ABSTRACT
In recent years, rural areas characterized by natural amenities have experienced population growth at substantially higher rates than nonamenity regions (Graves, 1983; Johnson and Beale, 1994; Johnson, 1999; McGranahan, 1999; Roback, 1988; Rosen, 1979). Beginning in the 1990s, net migration outpaced natural increases and became an underlying cause of rural population gains (Fulton et al., 1997). Research suggests that migrants to amenity regions are drawn to favorable climates, attractive scenery, and various recreational opportunities (Deller et al., 2001). Although the economic and demographic dimensions of these trends are fairly well documented, the implications of such growth have been less rigorously explored. There are theoretical reasons to believe that population growth could either benefit or harm the social and economic well-being of long-term residents. With a few exceptions (e.g., Hunter et al., 2005; Reeder and Brown, 2005), nationwide empirical studies exploring these impacts are sparse, as most existing research is based on small samples or case studies (Bergstrom et al., 1990; Howe et al., 1997; McKean et al., 2005; Williams, 1998). Our research seeks to build on our knowledge of the implications of rural growth for long-term residents by determining the change in socioeconomic status (SES) experienced by these residents, as compared with long-term residents of other rural regions. Such an understanding is important because growth and change continue to typify many amenity-rich rural regions across the United States. Theoretical and empirical examinations of amenity-related migration tend to focus on regional migration trends while often ignoring the specific impacts on long-term residents (see Garber-Yonts, 2004 for a useful review of amenity-related migration theories). Typically, anecdotal and empirical studies that address the impact of migration have dichotomized the effects of amenity-driven population growth into either positive or negative explanations for long-term residents, which we call collective advancement and antipodal privilege, respectively. First, collective advancement models anticipate that both in-migrants and long-term residents will benefit from amenity-related in-migration (Johnson, 1999; Rudzitis, 1999; Shumway, 1997; Shumway and Otterstrom, 2001). According to Johnson (1999), population growth creates additional jobs in construction
and increased demand for employees in retail and commercial services (see also Rudzitis, 1999; Shumway, 1997; Shumway and Davis, 1996; Vias, 1999). Compared to less desirable areas, scenic rural areas add jobs at higher rates and residents of these areas experience higher growth in real per-capita income (Henderson and McDaniel, 1998). Also, research suggests that recreational development may transform relatively stagnant economies through in-migration of younger workers related to a proliferation of new goods and services and economic diversification (Reeder and Brown, 2005). Alternatively, an antipodal privilege perspective posits that long-term rural residents and new migrants occupy qualitatively different social locations. Thus, in-migrants may experience a privileged position within a changing economy. Often, new migrants to rural regions do not follow traditional economic theories of migration, have higher incomes, more education, occupations that are nontraditional by rural standards, and are not seeking socioeconomic gains (Rudzitis, 1999; Shumway, 1997; Shumway and Davis, 1996). Established professionals and seasonal service workers are thereby able to exploit current living costs and a changing economy at the expense of long-term residents. Population-related shifts in the local economy may actually harm long-term residents who cannot adjust to changing employment options or increases in cost of living (Johnson, 1999; Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). In addition, even increasing economic opportunities do not guarantee improved economic conditions because some forms of amenity-related development tend to yield primarily low-wage service and/or seasonal positions while failing to stimulate or maintain development in high-wage and/or traditional regional sectors (McKean et al., 2005; Vias, 1999), and in-migrants may have larger per-capita incomes that support service-based economies (Shumway and Otterstrom, 2001), which are likely to negatively impact the socioeconomic status of long-term residents. From this perspective, new migrants benefit while long-term rural residents are placed at a disadvantage given the increases in cost of living, changing social milieu, and changing economies (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001; Johnson, 1999; Ring, 1995; Smith and Krannich, 2000; Williams, 1998). For example, Hunter et al. (2005) show that long-term residents in high-growth, high-amenity regions experience higher levels of income growth when compared to their low-amenity counterparts. However, these gains are offset by the higher costs of living. In this sense, communities are not experiencing collective advancement with the influx of migrants and specific subpopulations are potentially gaining economic advantage at the economic expense of others (Gibson, 1993; Reeder and Brown, 2005). Further, aggregate rises in income associated with rural population growth do not necessarily reflect increasing SES in a broad sense; greater incomes may result from increased participation in low-prestige and/or low-wage servicesector employment, although increases in wages or employment opportunities may trail cost-of-living increases. Gains in income for the area may not reflect improved SES for all residents. Thus, there remains a question about the impact of growth on other aspects of SES. We focus on shifts in occupational prestige to further explore collective advancement and antipodal privilege explanations.
