A structural model of regional economic growth is estimated using data for 2243 rural U.S. counties. Five indices designed to capture specific amenity and quality of life characteristics are constructed using fifty-four separate indicators. Results suggest that amenity characteristics can be organized into consistent and meaningful empirical measures that move beyond ad hoc descriptions of amenities. In addition to insights into the influence of local characteristics ranging from tax burdens to income distribution on regional economic growth, results suggest that predictable relationships between amenities, quality of life, and local economic performance exist.

No abstract

Contemporary resource management practice and rural development planning increasingly emphasize the integration of resource extractive industries with non-market-based recreational and amenity values. There is a growing empirical literature which suggests that natural amenities impact regional economies through aggregate measures of economic performance such as population, income, and/or employment growth, and housing development. We maintain that assessing the developmental aspects of amenity-led regional change requires a more thorough focus on alternative measures of economic performance such as income distribution and spatial organization. In the applied research presented here we investigate relationships between amenities and regional economic development indicators. Results suggest mixed and generally insignificant amenity-based associations which highlight the need for appropriate regional economic modeling techniques that account for often dramatic spatial autocorrelation of natural amenity attributes. We conclude that with respect to amenity driven economic growth and development "place in space" matters. Copyright 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd..

In this article, the authors present arguments for a more interdisciplinary approach to community economic development. Building an alternative paradigm that includes six elements-resources, markets, institutions, society, decision making, and space-they rethink the framework that links economic theory to the practice of community economic development. Major attention is paid to the integration of economic and noneconomic factors in the practice of community economic development. In the end, the goal of this new paradigm is to more directly link the practice of community economic development to its solid interdisciplinary theoretical foundation.