The rural growth trifecta: outdoor amenities, creative class and entrepreneurial context

Abstract

Recent work challenges the notion that attracting creative workers to a place is sufficient for generating local economic growth. In this article, we examine the problem of sustaining robust growth in the periphery of the USA, demonstrating the contingent nature of talent as an engine for economic growth. We test the hypothesis that rural growth in the knowledge economy is dependent on the ability to utilize new knowledge, perhaps generated elsewhere, in addressing local economic challenges. Tests confirm that the interaction of entrepreneurial context with the share of the workforce employed in the creative class is strongly associated with growth in the number of new establishments and employment, particularly in those rural counties endowed with attractive outdoor amenities.

The role of local perceptions in the marketing of rural areas

“…With reference to Florida's 'Creative Class' (2002), McGranahan, Wojan, andLambert (2011) note that 'rural places pursuing entrepreneurship as a development strategy need to consider the potential contribution of the outdoors as a means to attract the creative class and recharge knowledge ' (2010, p. 23). This language is quite different to a purely touristic representation of a rural environment, referring to a lifestyle image that will attract likeminded people to live and work in a region where they can exploit creative freedom and assimilate into the local environment.…”

Defining frontier areas in the United States

“…According to central place theory, the costs associated with providing higher-order services (appliances, motor vehicles, major trauma intervention) are higher than those associated with lower-order services (groceries, sporting goods, nursing care), thus they require a larger population to support them (Mulligan, 1984). Factors other than urban population size affect service availability and well-being in rural areas, including rural population density, industrial structure, and natural amenity features (Isserman, Feser, & Warren, 2009;McGranahan, Wojan, & Lambert, 2010;Vias, Mulligan, & Molin, 2002). However, recent studies confirm that the variability of rural well-being is still very strongly tied to the structure of the urban hierarchy -places near large cities have lower poverty rates, higher incomes, more jobs, higher population growth, and better access to retail services compared with more remote areas (Partridge, Rickman, Ali, & Olfert, 2008a, 2009aPorter & Howell, 2009).…”

Landform values for rural sustainability: Recognition and assessment in a Spanish–Portuguese border region case study

“…Geomorphosites might become drivers of sustainable growth involving the relationships between people and place (McGranahan et al, 2011). The main challenge to connect global and local strategies, across well-managed geomorphological sites, is to make "geodiversity relevant to people, where they live and how they live" (Prosser et al, 2011, p. 341).…”