areas? Where are they located? How are these places tied to the geographic characteristics of the landscape? An examination of community type distributions by state reflected the nature of variations in natural resource attributes, residential patterns, and economic characteristics (see Table 4.2). Colorado’s settlement pattern reflected a concentration of population along the front range of the Rocky Mountains, in largely urban communities. This, along with its diverse economy and the presence of multiple destination resorts, was reflected in the fact that Colorado contained the highest number of Model New West and New West communities in the region. Wyoming, with far fewer large urban centers and few major destination resorts, had the fewest number of such communities. However, Wyoming and Utah had more Old West Transition and Old West communities. These states also had the highest proportion of population employed in extractive occupations (forestry, mining, irrigated agriculture, and ranching) that remain at the core of Old West economies and cultures. Variations in geography and natural resources also influenced the location of New West and Old West communities, as illustrated in Fig. 4.1 and Table 4.3. New West communities were concentrated in the Rocky Mountains and along Utah’s
Data and Analysis
57
Fig. 4.1 Intermountain West communities on the New West continuum Table 4.3 Distribution of Old West/New West places Intermountain West communities on New West continuum Location variables Classic Old West Old West New West Model New West Percent In nonmetropolitan recreation 24.1 33.9 54.0 counties In metro counties 15.1 25.1 32.7 Within 1-h drive of national park 4.0 7.5 18.9 10-min drive from national park, 16.1 33.2 51.2 monument or forest Average score on McGranahan’s scale
83.5
Natural amenity index score
4.6
2.6
2.7
3.3
15.0 26.0 55.0
58
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective
Wasatch Front. Few New West places were found on the plains or in the desert and sagebrush steppe highlands of Montana, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, or Wyoming. Further, many communities with the New West designation were located in the shadow of public lands (parks and forests); several of these are important “gateways” to the national parks, national forest, and national monuments in the region. Table 4.3 shows how Intermountain West communities clustered along the New West continuum with respect to their natural amenities, recreation infrastructure, and distance from public lands. Model New West and New West places disproportionately were found in counties classified by Johnson and Beale (2002) as Nonmetropolitan Recreation Counties and in counties with higher scores on McGranahan’s (1999) natural amenity index scale. Further, Model New West and New West communities tended to be located near the kinds of public lands often associated with high-amenity settings (e.g., national parks, national monuments, and higher-elevation national forest lands, as opposed to generally lower-elevation and more arid landscapes administered by the Bureau of Land Management), while Old West communities tended to be more remotely located relative to such areas. We calculated two approximate drive-time measures to evaluate the relationship between proximity to these types of public lands and a place’s score on the New West continuum.3 First, we calculated the drive time from the centroid of each place to its nearest road entrance to a National Park. We found 26% of all Model New West places fell within a 1 h drive time to a national park, while only 4% of Classic Old West Places were this close. Next, we calculated the drive time from each place to its nearest national park, national forest, or national monument (whichever was closest). More than 50% of Model New West and New West places were located within a 10-min drive of such areas; only 16% of Classic Old West places were similarly located. In order to identify more specific hot spots of New West and Old West places, we used spatial statistics. The global Moran’s I (a statistic that indicates the spatial correlation of places on the New West variable) of 0.62 indicated a significant relationship between spatial location and scores on the New West continuum. In other words, we found Intermountain West communities tended to be located close to other communities scoring similarly on the continuum. Local indicators of spatial association (LISA statistics) indicated very speci fically where New West and Old West places tend to cluster. LISA statistics are measures of local spatial associations which allow for assessment of spatial correlation of places in individual locations (Anselin 1994). Figure 4.2 shows where particular communities and their neighbors scored high on the New West continuum (shown as black X’s) and where other places and their neighbors scored low on the New West continuum (shown as black circles). Areas standing out as having clusters of New West communities were the Colorado Front Range,
Drive times were calculated using StreetMap USA data (2004) with associated mph in ArcGIS 9.1 Network Analyst by Bill Buckingham at the University of Wisconsin’s Applied Population Lab. For more information, contact the lead author.
3
New West and Old West in Southwest Utah
59
Fig. 4.2 Spatial clustering of New West characteristics: LISA statistics
the area around Park City, Utah, and the area around Jackson, Wyoming. Old West places tended to be clustered in northeast and central Utah, southwest Wyoming, and in Idaho.
New West and Old West in Southwest Utah So far, this chapter has shown that across the Intermountain West, specific communities are experiencing (to a greater or lesser extent) New West social, demographic, and economic conditions. Even within more localized subregions, communities vary in the extent to which they are experiencing New West traits. Southwest Utah
60
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective Old West
New West
4
Classic Old West Antimony Lyman
New West/Old West Continuum Score
3
2
Loa Enterprise Virgin Cannonville
Old West
New West
Henrieville Escalante Alton Boulder
Hildale Paragonah Toquerville Washington La Verkin Hurricane New Harmony Leeds Sante Clara Cedar Cit y
Parowan Kanarraville Glendale Tropi c Enoch Kanab
St. George
Model New West Brian Head
Torrey
1
0
�1
�2
Fig. 4.3 Utah communities on the New West/Old West continuum
is a subregion within the Intermountain West with extensive federal land and a mix of communities ranging from Model New West to Classic Old West. The area is the site for survey research that we conducted to analyze more localized social conditions in the context of a changing western landscape (see Chaps. 6 and 7). The remainder of this book focuses on community changes in southwest Utah. Here, we introduce southwest Utah communities as they relate to other communities across the Intermountain West along the New West/Old West continuum. Figure 4.3 shows census places within our southwest Utah study area and where they fall on the New West/Old West continuum. Like other communities across the Intermountain West, places scoring highest on the continuum included ski resorts and communities located near (at the “gateway”) to popular national parks and monuments. Springdale, Rockville, Brian Head and Bigwater clearly fit the classic New West model with respect to both population characteristics and patterns of economic activity and change. Springdale and Rockville are “gateway” communities adjoining the main entrance to Zion National Park; Brian Head is a resort town that has built up around the recreational amenities associated with a downhill ski resort, proximity to Cedar Breaks National Monument, and surrounding national forest lands; and Bigwater is a small enclave of residences built on the shoreline of Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Farther to the east on the Colorado Plateau and in a more rural landscape, the small town of Torrey, another “gateway” community near the main entrance to Capitol Reef National Park, also falls into the New West classification. Similar to other more populated communities in high natural amenity locations across the Intermountain West
Conclusions
61
(like Missoula, Montana, and Sandpoint, Idaho), the southwest Utah urban communities of St. George and Cedar City, as well as several smaller communities located nearby (such as Santa Clara, Ivins, and Washington) have experienced the arrival of new in-migrants and urbanization consistent with New West development and a diversifying economy. In most instances the other southwest Utah communities included in the New West category also share proximity to and association with the national parks, forests, and monuments whose sphere of influence is affecting population change, land use patterns, and local economies throughout this region. Communities on the verge of shifting from Old West to New West are likewise places that lie in the shadow of, and are being changed by, these public lands and their management. The remote small town of Escalante, while still maintaining a strong linkage to its ranching and timber industry heritage, is a main access point for and center of visitation associated with the newly designated Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Twenty-seven miles to the north, Boulder also is a jumping-off point for visitors to the Grand Staircase, as well as portions of Glen Canyon NRA, Capitol Reef National Park, and the Dixie National Forest. Tropic and Henrieville are both located in the shadow of Bryce National Park. Kanab, located on the road to the north rim of the Grand Canyon, is also near to Pipe Spring National Monument, Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park, the Paria Canyon Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness Area, and the southernmost extension of the Grand Staircase. Classic Old West communities like Panguitch, Lyman and Loa, Antimony, and Orderville are less proximate to the parks, monuments, and major amenity locations that are attracting recreational visitors, second home owners, and amenityoriented in-migrants. Although all of these places do experience some activity associated with the broader patterns of visitation, in-migration, and economic change affecting the larger region, they continue to exhibit local economies and populations that are tied to traditional extractive industries such as agriculture, ranching, and forestry.
Conclusions The Intermountain West is a region characterized by broad-ranging economic, demographic, and social changes. Café conversations often touch on the New West phenomena blanketing this region and how it is impacting local communities. Many scholars and journalists have likewise penned their impressions of the New West. The latter’s characterization of the New West includes images of a wealthy and educated citizenry arriving from the city, some of whom remain permanently, while others settle seasonally bringing their appetite for lattes and fine dining. Such images also include sleepy rural communities acquiring a makeover through construction of homes, condominiums, and businesses catering to tourist clientele. In this chapter, we have taken specific dimensions of such New West images and translated them into empirical measures. The resultant analysis allowed us to
62
4 “Old West” and “New West”: A Regional Perspective
classify communities on a continuum from traditional service centers largely dependent upon extractive resource management, such as mining, forestry, or ranching, to communities of the New West dependent upon non-commodity traits of natural resources, such as national parks, forests, and monuments. Our examination of Intermountain West communities indicated communities displaying New West traits are not evenly distributed across the region. Instead, they tend to be located in amenity-rich natural resource settings and often stimulate the emergence of other, similar places in nearby areas. This community clustering phenomenon has in some locales contributed to the transformation of a rural landscape into a more urbanized enclave, with potentially important effects on natural resource conditions and land use patterns, as well as on social and economic well-being experienced by local area residents. Consistent with the theoretical framework presented in Chap. 2, these findings highlight how variations across time and space in the condition and character of biophysical environments are in turn closely connected to both temporal patterns of change and spatial variations in the characteristics of human communities. Our data reveal substantial differences across the communities of the Intermountain West with respect to important elements of local social organization and structure that reflect an ongoing transition from the Old West to a New West in at least some portions of the region. And, while data analyzed in this chapter do not speak directly to questions about how such transitions might influence patterns of social interaction or the emergence of alternative and perhaps competing social constructions of meanings, values, and priorities for surrounding landscapes and natural resources, they clearly reveal substantial potential for such consequences to accompany these sociodemographic shifts. Those possibilities will be explored in greater detail and depth in subsequent chapters. In short, the findings presented in this chapter demonstrate important linkages between natural resources, land uses, and community-level social and economic characteristics associated with amenity-based growth and development. As social scientists continue to document this most recent manifestation of a rural rebound, we suggest that community structure, as represented by the kinds of New West traits examined here, provides important clues about the transformation of rural space and rural culture. The natural environment and the ways in which resources are used (for extractive and/or amenity purposes) both shape and are shaped by social and economic conditions in the local area. The extent to which New West social and economic characteristics dominate the landscape is related to natural amenities and land use, and at the same time, land use is affected by New West social, economic, and cultural changes.
Chapter 5
A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah*
Donald Field
Introduction The western region of the United States has demonstrated the most rapid growth of any region over the entirety of the past century, experiencing very substantial population increases during both the nonmetropolitan turnaround of the 1970s and the rural rebound of 1990s (Fuguitt 1985; Johnson 1998). These recent changes have
* Chapter authored by Rebecca Schewe, Donald R. Field, Richard Krannich, and A.E. Luloff. R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_5, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
63
64
5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah
dramatically reshaped the face of the American West, to the point that a discourse of the New West has arisen to describe the transformation of the region’s populations, economies, and cultures. Characterized by the meeting of “Cowboys and Cappuccino” (Rengert and Lang 2001), the prototypical New West populations of college-educated yuppies and retirees stand in sharp contrast to stereotypical Old West populations of ranchers, farmers, and miners. The Old West is characterized by images of cattle drives, ranchers, and rustic settlers, while the New West imagery highlights the rise of telecommuters, fleeing urbanites, and retirees bringing a metropolitan flavor and educated interests to rural western communities. For communities experiencing the growth side of the rural paradox, the inmigration of new and seasonal residents to many locales across the American West has shifted the foundations of rural communities, changing their identity, structure, and relationship to natural resources and public lands. As we demonstrated in Chap. 4, New West communities exhibit higher educational attainment and income levels, much higher housing values, an abundance of seasonal homes, and increasing importance of service and professional employment. In addition, there is a clear link between New West settings and the natural environments and public lands that characterize the region. New in-migrants are increasingly motivated by non-economic, quality-of-life factors as they make their decisions about where to settle (Daniels 1999; Fuguitt 1985; Garreau 1992; Halfacree and Boyle 1998; Kasarda 1995; Smutny 2002). Data considered in Chap. 3 show that areas such as the Basin and Range physiographic province, with large expanses of public land, beautiful natural environments, and vast areas available for a variety of outdoor recreation activities, have exhibited more rapid growth than other areas of the country (Williams and Jobes 1990; Rudzitis 1999; Beyers and Nelson 2000; Jones et al. 2003; McGranahan and Beale 2002; Beale and Johnson 2002). As these transitions have taken place, new conceptions of the region’s natural resources have also emerged, with consequences that have at times been contentious. Joseph Taylor (2004: par. 3) criticizes idealized conceptions of the New West and emphasizes the controversy of the changes that characterize the phenomenon: Although smart people hail the New West as a place where people and nature will thrive like never before, most changes reveal persisting weaknesses in environmental and social justice. Gentrification and recreational tourism, forces that are as fractured and diffuse as they are powerfully transformative, tear the social and cultural fabric of rural communities, and primarily minority and blue-collar residents feel the pain. The emphasis on New West environmental amenities also fueled a rush of exurban settlement that accelerated consumption of natural resources and fragmentation of ecosystems.
Although critics such as Taylor claim the New West categorization is often inappropriately idealized, it is clear that real changes in western communities have occurred. Today’s growing western communities combine new condominium developments with historical ranching enterprises, contemporary gourmet restaurants with traditional general stores, and a legacy of utilitarian orientations toward natural resources and landscapes with increasing support for resource protection and preservation. Meanwhile, communities unable to make the shift to non-extractive
Study Area
65
relationships with their natural amenities have typically fallen on the losing side of the rural paradox. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight some of the key sociodemographic changes that have occurred in one portion of the Intermountain West where the kinds of change associated with a transition from Old West to New West are especially evident. Our focus is on a five-county area situated in southwest Utah that falls within portions of both the Basin and Range and Colorado Plateaus physiographic provinces. In shifting the level of analysis to this subregion, we can more clearly illuminate the ways in which social and demographic changes are reshaping communities in the New West/Old West dichotomy and begin to address the implications those changes hold for surrounding natural resources and public lands.
Study Area In recent decades southwest Utah has undergone significant demographic, economic, social, and related land-use change. Greatly shaped by the natural landscape and large expanses of surrounding public lands, many rural areas in this subregion exhibit the kinds of transformations that are associated with the emergence of the New West.
The Ecological Setting Our research is focused in an area of southern Utah that is comprised of Garfield, Iron, Kane, Washington, and Wayne counties (see Fig. 5.1). This study area, encom passing a total land area of 17,351 square miles, represents a unique ecological setting in which natural landscapes and ecological characteristics have substantially shaped human settlement and activities over time. Iron and Washington counties lie within the Basin and Range physiographic province introduced in Chap. 3, while Garfield, Kane, and Wayne are part of the Colorado Plateaus province. The region is defined by distinct and highly variable physical characteristics – geology, soil, water regimes, and habitat structures – that inspired awe and wonder on the part of John Wesley Powell and other early Euro-American explorers, and continue to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors who travel through the region each year. The eastern and northeastern portions of the study area, comprised by Garfield, Kane, and Wayne counties, are bounded on the east by Canyonlands National Park, the Colorado River, and Lake Powell. This high-desert region, part of the Colorado Plateaus geographical province, encompasses natural landscapes that range from red rock deserts and deep slot canyons to heavily forested, snowcapped mountains. The Colorado, Green, Fremont, Sevier, and Escalante Rivers weave their way across this high-plateau country and have shaped the nature of the human activity and settlement across both prehistoric and historic time. Western and southwestern portions of the study area are encompassed by Washington and Iron counties. Washington County, often referred to as “Utah’s
66
5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah
The Intermountain West
Utah
Nevada
Colorado
Wayne Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
Arizona
New Mexico
N w
E S
0
30
60
Southwest Utah Study Area 120
180
Miles 240
Western US States
Fig. 5.1 Location of the Southwest Utah Study Area
Dixie,” is located in the extreme southwestern corner of the state, straddling the boundary between the Colorado Plateaus and the Basin and Range geographic provinces. Characterized by lower elevations and much higher aridity than other parts of the study area, Washington County is home to a rapidly growing urbanized area to the south of Zion National Park centered around St. George, a small but rapidly growing city. The Virgin River and its tributaries pass through the county before flowing on toward Lake Mead and the Colorado River, providing water resources that have been and remain crucial to human activity and settlement. To the north of Washington County lies Iron County. Western portions of the county encompass the Escalante Desert, an expanse of low-elevation arid lands
Study Area
67
where sparse native vegetation gives way in some places to extensive green fields of irrigated alfalfa. Eastern portions of the county include the high-elevation landscapes of the Markagunt Plateau, including Cedar Breaks National Monument, the Brian Head ski resort, vast tracts of forested lands within the Dixie National Forest, and alpine peaks approaching 10,000 ft in elevation. The flora and fauna of the study area are as varied as its landscapes. Sandy, nutrient-limited soils combined with sparse precipitation throughout much of the subregion support limited vegetative cover in many lower-elevation areas, with extensive expanses of arid and semi-arid rangelands covered by sagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, native grasses, and other native plants as well as invasive vegetation such as cheatgrass. Pinion-juniper forests along with sagebrush-grassland vegetation characterize middle-elevation areas. Higher-elevation areas receiving more precipitation are characterized by a patchwork of pine and fir forests, deciduous forests dominated by aspen, and alpine grasslands. Large outwash plains at the base of mountainous areas contain native sagebrush-grassland communities interspersed with areas of irrigated pasture and agricultural lands. Mule deer and elk abound in large numbers in higher-elevation habitats, while pronghorn antelope are prevalent in more localized, lower-elevation areas. Smaller populations of desert bighorn sheep occupy portions of the high desert and canyon lands, and a small population of free-roaming bison populates a mixture of high desert and alpine landscapes within and surrounding Capitol Reef National Park. A diversity of smaller mammal species, birds, and reptiles frequent the region, including several threatened and endangered species such as the desert tortoise, Utah prairie dog, and Mexican spotted owl.
Social Setting The five counties selected for in-depth analysis were chosen because of the presence of extensive federal lands and high levels of natural resource amenities, factors that have influenced both long-term development trends and recent population growth patterns. As we highlighted at the end of Chap. 4, there are places scattered across this portion of the Intermountain West that represent the full spectrum of New West and Old West contexts. In addition to substantial growth in the numbers of year-round residents, portions of the study area have attracted large numbers of part-time residents occupying seasonal and vacation homes. Many in-migrants as well as seasonal residents originate from major metropolitan centers in the surrounding region, in particular Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and portions of southern California. Culturally, the study area is included in what has been referred to as the “Mormon Culture Region” (Yorgasen 2003). With over three-fourths of the Utah population identified as Latter-day Saints (Grammich 2004) and with the heritage of Mormon settlement and ideology contributing to a climate of social and political conservatism, the social context of the study area presents a setting in which the consequences of amenity-driven growth and change
68
5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah
have considerable potential to generate the sort of “culture clash” others have suggested may accompany the arrival of new populations with differing values, beliefs, and behavior patterns. Wayne County, located in the northern-most portion of the Southwestern Utah study area, is home to parts of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests, Capitol Reef National Park, and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Almost 86% of the county’s land area is in federal ownership. The county’s relatively small population (2,509 total residents in 2000) is concentrated in a cluster of small towns scattered east-to-west along an approximately 15 mile-long segment of State Highway 24 in the western portion of the county. The county seat of Loa, located in the western portion of this corridor, was the largest population center in the county in 2000 with only 525 residents. Like Loa, the nearby small towns of Fremont, Lyman, and Bicknell retain much of their historical character associated with a heritage of small-scale farming, ranching, and logging on surrounding public lands. Farther east are the towns of Torrey and Teasdale, “gateway” communities on the western edge of Capitol Reef National Park where substantial development of seasonal homes and increased evidence of tourism-oriented businesses and services are transforming the character of both the human community and surrounding landscapes. For Wayne County as a whole, employment in 2000 was dominated by the “other services” (including educational, health, social, and recreation) category (44%); followed by agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining (16%); construction (11.5%); retail trade (8.4%); and public administration (7.4%). The county is heavily Mormon, with an estimated 86% of the population identified as members of the LDS church in 1990 (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html). Garfield County, located in central southern Utah, is home to a portion of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument as well as portions of the Dixie National Forest, Capitol Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. In combination, public land holdings comprise 90% of the county’s total land base. The area was originally occupied by prehistoric Sevier, Fremont, and Anasazi Indian populations, and subsequently by Southern Paiute and Ute Indians who were quickly displaced following the initiation of white settlement during the 1860s and 1870s. The county had only 4,735 residents in 2000, with the largest population located in the county seat of Panguitch (population 1,623). Other areas of population concentration include the small towns of Escalante and Boulder, both located in areas encompassed by the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and the towns of Tropic, Henrieville, and Cannonville near Bryce Canyon National Park. Although cattle ranching and lumber production have historically been the two most important industries in Garfield County, those economic sectors exhibited substantial declines in recent decades. At the same time, employment in the services sector, fueled in large part by an expansion of tourism and recreation-based businesses, has exhibited substantial growth, comprising nearly one-half (48%) of employment among Garfield county residents in 2000. Approximately 86% of county residents were members of the LDS church in 1990 (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html).
Study Area
69
Kane County is located in southernmost Utah, bordered on the south by Arizona. The county encompasses a majority of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, a substantial portion of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Lake Powell, as well as smaller portions of the Dixie National Forest and Zion National Park. In total, 85% of the county’s land area is federally owned and managed. Some early Euro-American settlements were established but later abandoned in the 1860s, followed by permanent settlement of Kanab, the county seat, in 1870. With a 2000 population of 3,564, the city of Kanab represents the primary population center in Kane County, accounting for approximately 59% of the county’s 6,046 residents in that year. Other smaller areas of population concentration include the towns of Glendale, Orderville, and Mt. Carmel, all located north of Kanab along U.S. Highway 89, once the major north-south travel route through Utah prior to the construction of Interstate 15. Bigwater, a small residential enclave initially established in the 1950s during the construction of Glen Canyon Dam, is located to the east of Kanab. Historically, farming and ranching have dominated Kane County’s economy, although as early as the 1920s and 1930s Kanab began to emerge as a tourist center for visitors to nearby national parks such as Bryce, Zion, and Grand Canyon. Kanab is also home to the regional office of the Bureau of Land Management, which has management responsibilities for vast tracts of public land that attract recreational visitors to the area, including the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. As with other counties in the study area, Kane County’s economy has come to be increasingly dominated by the educational, health, social, and recreational service categories, with the “other services” sector that encompasses these categories comprising over 43% of resident employment in 2000. Kane County has the highest proportion of LDS members in the study area, with approximately 89% of residents identified as members of the Mormon Church in 1990 (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html). Iron County, named for iron ore deposits in the area, is situated in the western portion of southern Utah, bordering Nevada on its western edge. First occupied by Euro-Americans when Mormon settlers arrived in 1851, the county is home to a large portion of the Dixie National Forest, as well as the Brian Head ski resort and Cedar Breaks National Monument. Public lands administered primarily by the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service comprise approximately 57% of the county’s total land area. In 2000, the county had a population of 33,779 residents, a majority of whom lived in Cedar City (population 20,257) or in nearby small towns such as Parowan (the county seat), Paragonah, Enoch, and Kanarraville, all located north and south of Cedar City along the Interstate 15 highway corridor. Locational advantages associated with this interstate highway corridor along with a concentration of employment and economic activity in Cedar City (home to the Dixie National Forest supervisor’s office and Southern Utah State University) have produced a more diversified economy than is typical in much of southern Utah. In recent decades, traditional employment concentrations in agriculture, forestry, and mining have given way to a wider distribution of employment, with some concentrations in educational, health, social, recreational, and other services; professional services; retail trade;
70
5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah
and manufacturing. Like the rest of the study area, LDS culture is still dominant in the county; approximately 77% of Iron County residents were members of the LDS church in 1990 (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html). Washington County, located in the extreme southwestern corner of Utah, is bordered by Nevada to the west and Arizona to the south. Three-fourths of the county’s land area is in federal ownership, including substantial portions of the Dixie National Forest, virtually all of Zion National Park, and vast tracts administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Mormon settlers first occupied St. George, the county seat, in 1861. The county has experienced explosive population growth since the 1960s, much of it spurred by retirement-age in-migration. The majority of this growth has centered in urbanized areas in and surrounding St. George. By 2000, the Washington County population had grown to over 90,000 residents (90,345), concentrated primarily in St. George (49,663 residents) and nearby smaller cities such as Santa Clara and Washington. An additional area of more modest population concentration occurs northeast of St. George along the Virgin River corridor, where the small towns of Hurricane, La Verkin, Virgin, Rockville, and the “gateway” town of Springdale are scattered along State Highway 9 leading toward and into Zion National Park. An area of substantial seasonal home development is located north of St. George in portions of the Pine Valley area, where private lands are interspersed within parts of the Dixie National Forest. Although agriculture formed the economic backbone of Washington County in its early years, the metropolitan area centered on St. George has developed a highly diversified economy in recent decades. Major areas of employment concentration now include the educational, health, social, and recreational services (37% of employment in 2000), retail trade (17%); construction (13%); and transportation/warehouse facilities (9%). In 1990, approximately 78% of Washington County residents were members of the Mormon Church (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html).
Data and Analytic Approach In order to describe New West qualities in southwest Utah, we analyze U.S. Decennial Census data for the five study area counties using an approach that parallels the strategies used in Chap. 3 to assess regional-level change patterns. We begin by examining sociodemographic changes that occurred between 1970 and 2000 at the county level. Next, we compare characteristics of recent in-migrants (people who moved into the five-county region from another county between 1995 and 2000) to longer-term residents. We look at changing demographics at the county level, because county boundaries are stable over time and historical data are readily available. Here, we examine changes in population and housing, migration patterns, and socioeconomic characteristics of populations. Data are drawn from Summary File 1 (100% sample) of the U.S. Decennial Census 1970–2000 to describe population change and housing
Analysis Results
71
development. In addition, we look at net-migration patterns from 1950 to 2000, to explore migration’s impact on population change. The migration data we use are derived in a working paper by Paul Voss et al. (2004) using the formula: Starting Census Population + Births – Deaths = “Expected” End Population Net Migration = Census End Population – “Expected” End Population The input data for this formula come from a combination of adjusted Census data from each decade and from birth and death data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Finally, we use Decennial Census data from 1990 to 2000 (Summary File 1 and Summary File 3) to examine changes in seasonal housing, industry of employment, and housing values. Specifically, we describe the percent of all housing units that are for seasonal or recreational use, the percent of all workers aged 16 and over employed in specific industries, and the median value of specified owner-occupied housing units. To compare characteristics of recent in-migrants to those of longer-term residents, we use data from Census 2000 County-to-County Migration Files. Recent in-migrants moved into one of the southwest Utah counties between 1995 and 2000 from another county, another state, or from abroad. Longer-term residents lived in the same county in 1995 as they did in 2000. We compare these two groups in terms of age structure, median household income, percent of people aged 25 or older with a 4-year college degree, and industry of employment.
Analysis Results The Five-County Sociodemographic Landscape The southwest Utah study area grew substantially in population during the period 1970–2000, with the population of the combined five-county area increasing from 32,907 to 137,423 residents, an increase of nearly 318%. Although each of the five counties contributed to this overall growth, Washington and Iron counties experienced the most growth over this time period. Indeed, by 2000 these two counties accounted for over 90% of the study area population. There are a number of noteworthy spatial variations with respect to social, demographic, and ecological conditions as we look from east to west across the study area. Among those differences are substantial variations in growth rates across time. The most rapid rates of population increase have occurred in the two western counties; during the 1990s the populations of Washington County and Iron County increased by 86% and 62%, respectively. Those increases are roughly three to four times the rate of increase observed in Kane (17%), Garfield (19%), and Wayne (15%) counties, all located in the eastern section of our study area and in the Colorado Plateaus physiographic province. By comparison, the statewide population of Utah grew by 30% over the same time period (Table 5.1).
15.30 29.60
332 510,319
(28.00) 152189.00
Absolute change (2000–2003) (231.00) 2231.00 (100.00) 14598.00 −1.10 6.20
% change (2000–2003) −4.80 6.50 −1.70 16.00
437 323,037
15.50 13.10
% change (2005–2010) 9.50 11.60 19.80 20.10
Projected change (2005–2010) 463 4,239 1,365 22,104
Net migration (2000–2003) −196 1,054 −243 12,791 −90 50,067
3,256 2,787,670
2,819 2,464,633
2,487 2,385,358
1,030 583,401
Projected change (2010–2020) 864 8,258 5,356 45,474
4,286 3,371,071
Projected population 2010 2020 5,332 6,196 40,696 48,954 8,272 13,628 131,880 177,354
2005 4,869 36,457 6,907 109,776
2003 4,532 36,310 5,937 105,702
Population count data are from U.S. Census Bureau (2000) Projected population data are from the Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis
Garfield County Iron County Kane County Washington County Wayne County State of Utah
% change (1990–2000) 19.00 62.50 17.00 86.10
Absolute change (1990–2000) 755 12,990 877 41,794
Table 5.1 Population and migration trends in the southwest Utah study area Population 1970 1980 1990 2000 Garfield County 3,157 3,673 3,980 4,735 Iron County 12,177 17,349 20,789 33,779 Kane County 2,421 4,024 5,169 6,046 Washington 13,669 26,065 48,560 90,354 County Wayne County 1,483 1,911 2,177 2,509 State of Utah 1,059,273 1,461,037 1,722,850 2,233,169
72 5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah
Analysis Results
73
In addition to this variation in overall population growth experienced across the five-county study area, the nature and composition of the growth have also varied considerably. The three eastern counties experienced a loss of population in the 20–30 age group during this time period, while attracting in-migrants primarily in the working age and retirement age categories. In contrast, Iron County and Washington County are marked by an in-migration of young adults, no doubt reflecting in large part the presence of state-supported colleges in Cedar City and St. George. Both also experienced in-migration that was fairly evenly distributed across the working age categories. At the same time, Washington County’s inmigration favored the 60 and older age category, reflecting the popularity of “Utah’s Dixie” as a retirement destination. As we noted in Chap. 4 housing stock and associated housing development, especially new construction, are among the indicators of social change associated with amenity-rich rural regions and with the emergence of the New West. Across the southwest Utah study area new construction and new residential developments dot the countryside. Data reported in Table 5.2 depict housing development trends and changes in the five counties from 1960 to 2000. The three eastern counties experienced the smallest percentage of new construction during the period but reported substantial new construction from 1990 to 2000, with increases ranging between 11% and 25%. Nevertheless the western portion of the study area remained the magnet for housing growth, with total housing units increasing by approximately 60% in Iron County and nearly 87% in Washington County during that single decade. Like the Basin and Range and Colorado Plateaus provinces generally, growth in the number of seasonal homes in the study area has been also been dramatic. Since 1990, the number of seasonal homes has increased by over 41% in the five-county area, with Washington, Wayne, and Iron counties experiencing the most seasonal housing growth (61%, 50% and 30%, respectively). Garfield and Kane counties also witnessed growth in seasonal housing during this period, although total percentage gains were considerably smaller (see Table 5.3). These new dwellings are usually larger and more elaborate than previous local construction. New migrants come to the country with more money to invest in housing, and seasonal residents typically prefer upscale living and modern conveniences in their vacation properties. While both new housing construction and growth in the number of seasonal homes occurred most extensively in the two counties located in the western portion of the study area during the 1990s, all counties saw their median housing value increase by 66–80% in that decade (see Table 5.3). Net in-migration of new residents to southwest Utah is only part of the story. Not only are more people moving into the area and expanding the population, these new residents are changing the sociodemographic composition and character of communities throughout the area. The population is not just growing; it is changing in important ways. Tourism-related employment in the arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food service industries is an important component of how the composition of the social composition in these counties is changing. In addition, it is important to note that employment in extractive industries such as agriculture,
Data are from U.S. Census Bureau (2000)
Garfield County Iron County Kane County Washington County Wayne County State of Utah
Absolute change (1970–2000) 1,551 9,890 2,741 32,091 773 452,829
% change (1970–2000) 127.50 265.30 267.20 731.50 139.00 143.40
Absolute change (1990–2000) 279 5,119 530 16,955 268 170,206
Table 5.2 Housing unit growth in the southwest Utah study area, 1960–2002 Housing units 1960 1970 1980 Garfield County 1,336 1,216 1,770 Iron County 3,269 3,728 6,248 Kane County 940 1,026 2,186 Washington County 3,299 4,387 9,723 Wayne County 591 556 848 State of Utah 262,670 315,765 490,006 % change (1990–2000) 11.20 60.20 16.40 86.80 25.30 28.40
1990 2,488 8,499 3,237 19,523 1,061 598,388 Absolute change (2000–2002) 129 843 200 3,670 31 39,999
2000 2,767 13,618 3,767 36,478 1,329 768,594
% change (2000–2002) 4.70 6.20 5.30 10.10 2.30 5.20
2002 2,896 14,461 3,967 40,148 1,360 808,593
74 5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah
Extractive industry (%) 1990 2000 11.40 9.70 7.50 4.30 6.10 5.60 4.60 1.10 22.30 16.00 3.70 1.90
Tourisma industry (%) 1990 2000 0.30 4.30 0.60 1.30 0.30 5.10 1.10 2.70 0.10 3.50 1.50 1.50
Tourism (2)a industry (%) 2000 25.60 10.40 18.90 12.90 15.30 8.00
53,700 68,700
Housing cost burden (%) 2000 15.20 25.30 17.00 23.10 17.40 19.10
97,600 146,100
Median housing value ($) 1990 2000 50,400 90,500 63,300 112,000 62,600 103,900 78,300 139,800
a The Census Bureau calculated tourism industry components differently in 1990 and 2000. The “Tourism Industry” numbers presented here represent the percentage of all employed persons age 16 and older who worked in Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Services. The data presented in the column labeled “Tourism (2) Industry” for 2000 include employment in that sector as well as employment in the Accommodations and Food Services sector
Garfield County Iron County Kane County Washington Co. Wayne County State of Utah
% with 4-year college degree 1990 2000 15.00 20.30 21.90 23.80 11.80 21.10 17.70 21.00 20.00 20.90 22.30 26.10
Table 5.3 Socioeconomic characteristics of populations in the southwest Utah study area, 1990–2000 Seasonal housing Migrant from diff. MSA (%) Median income ($) 1990 2000 1985–1990 1995–2000 1990 2000 Garfield County 923 965 9.60 10.70 21,160 35,180 Iron County 1,533 1,986 18.30 21.70 23,185 33,114 Kane County 1,214 1,256 11.90 12.90 21,134 34,247 Washington 2,708 4,364 22.60 24.40 24,602 37,212 County Wayne County 207 309 9.60 15.20 20,000 32,000 State of Utah 21,023 29,685 10.80 13.30 29,470 45,726
Analysis Results 75
76
5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah
forestry, and mining declined in all five counties during the period 1990–2000, continuing a longstanding transformation leaving even areas that retain many Old West characteristics less and less economically reliant on these traditional commodity-production activities. During the same period, employment in the tourism and service sector increased substantially in each of the study area counties. However, there is once again evidence of considerable spatial variation across the study area with respect to such change. When we include employment in the accommodations and food services sector as a component of overall tourismrelated employment (Tourism (2) in Table 5.3), it is clear that the three counties located in eastern portions of the study area had the highest percentage of workers in this category in 2000. Along with changing employment patterns, the five counties have also experienced increasing wealth among residents, and growth in the number of residents with a college education. Between 1990 and 2000 the median income in all five counties rose, on average, by 50%, though median incomes of residents in 2000 did not vary widely across the five counties. The percent of the population with a 4-year college education increased in all five counties from 1990 to 2000, with particularly substantial change occurring in Garfield and Kane counties (see Table 5.3). Taken as a whole, these significant changes in the social, economic, and demographic character of the five study area counties reflect the patterns of change seen in other amenity-rich areas of the Intermountain West discussed in previous chapters.
New Migrants and Longer-Term Residents To what extent are these patterns of community change occurring as a result of new residents moving to the study area? Are new residents dramatically different from those who have lived in the area longer? To better understand the changing nature of the people and places in southwest Utah, we compared recent in-migrants (1995–2000) to longer-term residents on a number of personal sociodemographic characteristics (Table 5.4). Across all five counties, the average age of new in-migrants was younger than that of longer-term residents. The average age of the new in-migrants to Garfield and Wayne County was 35 years, compared to 38 years in Kane and Washington counties. In-migrants to Iron County were considerably younger, with a mean age of just 28 years, a reflection of the influence of student populations attending the state university located in Cedar City. In all counties the average age of longer-term residents was older than that of new in-migrants. New in-migrants were also much more likely to be college educated than longer-term residents, especially in the three rural counties located in the eastern portion of the study area. In Garfield County, for example, 30% of recent in-migrants had a college education, compared to just 18% of longer-term residents. The differences were even greater in Wayne County, where 36% of new in-migrants had a college education compared to only 16% of longer-term residents.
Data are from U.S. Census Bureau (2000)
Table 5.4 Selected sociodemographic characteristics of recent in-migrants vs. longer-term residents Recent in-migrants Demographics Socioeconomics Industry No. of % of Average % low % high in-migrants population age % college income income % extractive Garfield County 948 21.90 35.2 29.60 15.10 25.60 7.90 Iron County 10,805 35.30 28.4 23.70 9.00 38.00 4.00 Kane County 1,695 30.10 38.0 26.40 8.40 23.50 3.80 Washington 26,656 32.50 38.7 23.60 16.10 24.10 0.80 County Wayne County 570 24.80 35.5 36.00 19.30 28.10 9.00 Southwest Utah 40,674 32.50 35.8 24.10 27.80 14.00 2.20 Longer-term residents Demographics Socioeconomics Industry No. of % of Average % low % high longer-term population age % college income income % extractive Garfield County 3337 77.10 39.5 17.60 13.90 21.10 10.20 Iron County 19,326 63.20 35.8 23.60 18.30 22.60 4.40 Kane County 3,883 68.90 42.3 18.00 13.70 25.60 6.50 Washington 54,180 66.00 39.0 19.60 20.00 19.60 1.20 County Wayne County 1,717 74.70 39.8 15.90 10.90 29.30 18.90 Southwest Utah 82,443 66.00 38.4 20.30 20.80 18.90 3.10 1.60 5.70
% professional 1.90 6.60 3.30 5.90
2.90 9.40
% professional 4.70 12.60 4.90 8.50
Analysis Results 77
78
5 A New and Different People: Sociodemographic Changes in Southwest Utah
While extractive occupations continued to attract a few new workers, the proportion of longer-term residents employed in the extractive industries was considerably higher than the proportion of new in-migrants employed in that sector across all five of the study area counties. This difference was most substantial in Wayne County, where the percentage of longer-term residents employed in the extractive sector was more than double the percentage among new in-migrants. In addition, the proportion of new in-migrants employed in professional occupations exceeded the proportion of longer-term residents in similar occupations in each of the counties. Overall, these comparisons indicate that as a group new in-migrants are significantly different from their longer-term neighbors: they are younger, more highly educated, and more likely to be engaged in professional occupations than longerterm residents of southwest Utah. In light of these differences there can be little doubt that the ongoing arrival of substantial numbers of new residents to these counties is transforming the social landscape of this amenity-rich area.
Conclusions In this chapter we narrowed our focus to examine social and demographic change in one five-county area of southwest Utah. We have examined population, housing, employment, and educational changes across the five-county area, and compared key social characteristics (such as age, industry of employment, and education) between new in-migrants and longer-term residents. Our results illustrate the significant demographic changes that have occurred in this area, and the important differences that have emerged between recently arrived and longer-term residents. Like the Intermountain West region generally, the southwest Utah study area has experienced dramatic demographic changes and the emergence of a new population base. New in-migrants to the area tend to be younger, and they are more highly educated, have higher incomes, and are more likely to be employed in professional occupations than their longer-term counterparts. These important differences between groups of residents have the potential to lead to increasing social tensions and shifting patterns of community engagement as status differentials and social polarization become increasingly likely. These same problems can be exacerbated by growth in the numbers of seasonal residents, who are likely to exhibit characteristics more similar to those of newer residents than to longer-term residents, and who may also exhibit fewer and weaker ties and obligations to their neighbors or the local community. These circumstances are certainly not unique to the fivecounty study area. Indeed, they are indicative of phenomena being experienced in rural areas throughout the United States (Salamon 2003) and especially in some areas of the Intermountain West (Smith and Krannich 2000). These issues will be addressed in greater detail in Chap. 7. Because these communities are so closely tied to surrounding public lands and the natural landscapes and resources those lands contain, the implications of these change patterns extend well beyond the social structures of rural towns and small
Conclusions
79
communities. Public land managers, including park and forest supervisors and game wardens, can no longer hope to manage the resources in their care simply by concentrating decision making and policy solely with regard to the natural resources situated within the boundaries of a particular monument, park, forest, or refuge. Social and ecological change at the landscape level in which a protected area exists may provide clues as to imminent change in the protected area itself. As we will detail in Chap. 6, the rapid growth and dramatic changes occurring across southwestern Utah can significantly impact the ways in which public lands are used and valued by area residents, with important implications for resource conditions and for resource management practices.
Chapter 6
New West and Old West: Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Natural Resource Uses and Management*
Donald Field
Introduction The social, economic, and cultural conditions that characterize rural areas of the American West have traditionally been closely linked to the region’s extensive public lands and abundant natural resources. Even though the resource-based extraction and commodity-production industries that once drove local and regional * Chapter authored by Richard S. Krannich and Brian Jennings. R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_6, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
81
82
6 New West and Old West
economies across the West have, in recent decades, given way to a far more diversified array of economic activities, individual as well as collective identities linked to traditional resource-based economies remain deeply rooted in many western locales. Frequent reference by local residents to the places they live as “ranching communities,” “mining communities,” “logging communities,” and similar descriptions provides clear evidence about the continued importance of socioeconomic structures and cultural traditions that in various ways reflect strong connections to the availability and use of land-based natural resources throughout the region. These traditions are reinforced generally throughout much of the Intermountain West, and specifically within the southwest Utah study area, by high concentrations of public lands managed by federal agencies, particularly the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. Across the five Utah counties that are the focus of our investigation, federally managed lands comprise 90% of the total land base in Garfield County, 57% in Iron County, 85% in Kane County, 75% in Washington County, and 86% in Wayne County. The natural landscapes associated with these public lands attract both widespread amenitydriven in-migration and substantial numbers of tourists and seasonal visitors, and fuel a growing tourism-based regional economy. At the same time, traditional commodity-based uses of these lands, including livestock grazing, minerals extraction, and timber production, continue to provide livelihoods for substantial numbers of residents throughout the area, even though reliance on these activities is now far less widespread than was the case in years past (Power 1996). Moreover, these lands provide a setting for a broad array of outdoor recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and off-highway vehicle use often associated with traditional rural life ways and more commonly pursued by people from rural as opposed to urban backgrounds (for example, see Stedman and Heberlein 2001; Responsive Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation 2008; Teel et al. 2005; U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2006). Such natural resource use patterns are reinforced throughout the American West by what are often deeply held materialist/utilitarian values and attitudes among many rural residents, and an associated emphasis on the appropriateness and importance of commodity-production uses of surrounding lands and resources (Limerick 1987; Teel et al. 2005). Throughout the region, utilitarian perspectives about natural resource use and management are often accompanied by strong reservations about resource management practices that emphasize environmental protection and preservation rather than the creation of economic opportunities associated with resource use and development (Cawley 1993; Davis 1997). Such traditional use patterns and perspectives on natural resource use and management exist in a state of considerable tension relative to the major social, economic, and demographic transformations characteristic of the West in recent decades. Particularly in areas where natural amenity conditions attract substantial numbers of new year-round as well as seasonal residents, there is substantial potential for both the emergence of new and different natural resource use patterns, and shifts in values and attitudes regarding resource use and management. For example, recreation participation patterns may be altered in a variety of ways as changes in the demographic composition of local as well as regional populations lead to
Introduction
83
a ssociated shifts in recreation preferences. In areas that attract concentrations of in-migrants and seasonal residents with predominantly urban backgrounds, overall levels of interest and participation in traditionally “rural” recreation activities such as hunting may decline, while engagement in other activities less closely connected to rural traditions, such as mountain biking or cross-country skiing, might increase. Similarly, it is commonly believed newly arrived year-round as well as seasonal residents bring with them values, expectations, and priorities surrounding the use and management of natural resources and landscapes that emphasize the preservation of natural landscapes and protection of ecosystems (Jones et al. 2003; Marsden 1999; Ploch 1978; Theodori et al. 1998). Such perspectives stand in sharp contrast with the more utilitarian orientations associated with traditional rural life. To the extent differences in use patterns, values, and attitudes do emerge as a consequence of amenity-based growth and change, there is increased potential for tensions and conflicts over environmental and land use issues (see Milbourne 2007; Smith and Krannich 2000). Indeed, much of the literature dealing with the occurrence of “culture clash” accompanying the arrival of new residential groups in rural communities has focused explicitly on tensions and conflicts associated with a divergence of values and attitudes regarding environmental, natural resource, and land use issues, with lines of division most commonly linked to differences between “newcomers” and established rural residents (Ploch 1978; Price and Clay 1980; Jobes 1995; Mahon 2007; Smith and Krannich 2000). At the same time, the emergence of such tensions and demands is not necessarily a given. In some settings, research has shown established rural residents and recently arrived in-migrants have more in common regarding their views about resource use and land management than is often assumed (see Fortmann and Kusel 1990; Smith and Krannich 2000; Smith and Sharp 2005). In short, conventional wisdom about the existence of major differences between longstanding rural residents and in-migrants with respect to behaviors, values, and attitudes about natural resource use and management has not received consistent support. Similarly, the shifting demographics that occur in many areas characterized by high natural-amenity values have the potential to create new and substantially different demands and pressures on those responsible for planning and administering the uses of natural resources and surrounding landscapes. Along with shifts in use levels and associated pressures on resource areas that inevitably accompany population growth, resource managers may also need to prepare for changes in the distribution of resource-based activities resulting from differential use patterns and preferences among in-migrant and seasonal populations relative to those exhibited by more established residents. In addition, differing expectations, priorities, and preferences regarding resource management among in-migrant and seasonal populations may substantially alter the nature of public discourse about environmental and resource issues, and contribute added complexity to resource decision-making processes increasingly expected to address “social acceptability” as a criterion for establishing and implementing a variety of public policies, especially those pertaining to resource management (Brunson 1993; Winston 1997). In this chapter we address these issues by examining similarities and differences in values, attitudes, and behaviors associated with natural resource use and management among year-round and seasonal residents of the southern Utah study
84
6 New West and Old West
area who participated in a mail survey administered to random probability samples of residential landowners in Garfield, Iron, Kane, Washington and Wayne counties (see Appendix for details on the survey methodology). In making these comparisons, we also examine the extent to which the length of residential tenure among year-round residents, and frequency of visitation among seasonal residents, may help us to more clearly understand the ways in which such behaviors and orientations differ across this highly varied social and natural landscape. Finally, we consider the extent to which compositional factors linked to variation in socio demographic characteristics among year-round and seasonal populations may play a part in accounting for some portion of the relationships between residence classification and several measures used to assess natural resource use/behavior patterns, natural resource values, and attitudes regarding resource use and management.
Natural Resource Uses and Behaviors Outdoor Recreation Activities We begin our exploration of possible variation in resource-related activities and orientations among residential property owners in southern Utah by examining survey responses to several questions designed to assess participation in various outdoor recreation activities. Recreation participation in high-amenity areas is an issue of substantial importance to resource managers, since increased levels of participation associated with population growth and shifts in participation patterns can impact both the quality and sustainability of biophysical environments where recreation activity occurs (Gobster et al. 2000). In addition, such changes may affect the quality of visitor experiences if the recreational carrying capacities of some areas are exceeded or if conflicts arise among different user groups (Manning 1999; Shelby and Heberlein 1986). Survey participants were asked to indicate whether during the preceding 12 months they had participated in a number of different outdoor recreation activities at any location within the five-county southern Utah study area. The specific outdoor recreation activities selected for consideration include participation in more “consumptive” activities (hunting and fishing), in more “appreciative” recreational activities (hiking and backpacking), and in two different types of motorized recreational vehicle uses (all-terrain vehicle riding and snowmobiling). As well, we examined variation in visitation to national parks, monuments, recreation areas, and forests located across the southern Utah study area.1 Comparisons of participation in these varied outdoor recreational activities Although state-managed lands and parks also attract recreational activities, federally managed lands dominate the landscape of this study area. For that reason the survey questions focused on visitation to these types of national parks, monuments, forests, etc.
1
Natural Resource Uses and Behaviors
85
among year-round and seasonal residents revealed both substantial similarities and major differences between these population groups, depending on the specific recreational activity considered. Hunting and Fishing Reports about participation in two “consumptive” recreational activities that are commonly associated with rural traditions – hunting and fishing – produced substantially different outcomes. Among the 1,150 rural-area respondents to our survey, year-round residents were much more likely to report participation during the past 12 months in hunting someplace within the five-county study area (42.7%) than were seasonal residents (17.7%). At the same time, there was virtually no difference in the percentages of year-round and seasonal residents who reported participation in fishing (46.6% and 48.3%, respectively). To more thoroughly explore the nature of participation in these outdoor recreation activities among year-round and seasonal residents we further subdivided the two groupings, based on length of residence among year-round residents, and frequency of visitation among seasonal residents. Year-round residents were divided into “newcomer” (less than 10 years length of residence in the current community) and “longstanding” (10 years or more residence in the current community) categories, an approach that is consistent with assertions presented in prior research comparing “newcomer” and “oldtimer” populations. Such studies of areas affected by inmigration generally have adopted a 10 year residence period as the basis for comparisons, on the assumption that a decade provides enough time for most people to establish localized social ties and to assimilate many of the established beliefs and life ways associated with a rural region (for example, see Fortmann and Kusel 1990; Graber 1974; Smith and Krannich 2000). With respect to seasonal residents, we opted not to create categories based on length of ownership of seasonal property, because such a measure would have the potential of being quite misleading. If a seasonal resident has owned their property for 20 years but visited it only rarely over that time, they are not likely to be particularly familiar with the area and its natural resources or to have engaged extensively in local area activities. If, on the other hand, a seasonal resident has owned residential property in an area for only a few years but visits it very frequently and/or for extended time periods, they are far more likely to be familiar with the community and surrounding landscapes and to have participated more broadly in local activities. Consequently, we grouped seasonal residents into a four-category classification based on the amount of time they reported spending in the area during a typical year. The four categories were: (1) seasonal residents who said they spend 14 days or less visiting their property in the study area; (2) those who spend 15–31 days visiting the area; (3) those spending 32–90 days visiting the area; and (4) those who reported spending more than 90 days per year in the study area (see Jennings 2009). This more detailed breakdown of survey respondents into six categories (two for year-round residents and four for seasonal residents) reveals that variations in
86
6 New West and Old West
r ecreation participation are substantially more complex than what might initially be evident based on simple comparisons between year-round and seasonal populations. Looking first at hunting, the comparisons indicate longstanding year-round residents were far more likely to have spent time hunting within the study area during the past year (51.2%) than were respondents in any of the other residential categories (Fig. 6.1). About one out of five (19.5%) respondents classified as yearround newcomers reported hunting participation, a level of participation very similar to that reported by seasonal residents who spent 32–90 days (20.3%) or more than 90 days (21.9%) visiting their seasonal properties in the area. In contrast, only about one of ten seasonal residents who reported spending 14 days or less or 15–31 days visiting the area said they had hunted within the five-county study area in the preceding 12 months. In this comparison, longstanding year-round residents stand out as being distinctly different from all of the other residential categories with regard to hunting participation. Participation in recreational fishing produced a somewhat different pattern of responses across the six residential categories (Fig. 6.2). While longstanding yearround residents exhibited a higher rate of fishing participation (50.7%) than did newcomers (36.1%), even higher rates of participation were reported by seasonal residents who visit their properties for 32–90 days (55%) or more than 90 days per 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
51.2%
19.5%
Year-around longstanding
Year-around newcomer
9.4%
10.7%
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
20.3%
21.9%
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.1 Participation in hunting across six length of residence/frequency of visitation residential categories
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
50.7%
55.0%
58.1%
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
38.8%
36.1% 22.6%
Year-around longstanding
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Fig. 6.2 Participation in fishing across six length of residence/frequency of visitation residential categories
Natural Resource Uses and Behaviors
87
year (58.1%). Seasonal residents who visit the area 15–31 days a year reported fishing participation at a rate (38.8%) very similar to that reported by year-round newcomers. The lowest rate of fishing participation (22.6%) was reported by seasonal residents who visit the area for 14 days or less annually. Overall, differences in fishing participation between year-round longstanding and newcomer residents and the four categories of seasonal residents were considerably less clear-cut than was the case for hunting. Hiking and Backpacking We turn next to differences in levels of participation in two “appreciative” activities – day hiking and backpacking – between year-round and seasonal residents of the southern Utah study area. For day hiking, there was a statistically significant but relatively slight difference between these broadly defined residential categories, with seasonal residents being somewhat more likely (62.6%) than year-round residents (55.6%) to indicate that during the preceding 12 months they had participated in day hiking activity at least once at some location within the study area. In contrast, participation in backpacking within the study area during the prior 12 months was reported by virtually identical percentages of year-round (13.3%) and seasonal (12.9%) residents. When survey respondents were divided into 2 year-round residence categories (longstanding and newcomer residents) and four seasonal categories (based on frequency of visitation), we discovered a more complex pattern of differences in day hiking participation (Fig. 6.3). Year-round residents classified as “newcomers” were more likely to report they had engaged in day hiking during the past 12 months (62.7%) than were the longstanding year-round residents (54.1%). Among seasonal residents, those who reported spending either 15–31 days or 32–90 days annually visiting their homes in the study area were more likely to report day hiking participation (66% and 67.6%, respectively) than were seasonal residents who spend more than 90 days a year in the area (59%), and much more likely to report such activity than seasonal residents who spend 14 days or less in the area (45.3%). Clearly, participation in day hiking is associated with variations in length of
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
54.1%
Year-around longstanding
62.7%
66.0%
67.6%
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
45.3%
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
59.0%
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.3 Participation in day hiking across six length of residence/frequency of visitation residential categories
88
6 New West and Old West
20% 15%
14.4% 11.2%
10%
11.3%
12.6%
14.4%
11.4%
5% 0%
Year-around longstanding
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 Seasonal 15-Seasonal 32-Seasonal over days or less 31 days 90 days 90 days
Fig. 6.4 Participation in backpacking across six length of residence/frequency of visitation residential categories
r esidence among year-round residents, and with frequency of visitation among seasonal residents. In contrast, the lack of significant variation in backpacking participation when year-round and seasonal residents were compared persists when we subdivide the respondents into the six residence categories (Fig. 6.4). Only minor variations in levels of backpacking participation were observed, with the percentage of respondents indicating they had backpacked someplace in the study area during the prior year ranging from a low of 11.2% among year-round newcomers to a high of 14.4% among both longstanding year-round residents and seasonal residents who spend 32–90 days annually in the area. All-Terrain Vehicle and Snowmobile Riding The two activities involving motorized recreation also produced quite varied outcomes. Year-round residents were significantly more likely than seasonal residents to report they participated in recreational all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riding (50.1% vs. 37.4%) someplace within the study area during the past 12 months. At the same time, year-round residents were somewhat less likely than seasonal residents to report participation in snowmobiling (8.1% vs. 12.1%). When participation in ATV riding was examined across the 2 year-round and 4 seasonal residence categories (Fig. 6.5), the observed range of variation in participation levels became much more pronounced. Longstanding year-round residents were considerably more likely than respondents in any other residence category to indicate participation in ATV riding (55.4%). Year-round newcomers (38.5%), seasonal residents who spend 32–90 days annually in the area (43.2%), and seasonal residents who spend more than 90 days in the area (41%) reported generally similar but lower participation levels. ATV riding was reported considerably less frequently by seasonal residents who spend 15–31 days annually in the area (31.1%), and by an even lower percentage of the seasonal residents who spend 14 days or less visiting their homes within the study area (18.9%). Although overall levels of participation reported for snowmobiling were much lower than for ATV riding, variation across the six residential categories was also substantial (Fig. 6.6). The highest participation levels were reported by seasonal residents who annually spend 32–90 days (15.3%) or more than 90 days (13.3%)
Natural Resource Uses and Behaviors 60%
89
55.4%
50%
38.5%
40%
43.2%
41.0%
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
31.1%
30%
18.9%
20% 10% 0% Year-around longstanding
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Fig. 6.5 Participation in ATV riding across six length of residence/frequency of visitation residential categories 20% 15% 10%
15.3% 10.0%
5%
13.3%
7.8% 3.6%
3.8%
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
0% Year-around longstanding
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.6 Participation in snowmobiling riding across six length of residence/frequency of visitation residential categories
visiting their homes in the study area. Somewhat lower participation rates were reported by longstanding year-round residents (10%), and by seasonal residents who spend 15–31 days annually in the area (7.8%). The lowest levels of snowmobiling participation were reported by seasonal residents who spend 14 days or less annually in the area (3.8%), and by “newcomer” year-round residents who have lived in the study area for less than 10 years (3.6%). Visitation to National Parks, Monuments, Forests, and Recreation Areas Our survey of year-round and seasonal residents also asked respondents to indicate whether during the preceding 12 months they had visited any of the ten national parks, monuments, recreation areas, or Forests located within or in proximity to the five-county study area.2 Responses to each of the ten sites included in this series were used to create a single measure indicating whether a respondent reported no Included in this list are Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Cedar Breaks National Monument, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Dixie National Forest, and Fishlake National Forest.
2
90
6 New West and Old West
visits to any of these specific areas, visitation to any one of the areas, to two or three of the areas, or to more than three of the areas. Although this combined measure does not allow us to assess frequency of visitation to this aggregated set of recreation areas, it provides an indication of the degree to which survey respondents’ visitation to these major regional attractions is more or less extensive. A comparison of response patterns for this visitation measure among year-round and seasonal residents revealed a statistically significant but modest difference between those two residential categories. Seasonal residents (11.2%) were more likely than year-round residents (7.2%) to report either no visits or visitation to only one of the ten sites during the 12-month period prior to survey completion. And, while both year-round and seasonal residents were considerably more likely to say they had visited more than three of these locations during the past year than to report visiting fewer sites, that higher level of visitation was reported somewhat more frequently by year-round residents (54.7%) than by seasonal residents (46%). When we separated survey respondents into 2 year-round categories (longstanding and newcomer residents) and four seasonal categories (based on time spent at seasonal residential properties annually), a more nuanced picture of variation in visitation to these ten sites emerged (Fig. 6.7). Visitation to four or more of the regional parks, monuments, and forests during the prior year was reported by more than half of all respondents in three of the residential categories: year-round newcomers (55.4%), year-round longstanding residents (54.5%), and seasonal residents who spend 90 days or more annually living in the area (55.9%). Slightly lower percentages of seasonal residents who reported spending 32–90 days (48.6%) or 15–31 days (40.8%) in the area said they had visited four or more of these regional attractions within the past year. In contrast, seasonal residents who visit their properties in the study area for 14 days or less annually were far less likely to report having visited four or more of these locations (26.1%); they were also more likely than respondents in any other category to report no visitation to any of these sites (19.6%) during the prior year. On balance, our results indicate differences in visitation to these regional attractions are influenced far more by variation in the length of time spent in the area among seasonal residents than by differences between seasonal and year-round populations.
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
54.5%
55.4% 40.8%
48.6%
55.9%
26.1%
Year-around longstanding
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.7 Visitation to four or more national parks, monuments, recreational areas and forests across six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories
Natural Resource Uses and Behaviors
91
Agency Contacts Regarding Environmental/ Natural Resource Issues From the perspective of natural resource managers, one potentially important consequence of social and demographic shifts occurring in high-amenity areas is increased interaction with a growing and changing set of local constituencies. To some extent demands on agency professionals are likely to increase due simply to an increase in the numbers of residents who maintain year-round or seasonal residence in such areas. At the same time, resource managers are also likely to encounter shifts in public preferences and expectations about how natural environments and resources are managed as the characteristics of local populations and user groups change. To explore this situation, we examined responses to survey questions that asked whether during the past year respondents had contacted any government agency to get information or complain about an environmental problem, and whether they had attended a public hearing or meeting about the environment. An initial comparison focusing on the year-round and seasonal residence categories revealed no meaningful difference with respect to contacts with government agencies about environmental problems or concerns. A substantial majority of both year-round (68.6%) and seasonal (72.3%) residents said they had not made such contact with any agency or agency official during the past 12 months. In contrast, responses to the question about public meeting attendance revealed a significant difference between these residential categories, with year-round residents substantially more likely (47.2%) than seasonal residents (25.7%) to report having attended at least one public meeting pertaining to environmental/natural resource issues during the 12 months prior to survey administration. This difference is not particularly surprising, of course, since seasonal residents often are not in residence or able to travel to meeting venues when various public participation activities and meetings conducted by natural resource management agencies throughout the study area are scheduled to occur. As indicated in Fig. 6.8, comparisons based on division of year-round residents into longstanding and newcomer categories and of seasonal residents into the four frequency of visitation categories provide a somewhat different picture. With respect to the agency contacts question, those most likely to say they had contacted
40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
32.4%
26.8% 13.5%
Year-around Year-around longstanding newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
22.0%
Seasonal 15-31 days
29.8%
Seasonal 32-90 days
36.9%
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.8 Contacts with agencies about environmental/natural resource issues across six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories
92 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
6 New West and Old West 49.2%
40.0%
35.9% 22.0%
24.9%
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
17.3%
Year-around Year-around longstanding newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.9 Attendance at public meetings about environmental/natural resource issues across six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories
an agency regarding an environmental or natural resource issue were longstanding year-round residents (32.4%) and seasonal residents spending 90 days or more in the study area (36.9%). Slightly fewer seasonal residents spending 32–90 days in the area (29.8%) and year-round newcomers (26.8%) reported such contacts. Seasonal residents spending 14 days or less in the area were substantially less likely (13.5%) than those in any other residence category to say they contacted an agency regarding environmental/natural resource issues or concerns. A comparison of responses to the question about public meeting attendance across the six residential categories produced a slightly different pattern (Fig. 6.9). Those most likely to report such attendance were year-round longstanding residents (49.2%), followed by year-round newcomers (40%), and seasonal residents who spend 90 days or more in the area annually (35.9%). As might be expected, meeting attendance dropped sharply among seasonal residents who spend fewer days annually in the study area, particularly those who reported spending 14 days or less (17.3%).
Values Regarding Natural Resources Responses to two of our survey questions provide insight into broad-based value orientations pertaining to environmental and natural resource issues among study area residents. Survey participants were asked to think about the importance of various issues and conditions to the future of the American West, and to rate the importance of individual items on a five-category Likert-type scale with response options ranging from “very unimportant” to “very important.” Included in this series was an item focusing on the importance of “opportunities for traditional economic activities such as grazing, logging, or mining on public lands” that helps to illuminate Old West commodity-production values linked to the natural resources of western public lands. Another item, which focused on the importance of “designated wilderness areas,” provides insight into a substantially different realm of New West values associated with the preservation and protection of undeveloped wildland areas within the public lands that are so prevalent across the region.
Values Regarding Natural Resources
93
Our data revealed major differences in value orientations expressed by yearround and seasonal residents across the southern Utah study area in terms of the importance of traditional activities such as grazing, logging and mining. Among year-round residents, six of ten respondents (60.4%) said they consider such activities “very important” to the future of the West, with an additional 21.5% indicating these activities are “moderately important.” In combination, among year-round residents over 80% of responses fell into the “very important” and “moderately important” categories. In contrast, seasonal residents, as a group, were only half as likely as year-round residents to consider these activities “very important” (28.7%), with a combined 60.4% of responses in the “very important” and “moderately important” categories. Clearly, the utilitarian value orientations supportive of such types of commodity-production resource-based activities are considerably more widespread among year-round residents of the study area than among seasonal residents. When survey respondents were divided into the six categories used to account for length of tenure among year-round residents and frequency of visitation among seasonal residents, a more refined picture emerged. Figure 6.10, which presents only percentages for the “very important” and “moderately important” response categories, makes it clear that this utilitarian value orientation linked to resourcebased commodity production is most pervasive among longstanding year-round residents of southern Utah. Over two-thirds (68.4%) of respondents within that residential grouping indicated such activities and uses are “very important” to the future of the West; in combination nearly nine out of ten responses among longstanding residents (88.4%) fell into the “very important” and “moderately important” categories. The combined percentages of “very important” and “moderately important” responses were considerably lower among year-round newcomers (63.7%) and among seasonal residents who spend more than 90 days visiting the study area annually (68.8%), and lower still among seasonal residents who spend 32–90 days (58.6%), 15–31 days (59%), or 14 days or less (60.8%) in the area. Taken as a whole, these response patterns indicate considerable adherence to a value orientation supportive of commodity-based uses of natural resources across all of the year-round and seasonal residence categories, with a majority of Moderately Important Very Important
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
20.0% 68.4% Year-around longstanding
26.1%
35.3%
34.0%
30.0%
37.6%
25.5%
25.0%
28.6%
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
32.3% 36.5% Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.10 Percentages of “very important” and “moderately important” responses regarding the importance of traditional economic activities, across six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories
94
6 New West and Old West
r espondents in every category indicating such uses are either “very important” or “moderately important” to how they would like to see the West evolve in the future. This suggests there may be considerably more common ground with respect to the use of public lands for commodity-production activities among the year-round and seasonal populations of these areas than has often been presumed. At the same time, survey respondents classified as longstanding year-round residents clearly stand apart from all of the other categories as being especially likely to express such an orientation. We turn next to the question addressing designation of wilderness areas as an indicator of value orientations emphasizing resource protection and preservation as keys to future conditions in the West. Responses to this question revealed a substantial distinction in the perspectives of year-round and seasonal residents of our study area. Among year-round residents, responses were scattered fairly evenly across all five of the response categories, with only a minority of respondents indicating they consider wilderness designation to be either very important (19.1%) or moderately important (18.4%) as a positive contributor to what they hope to see happen in the region in future years. In contrast, seasonal residents were more than twice as likely (42.1%) to consider wilderness designation as “very important” to the future of the region, and an additional one-fourth of the seasonal respondents (25.6%) considered this to be “moderately important.” Based on this comparison, the more protectionist and preservationist value orientations linked to the concept of wilderness designation appear to represent an important and potentially divisive factor differentiating southwest Utah’s seasonal and yearround populations. The nature of this division is further illuminated when we examine response variations across the six residential categories used to differentiate newcomer and longstanding year-round residents and seasonal residents who visit the area more or less frequently. Figure 6.11, which again focuses only on the “very important” and “somewhat important” response categories, indicates longstanding year-round residents of the study area are far less likely to express the protectionist/preservationist value orientation tapped by response to this wilderness designation question
Moderately Important Very Important
80% 60%
27.8%
40% 20% 0%
14.9% 14.0%
32.1%
Year-around longstanding
Year-around newcomer
21.6%
22.2%
26.4%
31.6%
45.1%
47.5%
39.4%
38.8%
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.11 Percentages of “very important” and “Moderately important” responses regarding the importance of designated wilderness areas, across six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories
Attitudes Regarding Public Lands Resource Management Policies
95
than any of the other residential categories. Only 14% of longstanding year-round residents rated wilderness designation as “very important” to the region’s future, with a similar percentage (14.9%) selecting the “moderately important” response option. By comparison, expressions consistent with this protectionist/preservationist value orientation were substantially more widespread among year-round residents classified as newcomers, with nearly one of three responses in the “very important” category and over one-fourth in the “moderately important” category. Even stronger adherence to this value orientation is evident among the various categories of seasonal residents, and especially among those who are less frequent visitors to their seasonal properties in the study area. Indeed, among seasonal residents who spend 14 days or less in the area and those who spend 15–31 days there, fully two-thirds of respondents considered wilderness designation to be either very important or moderately important as a contributor to what they hope will characterize the West in future years. Overall, it seems clear that values related to wilderness protection represent a major fault line in the social landscapes occupied by year-round and seasonal residents in this high-amenity area of southern Utah.
Attitudes Regarding Public Lands Resource Management Policies Five survey questions are used to examine possible attitudinal differences regarding the management of natural resources in public land areas located throughout the study area. Specific management issues addressed by these questions include policies encouraging mineral exploration and extraction, reduction of timber harvest sales, increased designation of wilderness areas, protection of endangered species, and reduction in levels of livestock grazing on public lands. Each of these issues has been a focus of considerable recent public debate both within the study area and across the American West as resource management agencies grapple with competing demands from commodity-production interests, economic development interests, diverse groups of recreational users, and those who prioritize resource preservation.
Minerals Extraction Responses of year-round and seasonal residents to the survey question that asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with public lands management policies encouraging mineral exploration and extraction revealed major attitudinal differences. Among year-round residents, nearly four of ten (38.2%) respondents expressed strong agreement with such policies, and one in four selected the
96
6 New West and Old West Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
80% 60%
25.8%
40% 20%
45.0%
0% Year-around longstanding
24.8% 19.3%
Year-around newcomer
15.4% 15.4%
21.1% 9.5%
12.9% 11.9%
14.4% 21.1%
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.12 Percentages of “strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” responses regarding public lands policies that encourage mineral exploration and development, across six length of residence/ frequency of visitation categories
“ somewhat agree” response. In all, nearly two-thirds of year-round residents expressed some level of agreement with policies promoting mineral exploration and extraction, while only about one-fourth of responses fell on the “disagree” side of the response scale. In contrast, seasonal residents were far less likely to indicate they either strongly agree (13.7%) or somewhat agree (14.8%) with such policies, and most likely to say they either strongly disagree (29.3%) or somewhat disagree (21.7%) with policies encouraging mineral resource development on public lands in the study area. When responses to this question are examined across the six length of residence/ frequency of visitation categories, it becomes apparent that support for policies encouraging minerals extraction resides predominantly within the longstanding year-round residence category. As indicated in Fig. 6.12 (which again reports only the “strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” responses), almost half of longstanding residents (45%) indicated they strongly agree with such policies, and one in four (25.8%) said they “somewhat agree.” In combination, over 70% of longstanding year-round residents expressed some level of agreement with policies that encourage minerals extraction. Combined levels of agreement were much lower among year-round newcomers (44.1%), lower still among seasonal residents who spend more than 90 days annually in the study area (35.5%), 2 weeks or less in the area (30.8%), or 15–31 days in the area (30.6%), and lowest among seasonal residents spending 32–90 days in the area (24.8%). With respect to attitudes about mineral extraction policies, year-round longstanding residents stand substantially apart from all of the other residence categories in their expressions of support for this type of commodity-production activity.
Timber Harvest Responses to a question asking respondents to indicate their agreement or disagreement with policies that would prioritize reduction of timber harvest activities on public lands revealed similar differences across the residence categories. Year-round
Attitudes Regarding Public Lands Resource Management Policies
97 Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
19.4% 62.8%
23.3% 24.5%
23.1% 17.3%
26.0% 21.9%
21.5% 20.0%
Year-around longstanding
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
22.9% 32.3% Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.13 Percentages of “strongly disagree” and “somewhat disagree” responses regarding public lands policies that would reduce timber harvests, across six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories
residents were more than twice as likely (52.5%) as seasonal residents (22.5%) to express strong disagreement with such policies. And, when survey respondents were separated into multiple categories based on length of residence and frequency of visitation, it was once again the year-round longstanding residents who stood apart from all other categories as being substantially more likely to express strong disagreement with policies that would reduce public land timber harvest levels (Fig. 6.13). Eight out of ten longstanding residents said they either strongly disagree (62.8%) or somewhat disagree (19.4%) that timber harvests should be reduced. By comparison, only 55% of seasonal residents spending more than 90 days in the area, and fewer than half of respondents in all of the other residence categories, indicated any level of disagreement with such policies.
Wilderness Designation Designation of wilderness areas within federal land areas has been a highly divisive issue in Utah and across the American West for nearly 50 years, since the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Recent proposals to expand the number and size of designated wilderness areas throughout the region have stimulated extensive political debate and public controversy, pitting the interests of preservationists against those of individuals and organizations that prioritize either commercialization of public land resources or provision of motorized access for varied recreational activities (Durrant 2007; Otto 2007). Expressions of agreement and disagreement regarding policies that would establish additional designated wilderness areas on public lands in the study area were highly varied across the year-round and seasonal residency categories. Seven out of 10 year-round residents indicated they would either strongly disagree (59%) or somewhat disagree (11.4%) with such policies. In contrast, when seasonal residents were considered as a single category, only 27% of responses were in the “strongly disagree” category, and 13.3% said they would “somewhat disagree” with additional wilderness designations.
98
6 New West and Old West Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
100% 80% 60% 40%
10.2% 69.3%
20%
14.1%
13.2%
17.7%
13.0%
10.4%
31.3%
30.2%
24.0%
26.0%
32.3%
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
0% Year-around longstanding
Fig. 6.14 Percentages of “strongly disagree” and “somewhat disagree” responses regarding public lands policies that would establish additional designated wilderness areas, across six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories
When survey respondents were separated into the six length of residence/ frequency of visitation categories, once again the longstanding year-round residents stood out from all other categories with respect to attitudes about this policy issue. As indicated in Fig. 6.14, nearly seven out of ten longstanding residents indicated they would “strongly disagree” with policies designating additional wilderness areas in the study area, and another 10% said they would “somewhat disagree.” In contrast, year-round newcomers and each of the four categories of seasonal residents exhibited far lower and generally similar levels of disagreement regarding such policy, with well under half of respondents in each of these residence categories indicating any level of disagreement with policies designed to designate more wilderness areas.
Endangered Species Protection Protection of endangered species represents another lightning rod issue regarding management of natural resources and public lands in the United States; this is especially true in portions of the American West (see Czech and Krausman 2001). Although protection of the Northern Spotted Owl and associated major shifts in federal timber management policies in the Pacific Northwest during the early 1990s represents one of best-known cases in which such issues generated widespread controversy and conflict, similar debates have emerged in the southwest Utah study area and surrounding portions of the Intermountain West over protection of the desert tortoise, the Mexican spotted owl, the Utah prairie dog, and other threatened or endangered species. As with the other attitudinal issues considered thus far, responses to the survey question asking participants to indicate their agreement or disagreement with resource management policies providing protection to endangered species varied substantially across residence categories. When respondents were simply divided into year-round and seasonal residence categories, seasonal residents were revealed
Attitudes Regarding Public Lands Resource Management Policies
99 Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
80% 60% 33.1%
40% 20% 0%
24.5%
25.3%
23.9% 43.5%
33.0%
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
28.8%
38.5%
42.1%
Year-around newcomer
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
13.6% Year-around longstanding
10.2%
22.7%
Fig. 6.15 Percentages of “strongly disagree” and “somewhat disagree” responses regarding resource management policies providing protection to endangered species, across six length of resident/frequency of visitation categories
as being far more likely to express strong agreement with protection of endangered species (40.8%) than were year-round residents (17.8%). Division of respondents into six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories (Fig. 6.15) indicated the relationship between residency status and attitudes about endangered species protection is somewhat more complex, however. Expressions of strong agreement that endangered species should be protected were least common among year-round longstanding residents (13.6%), reinforcing the pattern of difference seen with other attitudinal questions examined previously. Expressions of strong agreement with such policies were higher among year-round newcomer residents (28.8%) and seasonal residents who spend more than 90 days annually in the study area (33%), and even higher among seasonal residents spending 14 days or less in the area (38.5%), those spending 15–31 days in the area (42.1%), and those who spend 32–90 days in the area annually (43.5%). In this case, the attitudinal variations exhibited among survey respondents indicate that while longstanding year-round residents stand apart from all of the other residence groups, there are similarities between year-round newcomers and seasonal residents who spend a great deal of time in the study area as well as seasonal residents who spend 90 days or less in the area.
Livestock Grazing The use of public lands as a source of forage for livestock grazing has a long and storied history across the American West. Following passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, grazing on federal lands was established as a fee-based activity, with grazing permits allocated by participating federal agencies (primarily the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service). Grazing permits are assigned to individual livestock operations for the use of specified land areas during designated seasons of use by a predetermined number of livestock.
100
6 New West and Old West
Livestock grazing permits are a crucial component of livestock operations across much of the American West, where base properties often do not provide adequate forage to sustain livestock herds on a year-round basis. They are also a major capital asset to those who hold the permits, and a key factor in determining the value of ranch operations and properties to which the permits have been attached. In recent years, the allocation of livestock grazing permits has become yet another focal point for environmental conflict across the West, with increasing pressure from environmental interests to reduce livestock grazing levels to help restore wildlife habitat, protect riparian areas and watersheds, and reduce what they perceive to be environmental degradation in areas subject to heavy grazing pressure. In the early 1990s, environmental groups pursued an agenda to sharply reduce if not eliminate public lands grazing uses, a goal reflected in the slogan “Cattle Free by ‘93” that became a rallying cry for such efforts. While public land grazing has remained relatively active across the region, pressures to reduce grazing levels have continued to create sharp divisions between public lands grazing interests, environmental interests, and public land managers (White 2008). When asked to express their levels of agreement or disagreement with public land resource management policies that would reduce levels of livestock grazing, survey respondents, as a whole, were generally more likely to express disagreement than agreement. Expressions of disagreement were fairly widespread among year-round residents of the study area, with 50.6% of survey participants in that residence category saying they would “strongly disagree” and 18.8% indicating they would “somewhat disagree” with policies designed to reduce grazing uses on public lands. When considered as a single group, responses from seasonal residents were more evenly distributed across the five response categories for this question, with 20% indicating they would “strongly disagree” and 20% also saying they would “somewhat disagree” with policies designed to reduce livestock grazing. Figure 6.16 details response differences across the 2 year-round and 4 seasonal residence categories used throughout this analysis. Once again, it is the year-round longstanding residents of the study area who are most distinct from all other respondent groups with respect to attitudes about livestock grazing on public lands. Six out of 10 year-round longstanding residents said they would “strongly disagree” Somewhat Disagree
80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
15.6% 60.2%
27.6%
Year-around longstanding
Year-around newcomer
23.3%
13.5% 19.2%
22.1% 16.8%
21.4% 20.0%
18.9% 24.2%
Seasonal 14 days or less
Seasonal 15-31 days
Seasonal 32-90 days
Seasonal over 90 days
Fig. 6.16 Percentages of “strongly disagree” and “somewhat disagree” responses regarding resource management policies that would reduce livestock grazing across six length of residence/ frequency of visitation categories
Taking Compositional Factors into Account
101
with policies reducing livestock grazing levels. In contrast, for all other residence categories the percentage of respondents expressing strong disagreement with such policies was far lower, ranging between 16.8% (among seasonal residents who spend 15–31 days annually in the study area) and 24.2% (among seasonal residents who spend more than 90 days annually in the area). In this case, responses from year-round newcomers were generally similar to those expressed by seasonal residents.
Taking Compositional Factors into Account The results presented thus far indicate there are considerable differences across the several categories of year-round and seasonal residents in our southwest Utah study area with respect to a variety of behaviors, values, and attitudes related to the use and management of natural resources in this high-amenity setting. A more thorough understanding of both the extent of such differences and their consequences is important to natural resource management professionals, local government officials, and others charged with the tasks of responding to public input, addressing public expectations regarding environmental and resource conditions, and devising and implementing resource management decisions that balance the varied demands of multiple public interests, while also helping to sustain environmental quality. As one means for assessing these differences and their implications, it is helpful to examine whether they reflect, in part, compositional differences – i.e., variations in the social and demographic compositions of the various categories of year-round and seasonal residents. Areas affected by in-migration, including those areas characterized by high natural-amenity values, often attract disproportionately large concentrations of younger, better educated, and higher income residents (Albrecht 2004; Hunter et al. 2005). If on the one hand the kinds of differences we have observed across residence groupings are largely “explained away” by variations linked to sociodemographic characteristics, we might conclude the nature and extent of differences could be expected to shift in response to future variations in the compositional characteristics of migrant and seasonal residence populations. On the other hand, if compositional factors do not account for a large component of the differences observed across these residential categories, we can more safely assume the relationships highlighted by our analytic comparisons are grounded in fundamental differences in the belief systems, value orientations, and cultural perspectives characterizing these various population categories. In order to determine whether similarities and differences across residential categories in resource-related behaviors, values, and attitudes might be influenced by variations in the sociodemographic characteristics of particular residence types, we conducted a number of multivariate analyses designed to determine whether bivariate relationships linked to residence type remain intact when the influence of key sociodemographic variables is controlled statistically. Given the large number of analytic comparisons already presented in this chapter, and in the interest of
102
6 New West and Old West
space, we illustrate the nature of these multivariate relationships by focusing here on three of the variables examined thus far: the values measure pertaining to the importance of traditional commodity-production activities such as grazing, logging, or mining on public lands, and attitudinal measures focusing on agreement or disagreement with resource management policies that would reduce levels of livestock grazing, and that would increase designated wilderness areas. For these comparisons we utilized multiple classification analysis (MCA) to determine whether previously observed differences across the six length of residence/frequency of visitation categories remain evident when relationships involving selected sociodemographic variables are taken into account. The socio demographic measures included as control variables or “covariates” in these multivariate analyses included: (1) survey respondents’ age (in years); (2) level of educational attainment (six ordinal categories); (3) gender; (4) household income level (eight ordinal categories); and (5) life cycle stage (six ordinal categories).3 Overall, the results of the analyses for the three value and attitude measures (and for comparisons involving other behavioral, value orientation, and attitudinal measures not addressed explicitly here) indicate very clearly the kinds of differences we have previously documented across residence categories are not substantially altered when relationships involving sociodemographic composition are taken into account. Looking first at Table 6.1, which presents MCA results for the analysis involving values associated with traditional commodity-production activities, we find the mean response “score” for the question focusing on values associated with natural resource commodity production was substantially lower for longstanding year-round residents (unadjusted deviation −0.52) than the overall mean for all survey respondents, prior to taking the influence of covariates into account. At the same time, the unadjusted deviations for all other residence categories are higher than the combined group mean.4 When relationships involving covariates are taken into account, these patterns of deviation from the overall sample mean change very little. For longstanding year-round residents the deviation from the group mean remains substantial and negative, as indicated by the adjusted deviation value (−0.46), while for all other residence categories the adjusted deviations remain positive and of generally similar magnitude to the unadjusted deviation values. The value of Beta (.32), Age was measured in years. Education was measured using six ordinal categories ranging from “less than a high school degree” to “advanced (graduate) degree.” Gender was measured as male (1) and female (2). Annual household income was measured in eight ordinal categories, ranging from “less than $15,000” to “$150,000 or more.” Life cycle stage was a six-category composite variable linking respondent age with indicators of the presence of children living at home; categories included “young individual or couple with no children,” “individual or family with young children (under age 5),” “individual or family with mix of younger and older children,” “individual or family with older children,” “middle age adults with no children;” and “older adults (65 or older) with no children living at home.” For additional details, see Jennings (2009). 4 Since response options ranged from 1 (very important) to 5 (very unimportant), in this case higher values reflect lower levels of adherence to a utilitarian value orientation prioritizing economic commodity-production activities utilizing public land natural resources. 3
Taking Compositional Factors into Account
103
Table 6.1 Multiple classification analysis of values measure addressing the importance of traditional commodity-production activities on public lands Dependent variable Importance of opportunities for traditional economic activities such as grazing, Unadjusted Adjusted logging or mining on public lands n Eta Deviation Beta Deviation F Probability Main effects (residence 0.37 0.32 27.82 <.001 category) Longstanding 347 −0.52 −0.46 year-round Newcomer year-round 134 0.25 0.26 Seasonal under 15 days/ 39 0.35 0.24 year Seasonal 15–31 78 0.51 0.39 days/year Seasonal 32–90 164 0.47 0.43 days/year Seasonal over 90 77 0.22 0.19 days/year Covariates Age Education Gender Income Life cycle stage Multiple R2 (main effects and covariates) = 0.18
9.33 0.00 37.13 6.97 0.14 0.07
<.001 .98 <.001 .01 .71 .79
which indicates the partial correlation between the dependent variable (commodityproduction values) and the main effects variables (the six residency classes), is only slightly smaller than the zero-order correlation (eta = .37) between these variables. This indicates that inclusion of the covariates in the analysis only slightly reduces the role of residency classification in accounting for variation in this measure of natural resource value orientations. Covariates exhibiting statistically significant partial relationships with this dependent variable include respondent education and gender. Although the MCA coefficients do not provide an indication of the direction of these relationships, further analysis not detailed here indicates that, other things being equal, adherence to this utilitarian/commodity-production value orientation is more evident among study area residents who are male and those who have lower levels of education. Table 6.2 presents results of the MCA for the attitudinal variable focusing on levels of agreement or disagreement with policies that would reduce livestock grazing on public lands throughout the southwest Utah study area. Once again, the unadjusted deviation coefficients indicate that before the influence of sociodemographic compositional factors is accounted for longstanding year-round residents
104
6 New West and Old West
Table 6.2 Multiple classification analysis of attitudinal measure indicating agreement or d isagreement with resource management policies that would reduce livestock grazing Dependent variable Agreement with public lands management policies that would decrease livestock grazing n Eta Deviation Beta Deviation F Distribution 0.39 0.37 29.03 <.001 Main effects (residence category) Longstanding 344 0.60 0.57 year-round Newcomer 131 −0.24 −0.23 year-round Seasonal under 40 −0.59 −0.55 15 days/year Seasonal 15–31 75 −0.52 −0.46 days/year Seasonal 32–90 160 −0.45 −0.45 days/year Seasonal over 90 75 −0.53 −0.51 days/year Covariates Age Education Gender Income Life cycle stage
3.35 0.49 14.48 2.14 0.46 0.57
.01 .48 <.001 .14 .50 .45
Multiple R2 (main effects and covariates) = 0.17
are substantially more likely to express opposition to such policies (unadjusted deviation 0.60) than year-round newcomers (unadjusted deviation −0.24) or any of the four seasonal residence categories (unadjusted deviations ranging from −0.45 to −0.59). When the influence of the sociodemographic covariates is considered, these differences remain virtually unchanged, as indicated by the fact each residency category’s adjusted deviation value is very close or identical to the unadjusted values. The partial association between the residency classifications and this attitudinal measure, indicated by the value of Beta (0.37), is nearly the same as the zero-order correlation (Eta = 0.39), reinforcing the observation that differences observed across these six length of residence/frequency of visitation residency categories are not simply an artifact of differing sociodemographic characteristics across those groupings. The only covariate exhibiting a statistically significant association with attitudes about a reduction in public land livestock grazing is education, reflecting a tendency for those with lower levels of education to be more opposed to such policies. Table 6.3 summarizes MCA results involving the measure of attitudes about policies that would increase the designation of wilderness areas on southern Utah’s
Taking Compositional Factors into Account
105
Table 6.3 Multiple classification analysis of attitudinal measure indicating agreement or d isagreement with resource management policies that would increase wilderness designation Dependent variable Agreement with public lands management policies that would increase wilderness n Eta Deviation Beta Deviation F Probability 0.44 0.41 40.31 <.001 Main effects (residence category) Longstanding 342 0.79 0.74 year-round Newcomer 130 −0.41 −0.40 year-round Seasonal under 40 −0.54 −0.42 15 days/year Seasonal 15–31 76 −0.82 −0.71 days/year Seasonal 32–90 160 −0.56 −0.56 days/year Seasonal over 90 76 −0.55 −0.57 days/year Covariates 6.74 <.001 Age 0.44 .51 Education 14.71 <.001 Sex 13.08 <.001 Income 0.18 .67 Life cycle stage 0.10 .75 Multiple R2 (main effects and covariates) = 0.22
public lands. Once again, the results obtained in this analysis reinforce the distinctiveness of year-round longstanding residents relative to all other residence categories under consideration. The mean response value for longstanding residents was considerably higher (unadjusted deviation = .79) than the overall mean for all respondents, indicating a pronounced tendency to express disagreement with increased designation of wilderness areas. For all other residence categories the unadjusted deviations assumed a negative value, ranging from −.41 (among yearround newcomers) to −0.82 (seasonal residents who spend 15–31 days in the area annually); those negative values are indicative of tendencies to express agreement with policies that would designate more wilderness areas. When the influence of the sociodemographic covariates is taken into account these differences across residency categories remain largely intact – the adjusted deviation for year-round longstanding residents is positive (0.74), while for all other groups the adjusted deviations are negative. In addition, the partial correlation between residency categories and the attitudinal measure remains substantial even when the covariates are considered (Beta = 0.41), and only slightly smaller than the zero-order correlation (eta = .44). Among the covariates, respondents’ level of
106
6 New West and Old West
e ducation and gender exhibited statistically significant associations with the wilderness attitudes variable, indicative of a tendency for those with higher levels of education and women to be more supportive of additional wilderness designation on Utah’s public lands.
Summary and Implications Taken as a whole, these findings highlight the presence of considerable differences among year-round and seasonal residents of the southwest Utah study area across a broad array of indicators designed to address varied issues related to natural resource use and management. Specifically, results derived from our survey of residential property owners revealed noteworthy differences with respect to nearly all of the behavioral, value orientation, and attitudinal measures examined. When broad residency categories (year-round versus seasonal) were examined, this data suggests there is substantial prospect for tensions to emerge between seasonal and year-round populations that seemingly occupy substantially different life worlds in terms of their engagement in various resource-based activities and use patterns, the values they associate with natural resources and landscapes, and their attitudes and preferences regarding resource use and management. At the same time, our analyses also reveal that a simple “year-round vs. seasonal” comparison fails to fully capture the complexity of differences in resource use patterns, values, and attitudes within as well as across these two residence categories. When we link the year-round/seasonal categories with length of residence/frequency of visitation information, a much more nuanced picture of differences as well as similarities among these residence groupings begins to emerge. Across virtually every one of the 16 variables used to assess resource-related activities and orientations, the differences observed between seasonal and year-round populations are, to a considerable degree, a result of the tendency for long-term year-round residents to stand well apart from all other residence categories. Compared to other residents, long-term year-round residents who participated in our survey are far more likely to engage in “consumptive” uses and traditional rural outdoor recreation activities such as hunting and ATV riding. They are also far more likely to exhibit Old West utilitarian value orientations regarding natural resources, to express attitudes supportive of commodity production and resource utilization as resource management priorities, and to oppose management strategies that prioritize resource protection and preservation. The complexity of variations in resource use patterns, values, and attitudes is further evidenced by the similarities as well as differences that are evident when other residence categories are considered. For example, on many indicators it is clear year-round residents who are relative newcomers to communities across the study area are more similar to at least some seasonal residents than they are to other year-round residents who have lived in the area for longer periods. These similarities are particularly evident when comparing the year-round newcomer category to
Summary and Implications
107
seasonal residents who spend a substantial number of days visiting and living at their properties over the course of a year. And, where there are noteworthy differences across the various seasonal residence categories, they primarily involve a tendency for those who spend little time living in and visiting their seasonal properties to differ from those who spend more time in the area. For example, year-round newcomers as well as seasonal residents spending 32–90 or more than 90 days annually at their seasonal properties were much more likely to report participation in hunting, fishing, or ATV riding at some location within the five-county study area, and also far more likely to report visitation to ten national parks, monuments, and forests in the region, than were seasonal residents spending 14 days or less at their properties. Seasonal residents who spend only a few days annually visiting their properties were least likely to say they had contacted an agency about environmental or natural resource issues or concerns, whereas those who spend 90 days or more per year visiting their properties were more likely than any other residence category to report having done so. Adding to the complexity of these variations is the fact seasonal residents who spend 90 days or more annually in the area are more likely than any other seasonal residence category, and also more likely than yearround “newcomers,” to disagree with polices that would reduce timber harvest levels on public lands. At the same time, responses to the attitudinal question addressing the desirability of designating additional wilderness areas were highly similar across the year-round newcomer and all four seasonal residence categories, with only long-term year-round residents expressing broad-based opposition. These and other patterns of variation within as well as across the year-round and seasonal residence categories have a number of important implications with respect to the social contexts experienced by residents of this high-amenity area. First, it is clear that in high-amenity areas attracting substantial numbers of both in-migrating year-round and seasonal residents, long-term year-round residents are likely to find themselves at odds in multiple ways with these new and different populations. This suggests there is substantial potential for longstanding residents to feel increasingly threatened by changes linked to amenity-based growth and development. In areas where in-migrant and seasonal populations become sufficiently large to establish a “critical mass” of residents who have more in common with one another than with more established residents, long-established rural traditions and norms regarding resource use and management are increasingly likely to be challenged, and even pushed aside. As those changes unfold the prospects for “culture clash” and intensified conflict over resource use, management, and decision making seem likely to increase. Under such circumstances, the challenges confronted by local political and civic leaders attempting to promote constructive community engagement and collective action in pursuit of local needs and interests will likely increase as well. Such shifts and transformations also have obvious and important implications for those charged with management and protection of the natural resources and landscapes that make such settings high-amenity areas in the first place. The growth of both year-round and seasonal populations alone adds considerable complexity to these tasks, due simply to increased requirements for the provision of some resource-based services (e.g., water supplies), increased pressures on resource
108
6 New West and Old West
c onditions resulting from growth-induced land use change and associated resource degradation effects (e.g., habitat disturbance and fragmentation, water quality issues), and increased utilization of areas that provide for various outdoor recreation opportunities. The varied resource-use patterns exhibited among differing categories of year-round and seasonal populations also indicate managers should anticipate additional challenges and complexities as a result of shifts in the types and distributions of activities pursued across the natural landscapes characterizing such areas, and associated changes in the impacts such activities can have on resource conditions. Finally, it is abundantly clear the social changes occurring in these high-amenity areas will also contribute to shifts in public expectations and preferences regarding resource use and land management at the local and regional levels. Inevitably, the multifaceted changes occurring in these contexts will alter the nature of an ongoing “public acceptability” discourse over resource management decisions and policies, and produce new, often unanticipated, pressure points with respect to resource policy and management decisions.
Chapter 7
Population Change and Contrasting Integration, Attachment, and Participation in the New West-Old West*
Richard Krannich
Introduction As we have detailed in prior chapters, historical and traditional patterns of internal migration in the United States consisted of large population movements from rural to urban areas. However, over the last 40 years a different pattern emerged at two distinct times – during the late 1970s and mid-1990s. Both reflected more contemporary macro-level factors, including changing workforce and economic conditions, * Chapter authored by David Mattarita-Cascante and A.E. Luloff, with assistance from Brian Jennings R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_7, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
109
110
7 Population Change and Contrasting Integration
advances in telecommunications, and intergenerational transfers of wealth, each of which contributed to a reversal of the dominant pattern. Now, significant numbers of people were moving from urban to rural areas (Beyers and Nelson 2000; Fuguitt and Beale 1996; Fitchen 1991; Hawley and Mills 1982; Johnson and Purdy 1980; Johnson and Beale 1994; McGranahan 1999; Tucker 1976). These patterns, particularly in the 1970s, became popularized as an American “rural renaissance” (Morrison and Wheeler 1976; Brown and Wardwell 1980). Not all rural counties experienced this population transformation. Indeed, the fastest rates of growth occurred in those nonmetropolitan counties that were destinations for recreation and retirement (Johnson and Beale 1994). For example, during the early 1990s, population gains occurred in almost nine of every ten counties (88%) identified as recreational in focus (a total of 283 such counties, according to the USDA County Classification Coding Scheme; see Johnson and Beale 1994). As a number of authors have observed, the natural-amenity character of these counties was the major “pull” factor attracting urban and suburban migrants (Beyers and Nelson 2000; Deller et al. 2003; McGranahan 1999; Shumway and Otterstrom 2001) . Not surprisingly, the population redistribution resulting from amenity-driven migration resulted in significant social, economic, and ecologic changes all of which, in turn, impacted living conditions in the receiving/destination rural communities (Berry 2000; Graber 1974; Matarrita-Cascante et al. 2006; Mataritta-Cascante et al. 2010). Much research on amenity-related growth has centered on providing a better understanding of the effects of rapid growth on three core dimensions: the biophysical properties of impacted landscapes (e.g., land cover and uses, topography); the sociodemographic composition of rural populations (e.g., age, socioeconomic status); and the sociocultural characteristics exhibited by destination areas and communities (e.g., traditions, sentiments, values, perceptions). In this chapter we focus attention on the two latter dimensions, particularly examining the differences between established groups and newcomers. The analysis draws upon data from the mail survey of residents in the five counties comprising our southwest Utah study area (see Chap. 6 and the Appendix for further details) to examine differences in sociodemographics, levels of community integration, attachment, and participation between seasonal and yearround residents, while paying particular attention to the role played by the length of time spent in the community. Building on several prior analyses (Matarrita-Cascante et al. 2006, 2010; Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 2008; Jennings 2009), this chapter goes beyond the typical and relatively simple contrasts of year-round with seasonal residents, or of long-term residents with relative newcomers. While such basic contrasts are important and have provided insights into the disparities and potential areas of friction between these groups, access to sufficient data to facilitate a more nuanced perspective allows us to go one step further. Here, we decompose these larger categories into residential groupings based on length of residence (in the case of year-round residents) or time spent in seasonal residence (for seasonal residents), using the same approach as was applied in the preceding chapter. As noted by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974), time spent in the community is a critical element which helps promote a series of often-positive attitudes towards the community. By controlling
Localities vs. Communities: The Relevance of Social Interaction
111
for the differences in time spent in the community, we are better able to draw inferences about the levels of social interaction and resulting attitudes and behaviors among residents living in communities experiencing rapid change. Such information is essential for successful community-related efforts aimed at improving a locality’s quality of life. This chapter is organized as follows. We first present a theoretical justification for an analytic focus on selected aspects of social integration, attachment, and participation. This approach is guided by an interactional perspective. Then, we compare year-round and seasonal residents’ sociodemographic characteristics, levels of participation, integration, and attachment, differentiating among residents by the amount of time they have spent in the community. Finally, we discuss some of the implications of our findings and offer some conclusions.
Localities vs. Communities: The Relevance of Social Interaction What constitutes “community” goes beyond people living in a territorially delimited setting or place – there are important differences between a locality or place and a community (Luloff 1998). A community, according to Wilkinson (1991), consists of three elements. The first is the physical locality and refers to the geographic dimension of a local society including the territory where people live. However, a locality by itself differs from a community, as it lacks other essential constituent parts. The second element of community is the local society. According to Wilkinson (1991), a local society refers to the network of associations within a locality. A local society is marked by the distinct relationships between and among its residents. These relationships are dynamic and change over time in terms of actors, associations, and activities (Luloff 1998; Wilkinson 1991). The third element of a community, the process of locally oriented actions, refers to the interrelated behaviors through which common interests are expressed. These processes largely reflect the search for goals which contribute to the overall improvement of the community. According to Wilkinson (1991), each of these three elements represents a necessary but not sufficient condition for community to emerge. From the interactional perspective, only when each of these elements is present does the potential for community exist (Theodori 2000). According to a field theoretical approach to community (Kaufman 1959; Wilkinson 1991), social interaction is the substantive element driving the emergence of community. Social interaction promotes the elemental bonds which allow individuals to express their mutual interests: Through interaction around locality-relevant matters, individuals develop a social definition of self and beliefs about how the larger society operates (Cheers and Luloff 2001:130).
When community members get together and address local issues of concern, community arises (Luloff 1998). Thus, social interaction is the core element
112
7 Population Change and Contrasting Integration
d istinguishing a community from other local societies. In essence, community depends on interaction. When this interaction is suppressed, community is limited (Bridger et al. 2002). Interference with patterns of local interaction creates both instability for and barriers to efforts designed to improve the community. As a result of these barriers, impediments to social interaction emerge which deter the establishment of social processes capable of contributing to successful local development efforts (Luloff and Swanson 1995; Brennan 2007; Brennan et al. 2009). Change resulting from rapid population growth also has the potential to affect local interactional patterns (Freudenburg 1986; Greider and Krannich 1985; Greider et al. 1991). Because of this, any analysis of the relationship between community and change needs to focus on the ways in which population shifts affect patterns of interaction (Bridger et al. 2002). This is particularly the case for many amenity-rich rural communities, especially those experiencing rapid population changes and those which are particularly vulnerable as a result of both local and extra-local dependencies (cf. Freudenburg 1992; Krannich and Luloff 1991; Krannich and Petrzelka 2003; Flint and Luloff 2005). As Krannich and Zollinger (1997) and Brown (2002) have noted, during periods of growth the presence of newcomers can modify existing social arrangements in both positive and negative ways. These shifts result from newcomers’ differing sociodemographic and structural characteristics (e.g., income, age, educational levels) when compared to those of long-term residents (Brown 2002; MatarritaCascante et al. 2006; Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 2008; Smith and Krannich 2000). Barriers to effective interaction can emerge as a result of perceptional, attitudinal, and behavioral differences that often separate long-term and newcomer populations, or year-round and seasonal residents. Differing perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors may contribute to threatened worldviews and interfere with the extant communication and social interaction processes at work in the community (Graber 1974; Beyers and Nelson 2000). As a result of these structural and interactional/processual differences, potential obstacles to interaction are created. These barriers create difficulties in attempts to establish and foster familiarity with and comfort in interacting with others. Three common conditions occur: (1) there is limited communication among community groups, interests, and members; (2) the absence of mechanisms for sharing common interests contributes to the absence of opportunities to foster favorable sentiments towards the community; and (3) there is little reason for people to get involved in community affairs (Berry 2000; Freudenburg 1986; Greider et al. 1991; Hunter et al. 2002; Smith and Krannich 2000). As Botes and van Rensburg (2000:49) observed, “the stratified and heterogeneous nature of communities is a thorny obstacle to promoting participatory development.” The presence of such barriers suggests the need for a better understanding of the differences which exist between established permanent residents and seasonal residents. Guided by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974), and moving beyond the typical longterm/newcomer comparisons, we followed the same procedure outlined in Chap. 6 to divide year-round and seasonal residents of the southwest Utah study area into six subcategories, based on length of time spent in the community. The following
Sociodemographics, Participation, Integration, and Attachment
113
section initially explores the ways in which the commonly used subgroups of year-round and seasonal residents differ in terms of structural and interactional elements. We engage this analysis to provide a context for the ensuing discussion based upon the more refined grouping of these broad residential categories, based on time spent in the local community setting. All comparisons are made in identical terms – sociodemographic characteristics, levels of participation, integration, and attachment – to facilitate comparisons with the cruder but more frequently applied seasonal/year-round or long-term/newcomer dichotomies.
Sociodemographics, Participation, Integration, and Attachment In order to better understand if and how local levels of community social interaction in our high-amenity study area are affected by the presence of seasonal residents, this section examines differences that may become evident when seasonal residents are compared with year-round residents. Paralleling the approach used in the preceding chapter, year-round residents were sorted into two categories: those who resided for less than 10 years in the community were labeled “newcomers,” while those who resided in the community for 10 or more years were considered “longstanding” residents. In addition, we created four categories among the seasonal residents based on the number of days per year they reported spending in their seasonal communities: the categories included 14 days or less, 15–31 days, 32–90 days, and over 90 days.
Sociodemographic Characteristics Following earlier studies (Brown et al. 1989; Goudy 1990; Luloff 1998; Theodori 2004), five sociodemographic measures drawn from the survey questionnaire – gender, age, education, life cycle, and income – were used to examine differences across the six residence categories (see Table 7.1). Gender was measured as a categorical variable coded 1= Male and 2 = Female. Respondent’s age was measured Table 7.1 Sociodemographic characteristics for categories of year-round and seasonal residents Gender Age Education Income Life cycle Average % BA or % middle Residence category % male age higher % >$100K % retired aged Year-round longstanding 56.8 56.4 28.1 6.3 25.7 29.4 Year-round newcomer 49.4 53.9 34.2 4.3 26.4 34.0 Seasonal 14 days or less 47.1 56.3 42.3 31.4 14.0 51.2 Seasonal 15–31 days 54.2 55.0 58.2 45.6 17.2 54.0 Seasonal 32–90 days 62.4 58.6 47.2 36.4 27.2 48.2 Seasonal over 90 days 62.8 63.7 43.0 29.1 53.2 35.1 Chi-square/F statistic 9.7 *** Sig. at the .001 level
6.9***
77.8***
299.5***
103.36***
114
7 Population Change and Contrasting Integration
in years and treated as an interval variable. Education was measured with five categories: 1 = less than high school; 2 = high school degree or GED; 3 = some college or 2-year technical or associate degree; 4 = 4-year college degree; and 5 = advanced degree. Life cycle was measured with a six-category scale: 1 = young couple (no children); 2 = family with small children; 3 = family with mixed aged children; 4 = family with older children; 5 = middle-aged (no children at home); and 6 = retired. Income was coded into eight categories: 1 = less than $15,000; 2 = $15,000–24,999; 3 = $25,000–34,999; 4 = $35,000–49,999; 5 = $ 50,000– 74,999; 6 = $75,000–99,999; 7 = $100,000–149,999; and 8 = $150,000 or more. When comparing the six categories of year-round and seasonal residents, we found seasonal residents were significantly older overall than year-round residents. This difference in age was most evident among those who spend the most time (90 days or more annually) in their seasonal residence, likely a result of increased time availability and locational flexibility among those who have reached what is typically retirement age in the U.S. Additionally, seasonal residents were more educated, with higher percentages of them indicating having a bachelor’s degree or higher. This was particularly evident in the case of residents spending 15–31 days in their seasonal community (58.2%). As expected, all categories of seasonal residents reported higher income levels than did year-round residents. Depending on the length of time spent locally, between 30% and 46% of seasonal residents reported annual household incomes of $100,000 a year or more. In contrast, only 6.3% of longstanding year-round residents and 4.3% of year-round newcomers reported incomes of $100,000 or higher. These survey-based findings are highly consistent with observations derived from analyses of Census data reported in previous chapters. In terms of their life cycle, seasonal residents who spend over 90 days a year in the area have the highest percentage of retirees (53.2%), followed by seasonal residents who spend from 32 to 90 days a year in their seasonal residence (27.2%), year-round newcomers (26.4%) and longstanding year-round residents (25.7%). In addition, the seasonal residence categories had higher percentages of individuals in the middle-age life cycle category (40–64 years of age with no children at home) when compared to the two categories of year-round residents. Although some modest differences in gender composition were observed across the six residence categories, those differences were not statistically significant.
Community Participation Following Matarrita-Cascante et al. (2006), four measures of participation were examined. These included: extent of participation; level of involvement; the number of local organizations respondents belonged to; and the number of hours they participated in community organizations/activities (see Table 7.2). The extent of participation in community activities was measured with eight questions, each of which required a binary yes or no response. These items inquired
Sociodemographics, Participation, Integration, and Attachment Table 7.2 Participation for categories of year-round and seasonal residents Number of Participation Involvement organizations Low High % very participation participation active Average # Residence category Year-round 27.9 26.5 22.2 1.4 longstanding Year-round 39.9 15.4 16.4 1.0 newcomer Seasonal 14 days 90.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 or less Seasonal 15–31 days 73.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 Seasonal 32–90 days 64.0 2.3 3.2 0.5 Seasonal over 90 days 43.0 7.8 0.7 3.0 Chi-square/F statistic 292.5*** 282.6*** 27.4*** *** Sig. at the .001 level
115
Hours participating 5 or more h/month 30.7 24.3 2.0 0.0 2.8 11.7 225.7***
whether the respondent “participated in any of the following activities in this community during the past 12 months.” The items included: (1) attended a local community event (such as a school concert, community parade, or craft fair); (2) contacted a public official about some issue or problem affecting the community (for example, about the management of public lands or provision of services like fire protection); (3) worked with other local residents to deal with some community issue or problem; (4) attended any public meeting in the community (like a school board meeting or federal lands planning meeting); (5) served as an officer in a community organization; (6) voted in a local election; (7) served on a local government commission, committee, or board; and (8) served on a voluntary community service organization (such as a volunteer fire department, emergency medical technicians or EMT, etc.). Factor analysis was used to determine the presence of one or more underlying dimensions among these eight items. The results suggested a single dimension comprised of six of the items. Two items were excluded from the analysis – (1) attended a local community event and (6) voted in local election – because their incorporation in a composite measure resulted in reduced reliability, indicating that those items did not help differentiate among respondents. Reliability analysis, which assessed the extent to which the six items incorporated in the summated scale were related to each other, produced alpha values of .78 for permanent residents and .61 for seasonal residents. The resulting multiple-item composite measure was created by adding together response values for each of the six included items, with values for each item coded 0 = No Participation or 1 = Participated. Following creation of the additive scale, respondents who scored a total of 0 or 1 were categorized as “low participation” individuals, while those whose summed total ranged from 5 to 6 were categorized as “high participation” individuals. Level of involvement in community activities was measured with the following question: “In general, how would you describe your level of involvement in community
116
7 Population Change and Contrasting Integration
or local area activities or events?” There were four response categories: 1 = not active at all; 2 = not very active; 3 = somewhat active; and 4 = very active. The number of local organizations a respondent belonged to was drawn from the question “How many community clubs, civic groups, or other non-religious local organizations do you belong to?” This measure was treated as an interval variable. Because membership does not measure intensity of involvement, a question assessing the number of hours spent in local activities was also asked. This question inquired about the average number of hours a respondent spent per month attending meetings or taking part in organized activities associated with community or local area clubs, groups, or other non-religious organizations. There were four response categories: 1 = less than 1 h/month; 2 = 1–4 h/month; 3 = 5–10 h/month; and 4 = more than 10 h/month. When comparing the year-round and seasonal residents in terms of their levels of participation, statistically significant differences were observed across the residence categories for all four measures. In terms of the first measure, extent of participation, low participation levels were far more prevalent among the seasonal residence categories when compared to year-round residents. The highest percentage of “low participation” responses occurred among seasonal residents who spend 14 days or less annually in the community, with almost all of the individuals in this category indicating low participation (90.5%). As time spent in the community increases for seasonal residents, the percentage of respondents classified as “low participation” individuals decreases, to the point that seasonal residents spending over 90 days in the local area closely resemble year-round newcomer residents (43% and 40%, respectively). High participation is clearly more widespread among both categories of year-round residents when compared to all seasonal categories. In the case of seasonal residents, very few respondents in any group indicated having high participation levels. Similar patterns emerged with respect to levels of involvement. The highest percentage of respondents indicating they were very active in community activities or events was among year-round residents, particularly those in the longstanding category. As with the extent of participation among seasonal residents, those who spend the most time in the community were more likely to claim they are very active. However, it is important to note that the percentage of individuals indicating they were very active was quite low for all seasonal groups, a sharp contrast to the responses of year-round residents. A similar trend was observed when examining the number of organizations a respondent belongs to and the number of hours dedicated to participating in them. On average, longstanding year-round residents belonged to 1.4 local organizations, while year-round newcomers belonged to 1 organization. Seasonal residents who spend over 90 days in the community reported membership in slightly fewer organizations on average (0.7). Around 31% of year-round longstanding residents said they spend 5 or more hours each month participating in local organizations and activities, followed by newcomers (24.3%) and then by seasonal residents who spend over 90 days in their seasonal residence (11.7%). Seasonal residents who spend less time in the community were far less likely to report spending 5 or more hours per month engaged in such activities.
Sociodemographics, Participation, Integration, and Attachment
117
Community Integration Five measures of integration in the community were used to measure a respondent’s interaction within localized personal social networks (see Table 7.3). Two questions inquired about the number of friends and relatives a respondent had in the community or local area (within a 1-h drive), with each treated as an interval variable. The remaining three variables measured how often respondents interacted with local-area friends, family members, and neighbors. Each category of relationship (friends, family, and neighbors) was measured with a seven-category ordinal response scale: 1 = rarely or never/about once a year; 2 = several times a year; 3 = about once a month; 4 = several times a month; 5 = about once a week; 6 = several times a week; 7 = daily. When comparing the categories of year-round and seasonal residents, the differences across residence categories were statistically significant for all five measures of integration. Year-round longstanding residents had greater numbers of friends in the community, averaging almost 27 friends. Seasonal residents who spend 90 days or more in the community reported the second highest average number of friends in the local area (almost 19 friends), a number higher than that observed among year-round newcomer residents, who averaged about 17 friends in the community. In terms of the number of relatives in the community, it is not at all surprising to find that year-round longstanding residents reported the highest number of relatives living nearby, with an average of nearly 16. In contrast, year-round newcomer residents reported an average of approximately 6 local-area relatives, while seasonal residents reported averages ranging between 3.6 local relatives (among those who spend 14 days or less in the area) and 5.7 (among those spending 32–90 days in the area). The highest percentage of individuals interacting once a week or more with local-area friends was observed among seasonal residents who spend over 90 days a year in the community (60.4%), a level similar to that observed among Table 7.3 Integration in the community for categories of year-round and seasonal residents Local area Local area Interaction Interaction Interaction friends relatives with friends with relatives with neighbors Once a week Once a week Once a week Residence category Average Average or more or more or more Year-round 26.8 16.2 58.6 64.1 44.7 longstanding Year-round newcomer 17.1 6.1 51.2 45.2 39.7 Seasonal 14 days or 7.4 3.6 7.7 6.3 13.4 less Seasonal 15–31 days 6.4 5.1 8.6 12.1 12.7 Seasonal 32–90 days 10.8 5.7 23.5 21.6 23.5 Seasonal over 90 days 18.9 4.6 60.4 34.5 56.4 Chi-square/F statistic 27.5*** 21.8*** 336.1*** 295.1*** 198.6*** *** Sig. at the .001 level
118
7 Population Change and Contrasting Integration
longstanding year-round residents (58.6%) and higher than that occurring among year-round newcomers (51.2%). In contrast, weekly interaction with local-area friends was far less widespread among seasonal residents who spend less time in the area. Year-round residents were most likely to report interacting once a week or more with their local-area relatives (64.1% and 45.2% for longstanding and newcomer year-round residents, respectively). Seasonal residents as a group were considerably less likely to report interaction with local relatives this frequently, with those who spend the most time in the area much more likely to report such interaction levels than was the case among less frequent seasonal visitors. As in the case of interaction with friends, seasonal residents who spend 90 days or more in the community were most likely to report interaction once a week or more with local-area neighbors (56.4%), followed by the two categories of yearround residents. Again, the remainder of the seasonal residence categories exhibited considerably lower percentages of respondents who interact once a week or more with their neighbors.
Community Attachment In this study we also used four measures of community attachment (see Table 7.4). Following work by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974; see also Goudy 1990; MatarritaCascante et al. 2010; Theodori 2000; Theodori and Luloff 2000), interest in the community was measured by asking the respondent: “How interested are you in Table 7.4 Community attachment for categories of year-round and seasonal residents Interest Desirability Sorrow Attachment % more or % sorry or % interested or much more very sorry to leave Low Moderate Residence category very interested desirable Year-round 84.1 22.7 89.1 15.8% 20.9% longstanding Year-round 73.8 37.2 82.9 26.1% 30.4% newcomer Seasonal 14 days 47.0 32.7 73.6 64.0% 24.0% or less Seasonal 15–31 71.6 26.8 89.0 46.9% 34.7% days Seasonal 32–90 74.3 35.3 95.4 28.0% 34.6% days Seasonal over 90 81.4 37.6 96.0 21.2% 35.4% days Chi-square/F 69.1*** 38.4** 95.0*** 140.7*** statistic ** Sig. at the .01 level; *** Sig. at the .001 level
High 63.3% 43.5% 12.0% 18.4% 37.4% 43.4%
Sociodemographics, Participation, Integration, and Attachment
119
knowing what goes on in this community?” Responses ranged from 1 = very disinterested to 5 = very interested. Desirability of living in the community was measured by asking the respondent: “Over the past five years would you say that, in general, this community has become more or less desirable as a place to live/own a seasonal home?” Responses included: 1 = much less desirable; 2 = less desirable; 3 = stayed about the same; 4 = more desirable; 5 = much more desirable. To measure sentiments for the community, the following question was asked: “Suppose that for some reason you had to move away from this community. How sorry or pleased would you be to leave?” Responses were measured with a five-category scale: 1 = very pleased to leave; 2 = somewhat pleased to leave; 3 = it wouldn’t make any difference one way or the other; 4 = somewhat sorry to leave; and 5 = very sorry to leave. Perceived community attachment was measured by a five-item summated scale. Items included “I feel the community is a real home to me;” “People would go out of their way to help in this community;” “I feel fully accepted in this community;” “I feel I belong in this community;” and “Most people in the community can be trusted.” Responses to each item ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. All five items were found to be highly correlated for both the year-round and seasonal groups of residents, and factor loadings for the items exceeded .81 for permanent residents and .79 for seasonal residents. Reliability analysis assessing the extent to which the items in the summated scale were interrelated yielded an alpha value of .90 for year-round residents and .88 for seasonal residents. The attachment measure was created by adding responses to these five items together to form a summated scale. The numeric values produced by this process were then reclassified into “low,” “moderate” and “high” attachment categories: low attachment included respondents who scored between 5 and 17 on the composite scale; moderate attachment included respondents who scored 18–21; and high attachment included those who scored 22–25. As with the earlier comparisons, response patterns for all four of the community attachment indicators were significantly different when comparing seasonal and year-round residence categories (see Table 7.4). The percentage of respondents who indicated being interested or very interested in the community was highest in the case of year-round longstanding residents (84.1%), followed closely by seasonal residents who spend over 90 days annually in the community (81.4%). Newcomer year-round residents and two of the remaining categories of seasonal residents exhibited similar responses to this question, with the percentage expressing interest or high interest ranging from 71.6% to 74.3%. In contrast, considerably fewer (47%) respondents who said they spend 14 days or less annually in the local area indicated they are interested or very interested in the community. When asked whether living in the community has become more or less desirable in the last 5 years, responses were very similar across most of the residence categories. However, longstanding year-round residents were least likely to indicate that the community has become more or much more desirable as a place to live (22.7%). The percentage of respondents saying they would be sorry or very sorry to leave the community was highest among seasonal residents who spend more time in the
120
7 Population Change and Contrasting Integration
c ommunity (95.4% and 96% for seasonal residents spending between 32 and 90 days in the community and over 90 days, respectively). Other categories of respondents were generally similar with respect to the percentage of individuals saying they would be sorry to leave, with seasonal residents who spend the least time in the community displaying the lowest values (73.6%). Turning finally to the overall index of community attachment, comparisons across the six residence categories revealed that year-round longstanding residents were most likely to express the highest levels of attachment (63.3%). Year-round newcomers and seasonal residents who spend 90 days a year or more in the community followed in expressing high levels of attachment (43.5% and 43.4%, respectively). In contrast, seasonal residents who spend 14 days or less in the community reported the highest percentage of individuals with low attachment (64%) and the lowest percentage with high attachment (12%).
Implications The importance of social interaction for community life has been widely discussed in the sociological literature and by those involved in community development practice. Given the potential barriers to interaction resulting from the presence of new and distinct populations in high-amenity areas affected by an influx of both year-round and seasonal residents, we examined differences between multiple residence categories along a series of indicators addressing various aspects of community integration, attachment, and participation. Our analyses revealed substantial variations among residents – year-round and seasonal – as reflected by length of residence or time spent in the community. Such differences are both structural (i.e., sociodemographic) and interactional/processual (i.e., attitudinal, behavioral). The patterns of variation are particularly pronounced for longstanding year-round residents, who differ markedly from all others (newcomers and all types of seasonal residents) in levels of participation, involvement, numbers of organizations they belong to, and the time invested in such organizations. Additionally, longstanding year-round residents have more friends and relatives in the local area, and they tend to interact more frequently with the latter than is the case among other resident types. Surprisingly, seasonal residents who spend more time in the community surpass year-round newcomers (and in some instances year-round longstanding residents) in the number of local-area friends and frequency of interaction with those friends and with neighbors. Longstanding year-round residents were also more attached to their community than either newcomers or seasonal residents. At the same time, they were also most likely to believe the community has become less desirable to live in – most likely because they have experienced the forces of social, economic, and environmental changes accompanying amenity-based growth and development to a greater extent than those who have come to the area more recently, or who visit the area seasonally.
Implications
121
Within the seasonal categories of residents, significant and substantial differences emerged as well. Those who spend more time in their seasonal homes and communities were more engaged in community organizations/activities; knew more local-area friends, and interacted more frequently with friends, relatives, and neighbors than was the case among seasonal residents who spend relatively little time in the area. They also expressed greater interest in and attachment to their seasonal communities than those who spend less time there. While our findings support earlier studies in which special importance is given to length of residence/time spent in the community for creating positive community sentiments, attitudes, and behaviors, it also advances the need for more refined measures. Simple dichotomies often mask as much as they inform. In the case of this amenity-rich destination area, length of time residing in or spent seasonally in the community was found to be related to a series of structural and interactional/ processual measures. In essence, a careful consideration of both the seasonal/yearround classification and length of residence/time spent in the community classifications provided a much more nuanced perspective on the kinds and types of interaction, integration, attachment, and participation levels characteristic of rapidly changing places such as characterize the southwest Utah study area. The differences observed across resident types help us better understand who is, and who is not, actively involved with and integrated into the community in this rapidly changing area. These findings can be used to identify distinct characteristics and patterns of behaviors that define different groups. By knowing who the active/ involved/attached residents are, efforts can be made to target these people in efforts to encourage them to be involved with or take leadership in local community development efforts. At the same time, our findings can also be used to identify residence groups that are generally not active, involved or attached. Doing so could contribute to strategies that would encourage their becoming more involved in local activities, thereby enhancing their activeness as local residents/citizens. In short, knowing more about the characteristics of residents and their varied interactional and affective ties to the community is essential for efforts designed to promote community improvements, enhance local quality of life, and engender local community development efforts. One important strategy for acknowledging and confronting differences among residents and reducing potential for misunderstanding, division, and conflict is to promote more broad-based social interaction and increased involvement in local affairs. Doing this can positively influence the prospects for agency in addressing local needs and concerns, and contribute to improved quality of life for the entire community (Bridger and Luloff 2003). A more broad-based and diversified engagement of local residents in community affairs leads to increasing levels of community-relevant interactions, providing new opportunities for building cohesion and a broadly shared sense of community. As Wilkinson (1991) argued, such efforts can, if accomplished, contribute in a positive way to improved living conditions, increased capacity for collective action, and higher levels of well-being.
Chapter 8
Rural People, Places and Landscapes: The Changing Nature of the Intermountain West
Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Utah State University
It is abundantly clear that major changes are transforming both human and biophysical landscapes throughout the Intermountain West. The results of this study show that many areas across this vast and varied region have experienced profound alterations over the past several decades, and that these patterns of change are ongoing at the start of the twenty-first century. In particular, our findings highlight shifts involving new forms of economic activity and development and the arrival of new and different populations – changes that in combination characterize the emergence of a New West. The resulting collisions between legacies and values associated with the Old West and conditions characteristic of the New West create important challenges for
R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_8, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
123
124
8 Rural People, Places and Landscapes: The Changing Nature of the Intermountain West
residents of the region, and for community leaders, rural development professionals and agencies, and resource managers who in various ways are responsible for addressing public needs and expectations or directing land and resource uses. These collisions are often socially and politically contentious, as differing social constructions about which characteristics of communities and landscapes should be prioritized as “good,” “right,” or “preferred” are advanced by one group or another. As noted by Francis and Thomas (1991: 48), “such clashes not only reflect a very deep division among westerners over their respective orientations as to what they want out of politics, but may also reveal the powerful force that the landscape has had on the people living in the West.” Some observers have convincingly argued that amenity-based growth can represent a “devil’s bargain” (Rothman 1998), with new opportunities and benefits associated with such development outweighed by rising costs of living, economic displacement of vulnerable populations, growing social divisions and conflicts, an erosion of important social traditions and cultural legacies, and a suite of adverse environmental effects resulting from land use change, pollution, and other forms of environmental disturbance. Socially constructed meanings of “place” are also threatened as these changes (1) affect the social character of local communities, (2) alter natural settings valued for their ability to provide opportunity for privacy, reflection, solitude, communion with nature, and spiritual linkages with the biophysical realm, or (3) alter patterns of land and resource use and access (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995; Krannich and Petrzelka 2003). When and where such changes occur, they reinforce the anxieties and fears of people who may prefer to sustain more traditional economies and rural lifestyles, long-dominant patterns of political influence and power, and relatively homogenous value and belief systems. It would be easy to fall into the trap of characterizing the suite of changes associated with the transition toward New West conditions as inherently and predominantly problematic. Change is often viewed with skepticism, both by local residents and by social scientists whose work is frequently flavored by disciplinary traditions that place emphasis on “problems” and/or “impacts.” However, if we are to advance our knowledge and understanding of these profound changes, it is essential to avoid the biases that accompany uncritical adherence to highly romanticized but not entirely accurate popular imageries of the West and the qualities of its social and natural landscapes. A more balanced perspective and more nuanced understandings are needed. As with virtually any form of developmental change, it is inevitable that both opportunities and threats will accompany amenity-based development. In areas experiencing such changes there will always be both winners and losers with respect to a host of benefits and costs. It is important to recognize and understand the varied distributions across time and space of positive and negative consequences, and of more or less successful adaptations to change, that differentiate the experiences of particular subregions and places. Similarly, we must also consider the varied experiences of multiple types of residents whose differing positions within social structures affect the ways in which life chances and well-being are altered by amenity-based growth and change.
Positive Consequences and Potentialities of Amenity-Based Growth
125
Positive Consequences and Potentialities of Amenity-Based Growth Without doubt some residents in some areas do experience disruptive consequences and a sense of loss when patterns of community life are altered by high rates of in-migration, increased tourism, growing numbers of seasonal residents, transformed local and regional economic conditions, changes in social interaction patterns, and shifts in the ways land and resources are used and managed. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that amenity-based growth has been the salvation of some rural areas that until recently were characterized by economic stagnation or decline, depopulation, high rates of poverty, erosion of public services, and generally limited well-being. For residents who have clung tenaciously to rural places and landscapes where life chances and economic opportunities are often few and far between, virtually any form of development can be a most welcome alternative. Some of the jobs created through amenity-based development, particularly those in tourism-related service sectors, may be seasonal and provide lower wages and fewer benefits than is typical of other sectors. Also, such jobs are often not entirely congruent with either the occupational identities or preferences of many rural residents (see Carroll 1995; Petrzelka et al. 2006). At the same time, in many areas where amenity-based growth has driven the emergence of New West conditions a more broadly-based pattern of economic expansion is occurring. This is evidenced by substantially increased employment in the construction trades, professional services, and the finance, insurance, and real estate sectors. Such changes in local economies, when coupled to accompanying population shifts, undoubtedly trigger feelings of suspicion or even dread among some tradition-oriented residents. Yet, they are simultaneously welcomed by others who have tired of the limited life chances and cyclical economic instabilities associated with “failed economies” involving the West’s more traditional commodity-production industries (see Power 1996). Indeed, many Western communities once characterized by limited opportunities and long periods of depopulation in the face of economic decline were transformed over a relatively short time period near the end of the twentieth century into vibrant nodes of growth and opportunity, as New West economies based on natural amenities took hold. Findings reported in Chap. 5 identified a number of areas – exemplified by towns like Moab and Springdale in Utah, Bigfork in Montana, or Breckenridge in Colorado – where such dramatic shifts have occurred. It is also important to consider the ways in which conditions related to social and community well-being may be positively altered by these New West transitions. The growth associated with amenity-based development brings with it increased demand for investments and improvements in public and private infrastructure – what some refer to as “built capital” – to meet the needs of larger and changing populations. In addition, population growth creates increased potential for the presence of sufficient numbers of people with the shared interests and motivations needed to create or revitalize an array of civic groups, community organizations, and voluntary associations. These forms of localized social organization are often
126
8 Rural People, Places and Landscapes: The Changing Nature of the Intermountain West
difficult to sustain or support in rural communities, but are nevertheless central to the presence of a “full complement of the social structures through which a common life is organized” (Wilkinson 1991: 27). It is clear that throughout the Intermountain West the sociodemographic character of areas experiencing higher levels of amenity-based growth and development has shifted in recent decades. Areas where a transition to New West conditions is most apparent have become very different from their Old West counterparts with respect to a host of important population characteristics. As indicated by analytic results presented in Chap. 4, the populations of New West areas, particularly those categorized as Model New West places, exhibit significantly higher educational attainment, much higher income levels, and more widespread employment in professional occupations. In combination, such structural effects substantially enhance local levels of human capital. As in-migrants bring educational, occupational, organizational, and leadership experiences and skills to their new communities, there is increased potential for these enhanced human resources to contribute positively to community capacity to respond to change and address the needs of local residents (see Emery et al. 2006). Further, the economic opportunities associated with amenity-based development combined with shifts in public values and priorities regarding resource use and environmental conditions have the potential to foster both strengthened commitments to resource protection and a more careful consideration of tradeoffs between alternative land and resource use priorities. The developmental history of the American West is intricately intertwined with the region’s public lands, and with land management policies that have until fairly recently been designed to prioritize resource extraction and commodity production. The legacies of those priorities have not been entirely benign with respect to either the condition of biophysical landscapes or human well-being. In a scathing indictment of the consequences of American public land use practice and policy, Rochelle Stanfield (1988: 129) observed: Our use, overuse, and misuse of the land is catching up with us. For 200 years we have stripped the land bare, built it up, drained it dry, filled it in, moved it around, polluted it with toxic chemicals, and even changed its internal chemistry … Now we are discovering that there are no independent land use decisions. Each river that is dammed, every forest that is cut down, and each swamp that is drained not only directly affects its immediate surroundings but also contributes to profound changes in regional, continental, and even global environmental conditions.
Profit-driven exploitation of the West’s public land resources has in some places and during certain time periods caused extensive alteration of natural landscapes and a substantial deterioration in the integrity and sustainability of ecological conditions. As a consequence, many communities across the region have been subjected to cycles of instability associated with boom and bust periods. Moreover, high levels of rural poverty associated with resource dependency and entrapment in an “addictive” reliance on extraction-based economies have occurred (Freudenburg 1992). The origins of these conditions can be traced to the unique historical and political circumstances affecting settlement and land tenure arrangements that
Limitations and Liabilities of Amenity-Based Growth
127
differentiated the West from all other regions of America (see Kemmis 2001; Power 1996). But, they have also been reinforced more recently, especially during Ronald Reagan’s presidential terms in the 1980s and George W. Bush’s presidency in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Both periods were marked by the emergence of agendas driven by powerful economic and political interests working to bypass environmental regulation in the pursuit of expanded resource exploitation (see Dunlap 1992; McCright and Dunlap 2010). In the face of these trends and pressures, opportunities for new forms of economic development capable of capitalizing on the amenity values of landscapes give rise to a competing discourse regarding the desirable future states and uses of the West’s lands and resources. The shift from dependence on landscape-altering extractive uses and industrial processes has not left the Intermountain West without other development options. Rather, the increasing availability and viability of amenitybased economic alternatives, the pro-environment values and priorities evident among many new migrants to the region, and the strong attachments to landscapes and places broadly evident among both long-established and new residents, may in combination help to create “common ground on which westerners can articulate and enact a shared agenda of living well in a well-loved place” (Kemmis 2001: 115).
Limitations and Liabilities of Amenity-Based Growth While amenity-based development has clear potential to produce certain positive outcomes with respect to the biophysical condition of some western landscapes, and to enhance levels of economic and social well-being experienced by the West’s rural populations, there are also important challenges and signs of adverse impact that cannot be ignored. In part, these challenges emerge from two major and related issues. First, there is a widely inconsistent patterning of amenity-based growth across the region – there is no single or uniform New West. Second, there is a resulting paradox of uneven rural development that leaves some areas grappling with ongoing stagnation and decline while others are confronted with rapid growth that may create expanded opportunity, but can also exceed the adaptive capacity of local organizations and community social structures. Put simply, the spatially differentiated amenity contexts characterizing both the distinct physiographic provinces of the Intermountain West and smaller areas within those provinces privilege only those locales well-positioned to capitalize on opportunities associated with such development. Meanwhile, other places situated in areas where major deposits of oil, natural gas, and minerals are concentrated are virtually ensured of experiencing continued reliance on extraction-based economies, regardless of local development priorities or preferences. Still other areas located at considerable distance from both commercially viable resource deposits and high-amenity landscapes are left with few realistic prospects to pursue opportunities associated with either form of development. In short, not every community can expect to successfully attract tourists, seasonal residents or increased year-round populations on the basis of surrounding landscape
128
8 Rural People, Places and Landscapes: The Changing Nature of the Intermountain West
qualities. For that reason amenity-based development is not a panacea, and will not serve as a salvation for all or even most communities confronted by the erosion of traditional rural economies. In the midst of emerging New West conditions that have come to characterize much of the Intermountain West region, many areas and places appear destined to retain characteristics of the Old West well into the future. Where amenity-based growth does occur, a number of challenges tied to resource protection and management arise. These challenges include an expansion of residential land use into previously undeveloped spaces. Such growth has numerous adverse environmental consequences, including (1) fragmentation of wildlife habitat, (2) a decline in water quality as a result of residential effluent releases and increased runoff, (3) increased air pollution resulting from vehicles, woodstoves, and other emission sources, and (4) declining species diversity associated with increased human presence and activity. In addition, extension of residential housing into newly developed areas, often associated with parcelization of the wildland-urban interface, substantially increases risks to human safety and the potential for property losses resulting from wildfire events (see Daniel et al. 2007). Residential development in such areas greatly complicates the tasks of fuel management, risk mitigation, and fire suppression response for land management and public safety organizations. Meanwhile, growth of local and regional populations and shifts in patterns of outdoor recreation and other forms of resource use can increase the potential for environmental damage resulting from overuse or misuse of particular settings and areas. Evidence from other studies shows that increased problems of environmental disturbance and resource damage from activities such as off-road vehicle use, trash dumping, or unregulated use and removal of resource materials occur in patterns spatially linked to the proximity of roads, access points, and areas of expanding residential development (see MacMahon et al. 2009). And, as indicated by results from our southwest Utah study area, there are clear tendencies for long-established residents, year-round newcomers, and seasonal residents who spend varied periods of time visiting the area to report significantly different patterns and levels of outdoor recreation activity. As a result, it seems obvious that shifts in use patterns and associated resource impacts should be anticipated in settings characterized by substantial amenity-based growth. Also, the prospect for increased resource protection is constrained by divisions that appear to exist across various sectors of the population in areas where amenitybased development has become widespread. As the analysis presented in Chap. 6 clearly revealed, residents of such places are by no means homogeneous with respect to their participation in outdoor recreation activities or visitation to parks or other natural areas. Moreover, there are major differences across residence categories with respect to the expression of values regarding natural resources and attitudes about the use and management of public land resources. In particular, the orientations and behaviors of longstanding year-round residents are distinctively different from those of either more recently arrived or seasonal populations. Longstanding year-round residents are far more likely to prioritize traditional commodity-production uses of public lands, and to adhere to utilitarian value perspectives regarding natural resource use. More recently-arrived year-round
Limitations and Liabilities of Amenity-Based Growth
129
residents, along with seasonal residents who spend varied amounts of time visiting their seasonal properties, are by comparison considerably more likely to prioritize resource protection and the preservation of natural landscapes. Such differences have much potential to become the basis for divisive conflicts over resource management and environmental protection issues, pitting local residents characterized by varied patterns of residential tenure against one another. These divisions reinforce the social construction of group differences, hostilities, and distrust that lie at the heart of the widely referenced culture clash phenomenon. When and where such conditions emerge, they represent major barriers to efforts designed to identify and pursue common ground regarding land and resource use built around a shared attachment to and love of place and landscape. Although Kemmis (1990, 2001) and others have argued for a new politics of place involving coalitions driven by such shared orientations, accomplishing this may not be possible where lines of division over resource use and management are deeply chiseled into the social fabric. Finally, it is important to consider the implications of social change and social divisions linked to amenity-based growth for the occurrence of community social relations and interactions that are central to determining levels of social well-being experienced by local residents and the potential for collective action in addressing local interests and needs. As we detailed in Chap. 7, seasonal residents in southwest Utah were on average more highly educated and reported much higher income levels than either longstanding or newcomer year-round residents. Similarly, findings reported at broader geographic scales in Chaps. 3–5 also highlighted the tendency for income and education levels to be higher in areas characterized by conditions characteristic of the New West. While these traits can in some ways be viewed as representing a positive addition to overall levels of human capital, the tendency for seasonal residents to live most of their lives elsewhere and to remain substantially less engaged in local organizations, activities, and events suggests such potential will be difficult to realize, at least in places where amenity-based growth stimulates a largely seasonal population expansion. In addition, higher education and income levels represent important markers of class and status differentiation, with consi derable potential to reinforce rather than bridge differences and divisions between and among groups of residents in high-amenity locales. Our data revealed major differences across residence categories in levels of participation in community activities, degrees of community involvement, membership in local groups and organizations, levels of social integration and localized social interaction, and levels of community attachment. Not surprisingly, longstanding year-round residents were most likely to exhibit higher levels of partici pation, involvement, membership, integration and interaction, and attachment. Lower levels of these indices were evident among year-round newcomers and especially among seasonal residents spending varied amounts of time in the area. If we accept the premise that community-level social relationships and interactions are fundamentally important to individual and social well-being, these findings suggest reason for concern as to how well at least some residents of amenity-growth areas are likely to fare in experiencing the kinds of engagement and attachment that turn space into place, and contribute to a sense that the local community is really “home.”
130
8 Rural People, Places and Landscapes: The Changing Nature of the Intermountain West
To the extent newer and seasonal residents remain less engaged, less integrated, and less attached over time, the prospect for interactions involving “expression of common interests in the place of residence” (Wilkinson 1991: 5) that are central to collective action and place-based collaborations is inevitably and intractably compromised. From the perspective of interactional theory, “collective actions representing the entire range of common locality-oriented interests” are key factors in determining both the emergence of community and the occurrence of social well-being outcomes in a community context (Wilkinson 1991: 74). Further, such collective actions are of central importance in fostering community agency in pursuit of local objectives, community capacity to respond to challenges associated with various forms of change, and community collaboration in the search for common ground regarding shared values and visions about place and landscape (Bridger and Luloff 2003). To the extent that longer-term and newcomer residents and seasonal populations of areas characterized by amenity-based growth and the shift toward New West conditions occupy largely separate localized social worlds, it seems inevitable that community agency, capacity, and collaboration potential will be limited.
Implications for Community Development and Resource Management In some ways the occurrence of amenity-based growth and development appears to represent a double-edged sword for local leaders and rural development professionals attempting to enhance economic and social conditions in rural communities. On the one hand, such growth brings with it new economic and employment opportunities, business expansion, increased land development activity, a prospect for increased tax bases and other revenue sources for local governments, and added demand and support for public services and infrastructure enhancements. Further, the arrival of new populations with higher education, greater incomes, and a broader array of professional skills and experiences has considerable potential to increase overall levels of human capital in such areas. Because these outcomes often are explicitly targeted as goals of local development initiatives, amenity-based growth has clear potential to reinforce and complement locally initiated efforts to improve the material conditions and opportunities available to meet the needs of rural residents, in at least some local contexts. At the same time, such positive developmental changes are associated with real and significant costs, and are potentially accompanied by a variety of important challenges and problems. First, it is important for public officials and development professionals to acknowledge the possibility that amenity-based development will introduce new forms of resource dependency that, while distinct from conditions associated with more traditional resource extraction activities, can still involve economic instability and limited opportunities for job creation. For example, areas dominated by tourism-based growth routinely find that most employment opportunities are concentrated in low-wage, low or no-benefit, seasonal service categories. Also, in such areas levels of visitation and associated economic activity can fluctuate
Implications for Community Development and Resource Management
131
sharply from year to year in response to shifts in national and global economic circumstances, or the variability of local and regional weather events. Further, the prospect for significant enhancement of local economic conditions can vary substantially depending on whether business expansion and investments in new development initiatives involve primarily local or extra-local individuals and organizations. Without doubt, amenity-based growth opportunities have potential to become a focal point of initiatives to promote locality-based entrepreneurship in some rural areas (see Korsching and Allen 2004). At the same time, development spurred and controlled largely by outside investors and organizations is more likely to be accompanied by a fairly rapid siphoning of profits away from the local community. Where this occurs fewer opportunities for secondary investment or more broadly beneficial development outcomes are produced. In addition, local leaders and development specialists should take heed of calls to pursue processes enabling communities to establish some control over the pace and scale of developmental change. This necessarily means they need to consciously engage a broad range of local-area residents and stakeholders in discussions and decisions about how, when, and where development should occur. Broad-based participation in collective deliberations over the values associated with natural landscapes, alternative resource uses, “sacred” community structures and traditions, and preferred development goals has repeatedly been highlighted as a key to successful community development, and to enhanced levels of community wellbeing (see Hester 1985; Krannich and Petrzelka 2003; Wilkinson 1991). Of course, it is far easier to pay lip service to broad-based engagement and collaborative pursuit of common visions and values than it is to actually make such processes work. Unfortunately, our study findings from southwest Utah reveal considerable divisions among residents of this high-amenity area, suggesting the search for common ground over such issues could be very difficult indeed. Yet, even in the context of divisions and differences, our findings also highlight points of commonality providing potential avenues for bridging such divisions and pursuing more common understanding among at least some categories of residents. In particular, it is noteworthy that for many of the measures used to assess residents’ perspectives on resource use and management, year-round newcomers expressed values and preferences quite similar to those expressed by seasonal residents who spend more than just a few days or weeks each year visiting the area. Similarly, differences were generally small across year-round longstanding residents, yearround newcomers, and seasonal residents who spend more time in the area when we considered levels of interaction with local-area friends, levels of interest in community issues, or expressions of reluctance to move away from the community. The existence of such shared orientations and common perspectives regarding issues pertaining to the community and to surrounding landscapes provides a potential point of departure for exploring common interests, building new local interactions, and broadening engagement in the discourse over desired community futures. For resource management professionals who have responsibilities to manage lands and resource areas located where amenity-based growth is extensive, our results suggest that already wicked management problems could become even more complex. As many others have observed, planning problems in general and natural
132
8 Rural People, Places and Landscapes: The Changing Nature of the Intermountain West
resource management problems in particular have no inherently right or wrong answers. There is no singular definition of what the problem really involves or why it has occurred, and no clearly rational or logical solution. Rather, “problem perceptions and definitions are often social constructs” that depend on the unique perspectives, experiences, values, and social positions of individual actors, and as such are “subject to redefinition and resolution in different ways over time” (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009: 554; also see Rittel and Webber 1973). The potential is high for resource management issues that are inherently complex to become even more problematic. It seems virtually certain that debates over alternative resource use and management priorities will become increasingly intractable and contentious in high-amenity settings attracting new populations whose resource use priorities and environmental values contrast sharply with those of more established residents and stakeholders. Without question, our study findings highlight the presence of sharp divisions between some categories of residents in an area of southwest Utah characterized by extraordinary landscape values, extensive tracts of publicly managed lands and resources, and substantial growth and development associated with natural amenities. Most notably, across a broad array of measures designed to assess value orientations about natural resources and attitudes about public land management, we found the area’s longstanding year-round residents were typically quite different from all other categories of year-round and seasonal residents. Certainly it is important for resource managers to recognize and acknowledge such differences, if only to make it less likely they will be caught off guard by clashes of values, beliefs, and preferences that inevitably emerge during the course of individual interactions and public forums where resource conditions and management options are discussed. More importantly, it is crucial that resource managers develop an understanding of how these varied perspectives are expressed, and the depth of feelings with which they are held. By acknowledging the validity and acceptability of contrasting perspectives and clashing priorities, managers will be better positioned to engage those with differing viewpoints in constructive dialogue about management alternatives and strategies for improvement. In addition, by recognizing the existence of points on which there might be more agreement than disagreement across at least some population groups, managers may also discover opportunities to foster communication among people who at first glance would seem to have little prospect for finding common ground. Identification of such starting points around which even minimal levels of agreement might be reached can be an important first step toward establishing a more civil discourse among stakeholders, and a key to the pursuit of more effective public involvement and collaborative learning and planning processes (see Daniels and Walker 2001).
Conclusions When we first embarked on this study, we were struck by the broad similarities of frameworks and findings evident in a widely divergent literature emerging in response to the appearance of what has come to be known as the New West. We
Conclusions
133
also realized that in most cases this rapidly expanding literature remained tightly bound to the perspectives of specific disciplines. Recognition of the confluence among biophysical, sociodemographic, and sociocultural dimensions of natural resources provided us a unique opportunity to create a more nuanced perspective for understanding where, why, and how amenity-related growth was changing the Intermountain West. In this book, we have attempted to move beyond the single lens that is routinely available when drawing on any particular discipline. Instead, our goal has been to pursue a more transdisciplinary approach by drawing upon perspectives and findings provided by landscape ecologists, geographers, rural sociologists, sociologists, social demographers, economists, historians, foresters, and geologists. Current research and practice in natural resource management has identified human behavior and social systems as important dimensions of ecosystem management. Increasingly, both scientists and policy makers have come to recognize that the natural components of ecosystems rightfully include people and communities, plants and animals, minerals and chemicals, and air and soil. Knowledge of human social and cultural systems is essential for proper understanding of selected changes in biological systems, monitoring biodiversity and habitat fragmentation, development and implementation of resource management strategies, and an appreciation of how non-human biophysical elements of the ecosystem influence human attitudes, behaviors, and social structures. There are several reasons for moving toward a more integrated framework that explicitly examines linkages between biophysical and social landscapes. First, the adoption of ecosystem management practices by public land management agencies requires an assemblage of data, variables, and measures at a macro level scale to understand the relationships between managed ecosystems, human populations, and human communities. Second, biological scientists and park, forest, and wilderness managers have increasingly recognized that people and social systems are vital components of the ecological equation. As a result, the needs, interests, and beha viors of these populations need to be incorporated into management decision-making strategies. Third, measures of the natural landscape addressing multiple spatial and temporal scales can be linked to measures in demography, human ecology, and community studies that also address such variation with respect to social landscapes. Through collection, analysis, and use of concatenated data addressing both the social and biophysical realms, our goal was to more fully understand interactions between social and biological systems. The conceptual framework presented in Chap. 2 was designed to make such linkages more explicit, and to guide a series of analyses we hoped would lead to a more nuanced understanding of complex changes that are altering the face and character of the American West. Our research has illustrated how such a framework can help in efforts to illuminate and understand key patterns of change occurring across time and space and across various dimensions of social organization. With regard to the temporal dimension, our findings illuminate the need to examine shifts in the linkages of biophysical and social landscapes over time, and to understand how relationships evident at one historic moment may become fundamentally different at other moments. The ebb and flow of migration into rural
134
8 Rural People, Places and Landscapes: The Changing Nature of the Intermountain West
areas, and variations over time in patterns of sociodemographic change across particular portions of the Intermountain West, highlight the relevance of the temporal dimension. In addition, our analyses strongly reinforce the need to take spatial variation and multiple spatial scales account. This is evidenced by substantial variation in sociodemographic change patterns across the physiographic provinces comprising the Intermountain West, by the observation of considerable spatial clustering of New West and Old West places within the region, and by the ways in which sociodemographic characteristics of populations in our southwest Utah study area differ as one looks from east to west across that highly varied landscape. Further, our analyses have revealed how interactional effects, structural effects, and social constructions are intertwined with one another and with biophysical landscapes. The structural characteristics of populations, as reflected by a number of sociodemographic measures, vary substantially across the region in relation to differing biophysical and spatial contexts. Social constructions of natural resources, as represented by multiple measures of attitudes and values about land and resource utilization, vary in relation to structural conditions associated with residential type and tenure. Interactional phenomena associated with community-level social integration, participation and attachment are similarly linked to structural conditions that differentiate distinct categories of local residents in an area where natural amenities are attracting large numbers of new year-round as well as seasonal residents. In conclusion, we assert that integrated information regarding social and biophysical systems is needed to understand and confront contemporary trends transforming rural landscapes across the Intermountain West. A number of social theorists, including Mills (1959), Merton (1967), and Sorokin (1965), have pre viously alerted us to the traps of engaging analytical, fact-finding efforts in the absence of synthesizing, generalizing work. There is a clear need for studies and theories of the middle range that explicitly incorporate both the social and the biophysical if we want to advance our understanding of complex change processes such as those linked to amenity-based growth and the emergence of a New West. The social organization of rural America has always been a story of the relations of people and natural resource systems (cf. Field and Burch 1990). There is no reason for today’s researchers to abandon such an approach.
Chapter 9
Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
Our empirical analyses of the demographic, economic, and social transformations occurring across the Intermountain West were pursued at several different analytic scales, utilizing multiple data sources and varied analytic methodologies. Consistent with the framework presented in Chap. 2, this multi-level, multi-method approach was grounded in the realization linkages between social and economic conditions and natural resource conditions can vary in complex ways that reflect a “nestedness” of relationships across different spatial and analytic scales and differing units of analysis (see Beckley 1998). As we discussed in some detail in Chap. 2, an understanding of the relationships between human behavior, community structure, and ecosystem change requires consideration of temporal factors, spatial factors, and also the differing insights provided by varied theoretical lenses. In Chap. 3 we began our analyses with a very macro-level examination of the socio-demographic context of the Intermountain West as a region. Using data drawn from US Census reports, we focused particular attention on the ways in which recent patterns of growth and change have varied across this large and diverse region. This theme of within-region variations in social, economic, and demographic conditions and trends was explored with a considerably finer lens in Chap. 4, where we examined distinctions between Old West areas where more traditional economic and social structures remain largely intact and New West areas where traditional rural economies and social organization no longer prevail. While this portion of the analysis maintains a focus on overall regional conditions, it “steps down” with respect to analytic scale to focus on the details of variations differentiating Census-designated places throughout the region. In Chap. 5 the spatial scale of analysis shifted again, from the broader Intermountain West region to a more localized sub-region where amenity-based change patterns have become particularly evident. Here, our analysis focused on five contiguous counties (Garfield, Iron, Kane, Washington, and Wayne counties) selected for inclusion in the study because of their location in a region characterized by the presence of extensive federal lands and high levels of natural resource amenities, both of which have had significant influence on recent population growth and development in areas of these counties.
R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8_9, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
135
136
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
An even more substantial shift in analytic scale and in the types of data analyzed occurred in Chaps. 6 and 7. There we transitioned from examination of conditions and trends across the region, sub-region, and more localized places to a focus on the characteristics, perspectives, and behaviors of individual residents of the five Utah counties first examined in Chap. 5. The study approach utilized to generate these more micro-level data began with a series of key informant interviews conducted across the study area during the spring and summer of 2003, with the overall objective of garnering a better understanding of the demographic, economic, and social changes occurring in southwest Utah. This qualitative phase of data collection was designed not to provide the depth or scope needed to support in-depth analysis, but rather as a preliminary “issue scoping” process to familiarize the researchers with the study area, help us to finalize decisions about the counties selected for inclusion in the study, and provide insight into key issues pertaining to growth and development patterns and trends and resource use issues confronting the area prior to initiation of more detailed investigation. Those insights were subsequently applied in the development of a survey questionnaire designed to assess the characteristics of both year-round and seasonal residents of the study area, the nature of their ties to and involvement in local social life, and their values and attitudes regarding natural resource management and land use. Parallel versions of the questionnaire were developed for administration to representative probability samples of both year-round and seasonal residents. Samples were drawn from lists of residential property owners provided by county tax assessors’ offices. From these lists, it was possible to determine with reasonable accuracy whether a property was either a seasonal or primary residence. The original sample consisted of 2,646 combined seasonal and yearround (or primary) residential property owners in the five county study area. Two hundred fifty ‘seasonal’ property owners and 250 ‘year-round’ property owners were drawn from the three primarily rural counties: Garfield, Kane, and Wayne. In both Iron and Washington counties, the samples included 150 year-round and 150 seasonal residents living in portions of these counties located outside of major urban centers. The original Iron and Washington county samples also included a combined total of 546 residences located in major urban centers – Cedar City and St. George. Responses from residents living in those urban centers were subsequently excluded from the analysis, since our research was focused on conditions and changes occurring in rural areas. Selection of individual respondents was randomized through survey instructions requesting the questionnaire be completed by the adult (18 years of age or older) household member whose birthday had occurred most recently. As noted above, the mail survey was administered to an initial sample of 2,646 property owners in this five-county study area. Five sequential mailings were carried out during the spring and summer of 2004, based on survey administration principles outlined by Dillman (2000). These included a pre-notification letter sent to all individuals in the sample, three separate mailings of questionnaire packets, and one postcard reminder. A pen was included in the first mailing of the survey as
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
137
a token incentive. First class postage was utilized on all outgoing mailings; first class postage stamps and metered business-reply postage were used in rotation across phases of the data collection effort for return mailings. Elimination of some sampled households due to incorrect or invalid addresses as well as situations in which potential respondents were ineligible or unavailable to participate due to physical or mental disability or extended travel reduced the sample size to 2,179 potentially eligible survey participants. Completed questionnaires were returned by 1,409 individuals, representing an overall response rate of 64.7%. The response rate was 67.4% among year-round property owners, and 61.4% among seasonal residential property owners. Our analyses of these survey data are based on the responses provided by 1,150 individuals whose year-round or seasonal residences are located in rural portions of the five-county study area. A copy of the questionnaire delivered to year-around residents in conjunction with this survey process is presented in the following pages; the questionnaire administered to seasonal residents differed in only very minor ways and is therefore not reproduced here.
138
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
As you know, in recent years southern Utah has experienced important changes as a result of population growth and increased development of both year-round and seasonal homes. We are interested in how you and others throughout the region feel about the places where you live, the natural environment around you, and changes that may be affecting your community. Who should complete this questionnaire? This questionnaire is being sent to a random sample of southern Utah residential property owners. To further randomize the survey, we ask that this questionnaire be completed by the member of your household (18 years of age or older) with the most recent birthday. Sharing your views: Please carefully read all the directions and mark your responses clearly. Feel free to write any comments or explanations directly on the questionnaire. The best answers should reflect your own experiences, feelings and beliefs. Please mail your completed questionnaire back to us in the prepaid envelope provided. All of your answers will be kept completely confidential. To insure your privacy please Do not write your name on the questionnaire.
Thank you very much for your help! INITIAL QUESTION: To ensure this questionnaire is relevant to your experiences, please answer the initial questions below by checking the ONE the best applies.
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
139
First, we would like to learn a little more about you and your reasons for owning a residential home in one of the following five southern Utah counties (Garfield, Iron, Kane, Washington, and Wayne).
140
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
In this next section, we ask about your length of residence as well as reasons why you choose to own a home in this southern Utah community. When we refer to “this community,” we mean the local area where you have a home and also any other nearby areas where you obtain services, belong to organizations, and interact with other local residents.
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
141
142
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
In this section we ask about your feelings of community satisfaction as well as your involvement within your community.
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
143
144
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
145
For each of the next three questions we are interested in your participation in community organizations such as local service or voluntary organizations that are not directly linked to church activities or other religious organizations.
The next few questions focus on your social and community ties. We would like to learn more about your relationships with friends, relatives, and neighbors.
146
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
147
Now we would like to ask you some questions about natural resource management and land use in your community and surrounding areas.
148
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
149
In this section we are interested in your views regarding the images and lifestyles of the western region of the United States. Although this region can be geographically defined in many ways, our focus here is on your views about conditions in whatever area you think of when someone refers to “the West.”
150
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
To enable us to compare the responses of people with similar or different characteristics, in this section we ask you to provide us with some information about yourself. Please check the appropriate circle or write in the appropriate response for each question. Please remember that all information you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence.
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
151
152
9 Appendix: Study Approach and Methodology
Thank you very much for your cooperation! Please feel free to use any available space in this questionnaire to provide additional information or share any additional comments.
References
Abbott C, Adler S, Abbott MP (1997) Planning a New West: the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis Adams DS (1986) Writing with sociological imagination: a time-line assignment for introductory sociology. Teach Sociol 14:200–203 Adams J (ed) (2003) Fighting for the farm: rural America transformed. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Albrecht DA (2004) Amenities, natural resources, economic restructuring and socioeconomic outcomes in nonmetropolitan America. J Community Dev Soc 35:36–52 Anselin L (1994) Local Indicators of Spatial Association – LISA. Research paper 9331, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University, Morgantown Audirac I (1999) Unsettled views about the fringe: rural-urban or urban-rural frontiers? In: Furuseth OJ, Lapping M (eds) Contested countryside: the rural-urban fringe in North America. Ashgate, Brookfield, pp 7–32 Barlow SA, Munn IA, Cleaves DA, Evans DL (1998) The effect of urban sprawl on timber harvesting: a look at two southern states. J Forest 96(2):10–14 Beale CL (1964) Rural depopulation of the United States: some demographic consequences of agricultural adjustments. Demography 1:264–272 Beale CL (1975) The revival of population growth in nonmetropolitan America. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, ERS-605 Beale CL (1982) The population turnaround in rural and small town America. Policy Study Rev 2:43–54 Beale CL, Johnson KM (1998) The identification of recreation counties in nonmetropolitan areas of the USA. Popul Res Policy Rev 17:37–53 Beale CL, Johnson KM (2002) Nonmetro recreational counties: identification and implications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Chicago, Aug 2002 Beckley TM (1998) The nestedness of forest dependence: a conceptual framework and empirical exploration. Soc Nat Resour 11:101–120 Bell D (1956) The theory of mass society. Commentary 22(1):75–83 Bell D (1960) The End of Ideology: Pm the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties. Glencose, Illinois: The Free Press. Bell M (2007) The two-ness of rural life and the ends of rural scholarship. J Rural Stud 23:402–415 Bennett K, McBeth MK (1998) Contemporary western rural USA economic composition: potential implications for environmental policy and research. Environ Manage 22:371–381 Berger PL, Luckmann T (1967) The social construction of reality. Anchor Books, New York Berry EH (2000) Review essay: rural sociology, migration and community change. Rural Sociol 65:658–667 Beyers WB, Nelson PB (2000) Contemporary development forces in the nonmetropolitan west: new insights from rapidly growing communities. J Rural Stud 16:459–474 R.S. Krannich et al., People, Places and Landscapes: Social Change in High Amenity Rural Areas, Landscape Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1263-8, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
153
154
References
Black WE (1969) Rural poverty. In: Wallace LT, Hobbs D, Vlasin R (eds) Selected perspectives for community resource development. Agricultural Policy Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, pp 39–48 Blakeley EJ (1984) Rural communities in an advanced industrial society: dilemmas and opportunities. Presented at the small cities annual conference, Stevens Point, Mar 1984 Blau PM (1960) Structural effects. Am Sociol Rev 25:178–193 Blau PM (1972) Inequality and heterogeneity: a primitive theory of social structure. Free Press, New York Bluestone B, Harrison B (1982) The deindustrialization of America: plant closings, community abandonment, and the dismantling of basic industry. Basic Books, New York Blumer H (1969) Symbolic interactionism. Prentice Hall, Englewood Botes L, van Rensburg D (2000) Community participation in development: nine plagues and twelve commandments. Community Dev J 35:41–58 Brandenburg AM, Carroll MS (1995) Your place or mine? The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Soc Nat Resour 8:381–398 Brehm J, Eisenhauer B, Krannich RS (2004) Dimensions of community attachment and their relationship to well-being in the amenity-rich rural West. Rural Sociol 69:405–429 Brennan MA (2007) The development of community in the west of Ireland: a return to Killala twenty years on. Community Dev J 42:330–374 Brennan MA, Flint C, Luloff AE (2009) Bringing together local culture and rural development: findings from Ireland, Pennsylvania, and Alaska. Sociol Rural 49:97–112 Bridger JC (1996) Community imagery and the built environment. Sociol Q 37:353–374 Bridger JC, Luloff AE (2003) Community agency and community theory. In: Brown D, Swanson L (eds) Challenges for rural America in the 21st century. Penn State Press, University Park, pp 228–241 Bridger JC, Luloff AE, Krannich R (2002) Community change and community theory. In: Luloff AE, Krannich R (eds) Persistence and change in rural communities. CABI, Wallingford, pp 9–21 Brinkman G (1974) The conditions and problems of nonmetropolitan America. In: Brinkman G (ed) The development of rural America. The University Press of Kansas, Wichita, pp 51–73 Brown D (2002) Migration and community: social networks in a multilevel world. Rural Sociol 67:1–23 Brown DL, Swanson LE (2003) Introduction: rural America enters the new millennium. In: Brown DL, Swanson LE (eds) Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp 1–15 Brown DL, Wardwell JM (eds) (1980) New directions in urban–rural migration: the population turnaround in rural America. Academic, New York Brown R, Geertsen HR, Krannich R (1989) Community satisfaction and social integration in a boomtown: a longitudinal analysis. Rural Sociol 54:568–586 Brunson MW (1993) ‘Socially acceptable’ forestry: what does it imply for ecosystem management? West J Appl Forest 8:116–119 Burch WB Jr (1965) The play world of camping: research into the social meaning of outdoor recreation. Am J Sociol 70:604–615 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) Economic News Release: Employment situation summary. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ empsit.nr0.htm Carroll MS (1995) Community and the Northwestern logger: continuities and changes in the era of the spotted owl. CO Westview Press, Boulder Carter SB, Gartner SS, Haines MR, Olmstead AL, Sutch R, Wright G (2010) Historical statistics of the United States, Millennial edition online. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Retrieved from http://hsus.cambridge.org/HSUSWeb/HSUSEntryServlet Cawley RM (1993) Federal land, western anger. The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence
References
155
Cheek NH Jr, Field DR, Burdge RJ (1977) Leisure and recreation places. Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor Cheers B, Luloff AE (2001) Rural community development. In: Lockie S, Bourke L (eds) Rurality bites. Pluto Press, Sydney, pp 129–142 Clark R, Stankey G (1979) The recreation opportunity spectrum. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, GTR–PNW-98 Clendenning G, Field DR (2005) Seasonal residents: members of community or part of the scenery? In: Green GP, Deller SC, Marcoulier DW (eds) Amenities and rural development: theory, methods, and public policy. Edward Elgar, Northhampton, pp 216–237 Clendenning G, Field DR, Kapp KJ (2005) A comparison of seasonal homeowners and permanent residents on their attitudes toward wildlife management on public lands. Hum Dimens Wildl 10:3–17 Clout HD (1972) Second homes in the United States. Tijdschrift voor Eonomische en Sociale Geografie 63:393–401 Coltrane S, Hickman N (1992) The rhetoric of rights and needs: moral discourse in the reform of child custody and child support laws. Soc Probl 39:400–420 Cromartie JB (1998) Net migration in the Great Plains increasingly linked to natural amenities and suburbanization. Rural Dev Perspect 13:27–34 Czech B, Krausman PR (2001) The endangered species act: history, conservation biology and public policy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Daniel TC, Carroll MS, Moseley C, Raish C (eds) (2007) People, fire and forests: a synthesis of wildfire social science. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis Daniels T (1999) When city and country collide. Island Press, Washington, DC Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental policy conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport Davis C (ed) (1997) Western public lands and environmental politics. Westview Press, Boulder Deavers KL, Brown DL (1985) Natural resources dependence, rural development, and rural poverty. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Washington, DC, Research Report No. 48 DeJong GF, Sell RR (1977) Population redistribution, migration, and residential preferences. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 429:130–144 Deller S, Tsai T, Marcouiller D, English D (2003) The role of amenities and quality of life in rural economic growth. Am J Agric Econ 83:352–365 Denzin NK (1970) The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Aldine, Chicago Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New York Dimitri C, Effland A, Conklin N (2005) The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy. Economic Information Bulletin No. 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB3/eib3.htm Doak S, Kusel J (1996) Well-being in forest dependent communities, part II: A social assessment focus. In: Sierra Nevada ecosystem project, final report to congress, status of the Sierra Nevada, vol II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Wildland Resources Center, Davis, pp 375–400, Report No. 37 Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E, Speck J (2000) Suburban nation: the rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. North Point Press, New York Dunlap RE (1992) Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. In: Dunlap RE, Mertig A (eds) American environmentalism. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 89–116 Durrant JO (2007) Struggle over Utah’s San Rafael Swell. University of Arizona Press, Tucson Durrant JO, Shumway JM (2004) Attitudes toward wilderness study areas: a survey of six southeastern Utah counties. Environ Manage 33:271–283 Dwyer JF, Stewart SI (1999) Changing demographics affecting sprawl. In: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, 1998 National Convention. SAF Publication, Traverse City, pp 19–23
156
References
Edgerton RB (1979) Alone together: the social order of an urban beach. University of California Press, Berkeley Egan AF, Luloff AE (2000) The exurbanization of America’s forests: research in rural social science. J Forest 88:26–30 Egan AF, Luloff AE (2005) Exurban migration: implications for forest communities, policies, and practices. In: Lee RG, Field DR (eds) Forests: where people meet the land. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 274–290 Elo IT, Beale CL (1985) Natural resources and rural poverty: an overview. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC Emery M, Fey S, Flora C (2006) Using community capitals to develop assets for positive community change. CD practice, vol 13. Retrieved from http://www.comm-dev.org Fenneman N (1931) Physiography of the Western United States. McGraw Hill, New York Field DR, Burch WR (1990) Rural sociology and the environment. Social Ecology Press, Middleton Field DR, Luloff AE, Krannich RS (2002) Revisiting the origins and distinctions between natural resource sociology and environmental sociology. Soc Nat Resour 15:213–227 Field DR, Luloff AE, Krannich RS (2005) Rural sociology and natural resources: building on Firey. In: Lee RG, Field DR (eds) Communities and forests: where people meet the land. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 31–51 Fishman R (1990) Megalopolis unbound. Wilson Q 14:25–47 Fitchen JM (1991) Endangered spaces, enduring places: change, identity and survival in rural America. Westview Press, Boulder Flint C, Luloff AE (2005) Natural resource-based communities, risk, and disaster: an interactional intersection of theories. Soc Nat Resour 18:399–412 Ford TR (1979) Rural USA: persistence and change. University of Iowa Press, Ames Fortmann L, Kusel J (1990) New voices, old beliefs: forest environmentalism among new and long-standing rural residents. Rural Sociol 55:214–232 Francis JG, Thomas CS (1991) Influences on western politics. In: Thomas CS (ed) Politics and public policy in the contemporary American West. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp 23–53 Freudenburg W (1986) The density of acquaintanceship: an overlooked variable in community research? Am J Sociol 92:27–63 Freudenburg WR (1992) Addictive economies: extractive industries and vulnerable localities in a changing world economy. Rural Sociol 57:305–332 Freudenburg WR, Wilson LJ, O’Leary DJ (1998) Forty years of spotted owls? A longitudinal analysis of logging industry job losses. Sociol Perspect 41:1–26 Frey WH (1987) Migration and depopulation of the metropolis: regional restructuring or rural renaissance? Am Sociol Rev 52:240–257 Frey WH, Johnson KM (1998) Concentrated immigration, restructuring, and the ‘selective’ deconcentration of the United States population. In: Boyle P, Halfacree K (eds) Migration into rural areas: theories and issues. Wiley, New York, pp 79–106 Fuguitt GV (1971) The places left behind: population trends and policy for rural America. Rural Sociol 36:605–620 Fuguitt GV (1985) The nonmetropolitan population turnaround. Annu Rev Sociol 11:259–280 Fuguitt GV, Beale CL (1996) Recent trends in non-metropolitan migration: toward a new turnaround? Growth Change 27:156–174 Fuguitt GV, Gibson RM, Beale CL, Tordella SJ (1998) Elderly population change in nonmetropolitan areas: from the turnaround to rebound. Presented at the 37th annual meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, Monterey, 18–22 Feb 1998 Gallaher A Jr, Padfield H (eds) (1980) The dying community. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque Galpin CJ (1915) The social anatomy of an agricultural community. University of Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, Madison, Bulletin No. 34 Garreau J (1992) Edge city: life on the new frontier. Anchor, Harpswel
References
157
Gilles JL, Dalecki M (1988) Rural well-being and agricultural change in two farming regions. Rural Sociol 53:40–55 Girard TC, Gartner WC (1993) Second home second view: host community perceptions. Ann Tourism Res 20:685–700 Glorioso RS (2000) Amenity migration in the Sumave Bioregion, Czech Republic: implications for ecological integrity. In: Goode PM, Price MF, Zimmerman FM (eds) Tourism development in mountain regions. CABI, Walingford, pp 275–296 Gobster PH, Haight RG, Shriner D (2000) Landscape change in the Midwest: an integrated research and development program. J Forest 98:9–15 Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row, New York Goldschmidt W (1946, 1978) As you sow: three studies in the social consequences of agribusiness. Allanheld, Osmun, Montclair Gosnell H, Haggerty JH, Byorth (2007) Ranch ownership change and new approaches to water resource management in southwestern Montana: Implications for fisheries. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:990–1003 Gosnell H, Abrams J (2009) Amenity migration: diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal (published online 08 July 2009). Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/9140n2843572mm05/ Gottleib D (1957) The neighborhood tavern and the cocktail lounge: a study of class differences. Am J Sociol 62:559–562 Goudy W (1990) Community attachment in a rural region. Rural Sociol 55:178–198 Graber EE (1974) Newcomers and oldtimers: growth and change in a mountain town. Rural Sociol 39:504–513 Grammich C (2004) Many faiths of many religions: continuities and changes among adherents across US counties. RAND labor and population working paper series, WR-211, Santa Monica Green G (1985) Large-scale farming and the quality of life in rural communities: further specification of the Goldschmidt hypothesis. Rural Sociol 50:262–274 Green GP, Clendenning G (2003) Second homes. In: Encyclopedia of community: from village to the virtual world. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 1210–1213 Green GP, Marcouiller D, Deller S, Erkkila D, Sumathi NR (1996) Local dependency, land use attitudes, and economic development: comparisons between seasonal and permanent residents. Rural Sociol 61:427–445 Greer S (1958) Individual participation in the mass society. In: Young R (ed) Approaches to the study of politics. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, pp 329–342 Greider T, Garkovich L (1994) Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociol 59:1–24 Greider T, Krannich RS (1984) Diffusion and development in the Rocky Mountain region, 1940–1980. Growth Change 15:41–49 Greider T, Krannich RS (1985) Neighboring patterns, social support, and rapid growth: a comparative analysis from three western communities. Sociol Perspect 28:51–70 Greider T, Krannich RS, Berry EH (1991) Local identity, solidarity, and trust in changing rural communities. Sociol Focus 24:263–282 Halfacree K, Boyle P (1998) Migration, rurality and the post-productivist countryside. In: Boyle P, Halfacree K (eds) Migration into rural areas: theories and issues. Wiley, New York, pp 1–20 Hamilton LC, Hamilton LR, Duncan CM, Colocousis CR (2008) Place matters: challenges and opportunities in four rural Americas. Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire, Durham Harris C, Gilbert J (1982) Large-scale farming, rural income and Goldschmidt’s agrarian thesis. Rural Sociol 47:449–458 Hawley AH (1950) Human ecology: a theory of community structure. Ronald Press, New York Hawley AH, Mills SM (eds) (1982) Nonmetropolitan American in transition. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill Hester R (1985) Subconscious landscapes of the heart. Places 2(3):10–22 Holmes J (2002) Diversity and change in Australia’s rangelands: a post-productivist transition with a difference? Trans Inst Br Geogr 27:362–384
158
References
Howe J, McMahon E, Probst L (eds) (1997) Balancing nature and commerce in gateway communities. Island Press, Washington, DC Hunter L, Krannich R, Smith M (2002) Rural migration, rapid growth, and fear of crime. Rural Sociol 67:71–89 Hunter LM, Boardman J, Saint Onge J (2005) The association between amenity-related rural population growth and long-term residents’ economic well-being. Rural Sociol 70:452–469 Inman K, McLeod DM, Coupal RH (2002) Uintah county: a case study in Wyoming land use planning. J Community Dev Soc 33:91–111 Jaakson R (1986) Second-home domestic tourism. Ann Tourism Res 13:367–391 Jackson-Smith D, Jensen E, Jennings B (2006) Changing land use in the rural Intermountain West. In: Kandel WA, Brown DL (eds) Population change and rural society. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 253–276 Jennings BM (2009) Seasonal outlook: an examination of how the foundations of attachment to community differ between seasonal and year-round residents in high amenity areas. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Anthropology, Utah State University, Logan Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar Policy 33:553–560 Jobes PC (1995) Migration in the West: a Gallatin Valley, Montana case study. West Planner 16(3):10–13 Johnson KM (1989) Recent population redistribution trends in nonmetropolitan population change: the contribution of rural areas. Rural Sociol 50:88–98 Johnson KM (1993) Demographic change in nonmetropolitan America, 1980–1990. Rural Sociol 58:347–365 Johnson KM (1998) Renewed population growth in rural America. In: Schwarzweller HK, Mull BP (eds) Research in rural sociology and development, vol 7. JAI Press, Stanford, pp 23–43 Johnson KM (2003) Unpredictable directions of rural population growth and migration. In: Brown DL, Swanson LE (eds) Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp 19–31 Johnson KM, Beale CL (1994) The recent revival of widespread population growth in nonmetropolitan areas of the United States. Rural Sociol 59:655–667 Johnson KM, Beale CL (1998) The rural rebound. Wilson Q 22:16–27 Johnson KM, Beale CL (2002) Nonmetropolitan recreation counties: their identification and rapid growth. Rural Am 17:12–19 Johnson KM, Cromartie JB (2006) The rural rebound and its aftermath: changing demographic dynamics and regional contrasts. In: Kandel WA, Brown DL (eds) Population change and rural society. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–49 Johnson KM, Fuguitt GV (2000) Continuity and change in rural migration patterns, 1950–1995. Rural Sociol 65:27–49 Johnson KM, Purdy R (1980) Recent nonmetropolitan change in fifty year perspective. Demography 17:57–70 Johnson KM, Nucci A, Long L (2005) Population trends in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan America: selective deconcentration and the rural rebound. Popul Res Policy Rev 24:527–542 Jones RE, Fly JM, Talley J, Cordell HK (2003) Green migration into rural America: the new frontier of environmentalism. Soc Nat Resour 16:221–238 Kasarda JD (1995) Industrial restructuring and the changing location of jobs. In: Farley R (ed) State of the union: America in the 1990s. Russell Sage, New York, pp 215–267 Kasarda JD, Janowitz M (1974) Community attachment in mass society. Am Sociol Rev 39:328–339 Kaufman HF (1959) Toward an interactional conception of community. Soc Forces 38:8–17 Kaufman HF, Wilkinson KP (1967) Community structure and leadership: an interactional perspective in the study of communities. Mississippi State University Social Science Research Center, State College, Bulletin 13 Kemmis D (1990) Community and the politics of place. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Kemmis D (2001) This sovereign land: a new vision for governing the west. Island Press, Washington, DC
References
159
Kolb JH (1933) Trends of county neighborhoods: 1921–1931. University of Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, Madison, Bulletin 120 Korsching PF, Allen JC (2004) Locality based entrepreneurship: a strategy for community economic vitality. Community Dev J 39:385–400 Krannich RS, Luloff AE (1991) Problems of resource dependency in U.S. rural communities. Prog Rural Policy Plann 1:5–18 Krannich K, Petrzelka P (2003) Tourism and natural amenity development: real opportunities? In: Brown D, Swanson L (eds) Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century. Penn State University Press, University Park, pp 190–199 Krannich RS, Smith MD (1998) Local perceptions of public lands natural resource management in the rural West: toward improved understanding of the ‘Revolt in the West’. Soc Nat Resour 11:677–695 Krannich RS, Zollinger B (1997) Pursuing rural community development in resource-dependent areas: obstacles and opportunities. Res Community Sociol 7:201–222 Krannich RS, Petrzelka P, Brehm J (2006) Social change and well-being in western amenitygrowth communities. In: Kandel W, Brown DL (eds) Population change and rural society. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 311–331 Kusler JA (1970) Water quality protection for inland lakes in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Law Rev 35(1):35–78 Lee RG (1972) The social definition of outdoor recreation places. In: Burch WR, Cheek N, Taylor L (eds) Social behavior, natural resources and the environment. Harper & Row, New York, pp 68–84 Lee RG, Field DR (2005) Communities and forests: where the people meet the land. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis Lichter DT, Costanzo JA (1987) Nonmetropolitan underemployment and labor force composition. Rural Sociol 52:329–344 Limerick PN (1987) The legacy of conquest: the unbroken past of the American West. W.W. Norton, New York Lobao L (1996) A sociology of the periphery versus a peripheral sociology: rural sociology and the dimension of space. Rural Sociol 61:77–102 Luloff AE (1998) What makes a place a community. The fifth Sir John Quick lecture. La Trobe University Press, Bendigo Luloff AE, Swanson LE (1995) Community agency and disaffection: enhancing collective resources. In: Beaulieu L, Mulkey D (eds) Investing in people: the human capital needs of rural America. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 351–372 Luloff AE, Wilkinson KP (1990) Community action and the national rural development agenda. Sociol Pract 8:48–57 Luloff AE, Finley JC, Melbye J (2000) Issues and impacts associated with land parcelization. In: DeCoster LA (ed) Proceedings of the forest fragmentation 2000 conference. Sampson Group, Alexandria, pp 183–190 MacCannell D (1988) Industrial agriculture and rural community degradation. In: Swanson LE (ed) Agriculture and community change in the U.S.: the congressional research reports. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 15–75, 325–355 MacMahon JA, Toth RE, Boettinger JL, Busch G, Edwards TC Jr, Krannich RS, Croft A, Jennings B, Leydsman E (2009) Upper Las Vegas wash conservation transfer area: a system to develop alternative scenarios. Utah State University Ecology Center, Logan Mahon M (2007) New populations, shifting expectations: the changing experience of Irish rural space and place. J Rural Stud 23:345–356 Mallin MA, Cahoon LB, Parsons DC, Ensign SH (2001) Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus loading on plankton in Coastal Plain blackwater streams. J Freshw Ecol 16:455–466 Manning RE (1999) Carrying capacity: an organizational framework. In: Manning RE (ed) Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 67–79 Marcouiller DW, Green GP (2000) Outdoor recreation and rural development. In: Machlis GE, Field DR (eds) National parks and rural development: practice and policy in the United States. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 33–50
160
References
Marsden T (1999) Rural futures: the consumption countryside and its regulation. Sociol Rural 39:501–520 Massey JC, Maxwell S (1993) Second houses and summer homes. Old House J 21:28–34 Matarrita-Cascante D, Luloff AE (2008) Profiling participative residents in western communities. Rural Sociol 73:44–61 Matarrita-Cascante D, Luloff AE, Field DR, Krannich RS (2006) Community participation in rapidly growing communities. Community Dev J Community Dev Soc 37:71–87 Matarrita-Cascante D, Stedman RC, Luloff AE (2010) Permanent and seasonal residents community attachment in natural amenity-rich areas: exploring the contribution of community and landscape-based factors. Environ Behav 42:197–220 McCarthy J (2008) Rural geography: globalizing the countryside. Prog Hum Geogr 32:129–137 McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2010) Anti-reflexivity: the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate change science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 26:100–133 McGranahan DA (1999) Natural amenities drive rural population change. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, Agricultural Economic Report 781 McGranahan DA (2003) How people make a living in rural America. In: Brown DL, Swanson LE (eds) Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp 135–151 McGranahan DA, Beale CL (2002) Understanding rural population loss. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Chicago, Aug 2002 Melbin M (1978) Night as frontier. Am Sociol Rev 43:3–22 Merton RC (1967) On theoretical sociology. Free Press, New York Milbourne P (2007) Re-populating rural studies. J Rural Stud 23:381–386 Miller MK (1976) Health status, health resources, and consolidated structural parameters: implications for public health care policy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Miller K (2009) RUPRI demographic and economic profile – nonmetropolitan America, The Rural Policy Research Institute, Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.rupri.org/forms/ nonmetro2.pdf Miller MK, Luloff AE (1981) Who is rural? A typological approach to the examination of rurality. Rural Sociol 46:608–625 Mills CW (1956) The power elite. Oxford University Press, New York Mills CW (1959) The sociological imagination. Oxford Press, New York Mills ES (1995) The location of economic activity in rural and nonmetropolitan United States. In: The changing American countryside, E.N. Castleth edn. The University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, pp 103–133 Morrison PA, Wheeler JP (1976) Rural renaissance in America? The revival of population growth in remote areas. The Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC, Bulletin 331(3) Moss LA (2006) The Amenity migrants: seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures. CABI, Cambridge Nash GD (1993) New approaches to the American West. In: Meldrum BH (ed) Old West-New West: centennial essays. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, pp 15–27 Nelson L (1952) The Mormon village: a pattern and technique of land settlement. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City Nelson PB (2002) Perceptions of restructuring in the rural West: insights from the ‘cultural turn’. Soc Nat Resour 15:903–921 Nelson AC, Dueker KJ (1990) The exurbanization of America and its planning policy implications. J Plann Educ Res 9:91–100 Nisbet RA (1953) The quest for community. Oxford University Press, New York Otterstrom SM, Shumway JM (2003) Deserts and oases: the continuing concentration of population in the American Mountain West. J Rural Stud 19:445–462 Otto RE (2007) The continuing battle over wilderness in the West: what happens next in Utah V. Norton? J Land Resour Environ Law 27:431–452
References
161
Perry M (2002) Population growth in the 1990s: patterns within the United States. Popul Res Policy Rev 21:55–71 Petrzelka P, Krannich RS, Brehm J (2006) Identification with resource-based occupations and the desire for tourism. Soc Nat Resour 19:693–708 Ploch LA (1978) The reversal of migration patterns: some rural development consequences. Rural Sociol 43:293–303 Power T (1996) lost landscapes and failed economies: the search for a value of place. Island Press, Washington, DC Power TM, Barret RN (2001) Post-cowboy economics: pay and prosperity in the new American West. Island Press, Washington, DC Price ML, Clay DC (1980) Structural disturbances in rural communities: some repercussions of the migration turnaround in Michigan. Rural Sociol 45:591–607 Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005) Sprawl and forest fragmentation in the U.S. Midwest from 1940–2000. Conserv Biol 19:793–805 Radeloff VC, Stewart SI, Hawbaker TJ, Gimmi U, Pidgeon AM, Flather CH, Hammer RB, Helmers DP (2010) Housing growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value. PNAS 107(2):940–945 Ragatz RL, Gelb GM (1970) The quiet boom in the vacation home market. Calif Manage Rev 12:57–64 Rasker R (1995) A new home on the range: economic realities in the Columbia river basin. The Wilderness Society, Bozeman Reeder R, Brown D (2001) Recreation, tourism, and rural well-being. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERR-7. Accessed at www.ers.usda.gov/ publications/err7/ Rengert KM, Lang RE (2001) Cowboys and cappuccino: the emerging diversity of the rural West. Fannie Mae Foundation Census Note 4 Responsive Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation (2008) The future of hunting and the shooting sports: research-based recruitment and retention strategies. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg Riebsame WE, Robb JJ, Gosnell H (1997) Atlas of the New West. WW Norton, New York Rittel HW, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169 Robbins P, Meehan K, Gosnell H, Gilbertz SJ (2009) Writing the New West: a critical review. Rural Sociol 74:356–382 Roseman CC, Sofranko AJ, Williams JD (1981) Population redistribution in the midwest. North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Ames Rosenberg B, White DM (eds) (1957) Mass culture. Free Press, Glencoe Rothman HK (1998) Devil’s bargains: tourism in the twentieth century American West. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence Rothman HK (2000) A history of U.S. national parks and economic development. In: Machlis GE, Field DR (eds) National parks and rural development: practice and policy in the United States. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 51–66 Rudzitis G (1993) Nonmetropolitan geography: migration, sense of place, and the American West. Urban Geogr 14:574–585 Rudzitis G (1999) Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural West. Rural Dev Perspect 14:9–13 Sacco VF (1995) Media constructions of crime. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 539:141–154 Salamon S (2003) Newcomers to old towns: suburbanization of the heartland. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Sampson N, DeCoster L (2000) Forest fragmentation: implications for sustainable private forests. J Forest 98(3):4–8 Shelby B, Heberlein TA (1986) Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis Shils E (1972) The intellectuals and the powers, and other essays. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Shumway JM, Davis JA (1996) Nonmetropolitan population change in the Mountain West: 1970–1995. Rural Sociol 61:513–529
162
References
Shumway JM, Otterstrom SM (2001) Spatial patterns of migration and income change in the Mountain West: the dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. Prof Geogr 53:492–502 Smith MD, Krannich RS (2000) Culture clash revisited: newcomer and longer-term residents’ attitudes toward land use, development and environmental issues in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociol 65:396–421 Smith MB, Sharp JS (2005) Growth, development and farming in an Ohio exurban region. Environ Behav 37:565–579 Smith TL, Zopf PE Jr (1970) Principles of inductive rural sociology. F.A. Davis, Philadelphia Smith MD, Krannich RS, Hunter L (2001) Growth, decline, stability, and disruption: a longitudinal analysis of social well-being in four western rural communities. Rural Sociol 66:425–450 Smutny G (2002) Patterns of growth and change: depicting the impacts of restructuring in Idaho. Prof Geogr 54:438–453 Sobek M (2001) New statistics on the U.S. labor force, 1850–1990. Hist Methods 34:71–87 Sofranko A, Williams J (1980) Characteristics of migrants and residents. In: Sofranko A, Williams J (eds) Rebirth of rural America: rural migration in the midwest. North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Ames, pp 19–31 Sorokin PA (1965) Sociology of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Am Sociol Rev 30:833–843 Sorokin PA, Zimmerman CC (1929) Principles of rural-urban sociology. Henry Holt & Company, New York Stanfield RL (1988) Policy implications in managing public lands. In: Dysart BC III, Clawson M (eds) Managing public lands in the public interest. Praeger, New York, pp 127–132 Steahr TE, Luloff AE (1985) The structure and impact of population redistribution in New England. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, University Park Stedman R (2002) Whose community? Year round and seasonal resident differences in place attachment. Paper presented at the 65th annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Chicago Stedman RC (2003) Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Resour 16:671–685 Stedman RC (2006) Undertstanding place attachment among second home owners. Am Behav Sci 50:1–19 Stedman RC, Heberlein TA (2001) Hunting and rural socialization: contingent effects of the rural setting on hunting participation. Rural Sociol 66:599–617 Stedman RC, Goetz S, Weagraff B (2006) Does second home development adversely affect rural life? In: Kandell WA, Brown DL (eds) Population change and rural society. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 277–292 Stroud HB (1995) The promise of paradise: recreational and retirement communities in the United States since 1950. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Stynes DJ, Zheng J, Stewart S (1998) Seasonal homes and natural resources patterns of use and impact in Michigan. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul Summers GF, Brown DL (1998) A sociological perspective on rural studies. Am J Agric Econ 80:640–643 Summers GF, Evans S, Clemente F, Beck E, Minkoff J (1976) Industrial invasion of nonmetropolitan America. Praeger, New York Swanson L, Luloff AE (1981) Interpreting the turnaround for policymakers. In: Miller E, Wolensky R (eds) The small city and regional community. Foundation Press, Stevens Point, pp 17–26 Taylor JE III (2004) The many lives of the New West. West Hist Q 35:141–166 Teel TL, Dayer AA, Manfredo MJ, Bright AD (2005) Regional results from the research project entitled ‘Wildlife values in the West’. Project report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit, Fort Collins Theodori G (2000) Levels of analysis and conceptual clarification in community attachment and satisfaction research: connections to community development. J Community Dev 31:35–58
References
163
Theodori G (2004) Community attachment, satisfaction, and action. J Community Dev Soc 35:73–86 Theodori G, Luloff AE (2000) Urbanization and community attachment in rural areas. Soc Nat Resour 13:399–420 Theodori GL, Luloff AE, Willits FK (1998) The association of outdoor recreation and environmental concern: reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociol 63:94–108 Todd DA, Bedient PB, Haasbeek JF, Noell J (1989) Impact of land use and NPS loads on lake quality. J Environ Eng 115:633–649 Travis WR (2007) New geographies of the American West: land use and the changing patterns of place. Island Press, Washington, DC Tucker J (1976) Changing patterns of migration between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in the United States: recent evidence. Demography 13:435–443 United States Geological Survey (2004) North American tapestry project. Retrieved from http:// tapestry.usgs.gov United States Geological Survey (2008) Geology of national parks. Retrieved from http://3dparks. wr.usgs.gov U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Census 2000. SF1 and SF3 data on population and housing, U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau (2006) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf U.S. Streets (2004) StreetMap USA. Redlands, CA. Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Lebanon, New Hampshire (producer): Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands (distributor) Vance RB (1935) Human geography of the south: a study in regional resources and human adequacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill Voss PR, McNiven S, Hammer RB, Johnson KM, Fuguitt G (2004) County-specific net migration by five-year age groups, Hispanic Origin, race and sex 1990–2000. Center for demography and ecology working paper 2004–24, University of Wisconsin-Madison Wardwell JM, Copp JH (eds) (1997) Population change in the rural West. University Press of America, Lanham Warren RL (1978) The community in America. Rand McNally, Chicago Wear DN, Liu R, Foreman J, Sheffield R (1999) The effects of population growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. For Ecol Manage 118:107–115 Weber BA, Castle EN, Shriver AL (1988) Performance of natural resource industries. In: Brown DL, Reid N, Bluestone H, McGranahan D, Mazie S (eds) Rural economic development in the 1980s: prospects for the future. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, pp 103–133 White C (2008) Revolution on the range: the rise of a new ranch in the American West. Island Press, Washington, DC Whiting LR (1974) Communities left behind: alternatives for development. The Iowa State University Press, Ames Whyte WF (1955) Street corner society: the structure of an Italian slum (enlarged). University of Chicago Press, Chicago Wilkinson K (1970) Phases and roles in community action. Rural Sociol 35:54–68 Wilkinson KP (1991) The community in rural America. Social Ecology Press, Middletown Williams AS, Jobes PC (1990) Economic and quality-of-life considerations in urban-rural migration. J Rural Stud 6:187–194 Wilson GA (2001) From productivism to post-productivism… and back again? Exploring the (un) changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Trans Inst Br Geogr 26:77–102 Winkler R, Field DR, Luloff AE, Krannich RS, Williams T (2007) Social landscapes of the Intermountain West: a comparison of ‘Old West’ and ‘New West’ communities. Rural Sociol 72:478–501 Winston M (1997) Nature wars: people vs. pests. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
164
References
Wolfmuller KA (2010) Personal troubles and public issues as master frames. Unpublished master’s thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park World Resources Institute (2007) Labor: agricultural labor force as a percent of total labor force. Data table downloaded from Earthtrends: the environmental information portal. Retrieved from http://earthtrends.wri.org Wright SD, Caserta MS, Lund DA (2003) Older adults’ attitudes, concerns and support for environmental issues in the New West. Int J Aging Hum Dev 57:153–181 Yorgasen ER (2003) Transformation of the Mormon culture region. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
Index
A Agency contacts, 91–92, 107 All-terrain vehicle (ATV), 84, 88–89, 106, 107 Amenity-based growth, 2, 16, 51, 62, 83, 107, 120, 124–131, 134 Analytic scales, 28, 135, 136 Appreciative, 84, 87
Community structure, 6, 20, 62, 131, 135 Compositional factors, 84, 101–106 Conflict, 3, 18, 83, 84, 98, 100, 107, 121, 124, 129 Consumptive, 84, 85, 106 Culture clash, 18, 68, 83, 107, 129 Cycle of rural instability, 15
B Backpacking, 84, 87–88 Basin and Range, 24, 29, 32, 35–42, 64–66, 73 Brian Head, 55, 60, 67, 69 Bryce Canyon National Park, 68, 89 Built capital, 125
D Discourse, 48, 64, 83, 108, 127, 131, 132 Dixie National Forest, 61, 67–70, 89
C Capitol Reef National Park, 32, 60, 61, 67, 68, 89 Cedar Breaks National Monument, 60, 67, 69, 89 Census places, 6, 51, 53, 60, 135 Civic engagement, 48 Classic Old West, 50, 53–58, 60, 61 Collaboration, 130 Collective action, 23, 48, 107, 121, 129, 130 Colorado Plateaus, 24, 28, 29, 32, 35–42, 60, 65, 66, 71, 73 Commodity production, 1, 10, 48, 49, 76, 81, 82, 92–96, 102, 103, 106, 125, 126, 128 Common ground, 94, 127, 129–132 Community agency, 130 Community attachment, 7, 118–120, 129 Community capacity, 3, 5, 31, 48, 126, 130 Community development, 3, 5, 7, 11, 120, 121, 130–132
E Ecological setting, 65–67 Education, 13, 18, 29, 31, 37, 38, 52, 64, 68–70, 76, 78, 102–106, 112–114, 126, 129, 130 Endangered species, 67, 95, 98–99 Extraction, 1, 6, 11, 81, 82, 95–96, 126, 127, 130 Extractive, 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 32, 34, 35, 46, 48–50, 52–56, 61, 62, 64, 73, 75, 77, 78, 127 F Fishing, 10, 52, 68, 82, 84–87, 107 Fishlake National Forest, 32, 68, 89 Fragmentation, 23, 50, 64, 108, 128, 133 G Garfield County, 24, 65, 68, 71–77, 82, 84, 135, 136, 139 Gateway communities, 2, 16, 49, 58, 60, 68
165
166 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, 32, 60, 61, 68, 69, 89 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 61, 68, 69, 89 Grazing, 24, 82, 92, 93, 95, 99–104 Great Plains, 28, 29, 32–42 H Habitat, 23, 50, 65, 67, 100, 108, 128, 133 Hiking, 84, 87–88 Hot spots, 6, 46, 58 Housing units, 24, 29–31, 39–41, 52, 54, 55, 71, 73, 74 Housing values, 52–55, 64, 71, 73, 75 Human capital, 15, 126, 129, 130 Hunting, 10, 52, 82–87, 106, 107 I Income, 4, 18, 29–31, 38, 39, 54, 55, 64, 71, 75–78, 101–105, 112–114, 126, 129, 130 In-migration, 2–4, 6, 12, 14, 15, 24, 31, 37, 46–48, 50, 52, 53, 61, 70, 73, 82, 101, 125 Integration, 3–5, 7, 109–121, 129, 134 Interaction(al), 3, 19–23, 48, 62, 91, 111–113, 117, 118, 120, 121, 125, 129–134 Iron County, 24, 65, 66, 69–77, 82, 84, 135, 136, 139 K Kane County, 24, 65, 69, 71–77, 82, 84, 135, 136, 139 Key informant, 136 L Lake Powell, 60, 65, 69 LDS church, 68, 70 Logging, 47, 68, 82, 92, 93, 102, 103 Longstanding residents, 48, 83, 85–100, 102–105, 107, 113–120, 128, 129, 131, 132 M Middle Rocky Mountains, 29, 34, 36–42 Mineral exploration, 95, 96 Mining, 1, 10, 52, 56, 62, 68, 69, 76, 82, 92, 93, 102, 103
Index Model New West, 50, 53–58, 60, 126 “Mormon Culture Region”, 67 Motorized recreation, 84, 88, 97 Multiple classification analysis (MCA), 102–105 N Natural amenity, 2, 4, 5, 12, 16, 18, 55, 57, 58, 60, 82, 83, 101, 110 New West, 2, 3, 6, 7, 42, 45–62, 64, 65, 67, 70, 73, 81–121, 123–130, 132 New West continuum, 50, 53–58, 60 Northern Rockies, 29, 34–42 O Occupational identities, 125 Old West, 6, 45–62, 64, 65, 67, 76, 81–121, 123, 126, 128, 134, 135 Old West Transition, 53, 55, 56 Out-migration, 11, 15 P Participation, 3–5, 7, 23, 82–89, 91, 107, 109–121, 128, 129, 131, 134, 145 Physiographic province, 28, 29, 32–42, 64, 65, 71, 127, 134 Place, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10–12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 32, 46–48, 50–62, 64, 67, 76, 82, 111, 119, 121, 123–136, 138 Pollution, 19, 124, 128 Preservation, 49, 64, 82, 83, 92, 94, 95, 106, 129 Public lands, 6, 7, 23–25, 34, 35, 42, 49, 51, 58, 61, 64, 65, 68, 69, 78, 79, 81, 82, 92, 94–107, 115, 126, 128, 132, 133 Public meeting, 91, 92, 115 Q Quality of life, 14, 16, 31, 35, 43, 46, 48, 64, 111, 121 R Recreation participation, 82, 84, 86 Resource-based economies, 6, 10 Resource dependence (dependency), 11, 46, 126, 130 Resource management, 7, 50, 62, 79, 82, 83, 91, 95–102, 104–106, 108, 129–133, 136, 147
Index Resource protection, 64, 94, 106, 126, 128, 129 Retirement-age, 14, 24, 30, 36, 42, 70, 73, 114 Rural paradox, 15, 28, 35, 42, 43, 64, 65, 127 Rural rebound, 14, 62, 63 Rural renaissance, 13, 14, 110 S Seasonal housing, 16, 30, 31, 40–42, 52–55, 71, 73, 75 Seasonal population, 31, 83, 84, 86, 94, 107, 108, 128–130 Seasonal residents, 2–5, 7, 31, 35, 42, 46, 49, 64, 67, 73, 78, 82–101, 104–107, 110–121, 125, 127–132, 134, 136, 137 Snowmobiling, 84, 88–89 Social acceptability, 83 Social construction, 16, 18, 20, 62, 124, 129, 132, 134 Social integration, 3–5, 7, 111, 129, 134 Social interaction, 3, 19, 21, 22, 48, 62, 111–113, 120, 121, 125, 129 Socially constructed, 5, 20–22, 42, 124 Social structures, 6, 9, 11, 19, 22, 29, 43, 46, 48–50, 55, 78, 124, 126, 127, 133, 135 Southern Rocky Mountains, 29, 32, 35–42 Space, 2, 6, 9, 12, 20–22, 24, 50, 62, 102, 124, 128, 129, 133, 152 Spatial analysis, 20, 21, 50 Spatial clustering, 59, 134 Species diversity, 67, 128 Structural effects, 20, 22–23, 126, 134 Survey, 7, 60, 84, 85, 87, 89–95, 97–100, 102, 106, 110, 113, 114, 136–138 Sustenance organization, 2, 3 T Timber harvest, 19, 95–97, 107 Time spent in community, 110–113, 116, 120, 121
167 Tourism, 2, 3, 16, 18, 32–35, 46, 47, 49, 52–55, 64, 68, 73, 75, 76, 82, 125, 130 Turnaround, 12–14, 18, 48, 63 U Utilitarian, 64, 82, 83, 93, 102, 103, 106, 128 V Visitation, 61, 84–94, 96–100, 102, 104, 106, 107, 128, 130 W Washington County, 24, 61, 65, 66, 70–77, 82, 84, 135, 136, 139 Water quality, 50, 108, 128 Wayne County, 24, 65, 68, 71–78, 82, 84, 135, 136, 139 Well-being, 2–5, 7, 11, 48, 50, 53, 62, 121, 124–127, 129, 130 Wilderness, 24, 49, 61, 92, 94, 95, 97–98, 102, 104–107, 133 Wildfire, 19, 128 Wildland-urban interface (WUI), 2, 19, 128 Wyoming Basin, 28, 29, 32, 34–41 Y Year-round newcomers, 87–93, 96, 98, 99, 101, 103–107, 113–118, 120, 128, 129, 131 Year-round residents, 3, 5–7, 18, 23, 46, 47, 67, 82–103, 105–107, 110–120, 128–129, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137 Z Zion National Park, 24, 25, 32, 60, 66, 69, 70, 89
