Culture Clash? Predictors of Views on Amenity‐Led Development and Community Involvement in Rural Recreation Counties

Abstract

Development is contentious in high‐amenity rural areas experiencing migration‐driven population growth. While some residents welcome the associated economic, demographic, and social changes, others resist these changes. Using survey data, we examine the predictors of views on amenity‐led development in rural recreation counties across the United States, including to what extent there is evidence of a “culture clash,” that is, whether values and attitudes of new and long‐term residents differ about local development issues as is often assumed. In addition, we examine whether attitudes toward development impact an important community outcome—residents’ involvement in their community. We find that development broadly speaking is a divisive issue in rural recreation areas and that there is evidence for a culture clash over development. Newer residents are less likely to see development as a problem in their community than long‐term residents, yet more likely to think existing rules to restrict development are good, providing mixed support for the “gangplank” hypothesis. We find that those who see development as a problem are more likely to be involved in local organizations. This research provides a better understanding of views of development in rural recreation counties and evidence of how these attitudes matter in broader community outcomes.

Who Speaks for the Place? Cultural Dynamics of Conflicts Over Hazardous Industrial Development

“…Yet, there are alternative meanings of rural places shaped by outdoor recreation and values of environmental conservation. These experiences and values provide alternative meanings of place and foster emotional ties to land and nonhuman nature that can motivate support for conservation and opposition to extractive industries (Boucquey 2017; Farrell 2015; Ulrich‐Schad and Hua 2018). Industrial development can be interpreted as a threat when it creates risks to public health (Wulfhorst 2000) or risks to wilderness aesthetics and ecosystems that are salient in the cultural frameworks of environmentalists and outdoor recreation enthusiasts (Farrell 2015).…”

Planning and Development Challenges in Western Gateway Communities

“…Prior scholarship on gateway communities, regardless of the terminology used to describe these places, suggests that many of these communities are experiencing the interconnected phenomena of amenity migration, population growth, lack of affordable housing, effects on spillover communities, and conflicts between new and long-term residents (Beyers & Nelson, 2000;Ghose, 2004;Howe et al, 1997;Huq, 2016;Marcouiller et al, 2013;M. Park et al, 2019;Smith & Krannich, 2009;Winkler et al, 2015). Some studies have illuminated transportation concerns in gateway communities, including seasonal traffic congestion and parking problems (Dickinson & Robbins, 2007;Dunning, 2005;Mace, 2014).…”

Natural Resource Dependence and Rural American Economic Prosperity from 2000 to 2015

“…From this, the hypothesis for income is: (Billings and Blee, 2000;Duncan, 2014). In the case of nonextractive development, increased inequality will also be expected due to the new wealthy residents drawn into an area for natural amenities (Sherman, 2018;Ulrich-Schad and Qin, 2018).…”