Search

Studies of reactions to nuclear facilities have found consistent male/female differences, but the underlying reasons have never been well-clarified. The most common expectations involve traditional roles--with men focusing more on economic concerns and with women (especially mothers) being more concerned about family safety/health. Still, with changing gender roles, women are becoming economic providers as well as caregivers; past studies have not actually examined the interaction of employment and gender effects. This study examines a rural county where issues of risk and economic interest were both salient--a county where a nuclear waste site had been proposed but where an existing nuclear power plant was a major employer. Overall, concern levels expressed by employed mothers did not differ significantly from those in the rest of the sample, but further analyses revealed a sharp contrast: In the half of the county that was home to the existing nuclear power plant, where economic concerns could be expected to be more salient, over 90 percent of the employed mothers expressed low levels of concern; in the other half of the county, closer to the potential risks of the proposed nuclear waste site, almost 90 percent of the employed mothers expressed high levels of concern. No such differences are found for other sociodemographic groups. This county may or may not be unique; what the findings show is that the interplay of geography, gender roles and risks should receive more attention in other contexts, as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rather than seeking ivory-tower isolation, members of the Rural Sociological Society have always been distinguished by a willingness to work with specialists from a broad range of disciplines, and to work on some of the world's most challenging problems. What is less commonly recognized is that the willingness to reach beyond disciplinary boundaries can contribute not just to the solution of real-world problems, but also to the advancement of the discipline itself. This point is increasingly being illustrated in studies of environment-society relationships. Most past discussions of humans' roles in environmental problems have focused on overall or average human impacts, but rural sociologists have played leading roles in identifying what I have come to call ''the double diversion.'' First, rather than being well-represented by averages, environmental damages are often characterized by high levels of disproportionality, with much or most of the harm being created by the diversion of environmental rights and resources to a surprisingly small fraction of the relevant social actors. The disproportionality appears to be made possible in part through the second diversion, namely distraction—the diversion of attention, largely through the taken-for-granted but generally erroneous assumption that the environmental harm ''must'' be for the benefit of us all. There are good reasons why rural sociologists would have been among the first to notice both of these ''diversions''—and why they will give even greater attention to both in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implications of natural resource extraction for local economic development have become the subject of sharply conflicting expectations, with long-term outcomes predicted to range from regional economic growth and development to "progressive underdevelopment." These differences in longer-term expectations cannot be satisfactorily resolved through the use of cross-sectional or short-term data. In addition, existing theories tend to be stated in universalistic terms that discourage rather than facilitate the examination of differences across cases. These points are illustrated through a case-study examination of what has been called the first mining boom in the United States, involving lead mines in the Upper Mississippi Valley during the first half of the 19th century. The developmental consequences of this mining boom appear neither to have been as favorable as predicted by the most enthusiastic proponents of extraction nor as negative as those predicted by the harshest critics. Instead, outcomes appear to have reflected intersecting configurations of physical resource characteristics, the organizational form/scale of extractive activities, the historical period in question, and the nature of relationships among competing resource uses and users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Raw material extraction once offered an effective route to economic development, but societal relationships with environment and technology have changed so fundamentally that extractive industries today appear more likely to lead rural regions to economic addiction. Key characteristics of addictive activities include rising costs of operation at most extractive facilities, combined with downward trends in world commodity prices. Key characteristics of vulnerable communities and regions include increasing geographic isolation, imbalances of scale and power with respect to extractive industries, and the absence of realistic alternatives for diversified development. Key pressures toward addiction are created by ambiguities that mask the addictive tendencies, including ambiguities of price signals, of employment and development possibilities for remote regions, and of resource exhaustion. The net result is that, while the encouragement to develop extractive industries is often coupled with advice to avoid developing an excessive dependency on a single economic sector, the very regions and nations having the greatest need to hear such advice may also have the lowest realistic ability to respond to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Partly because of the field's efforts to deal first with the kinds of impacts that have been the most obvious and pressing, the traditional focus of social impact assessment has been on the impacts taking place during the most intensive phases of developmental activity. Recently it has become increasingly clear that a number of predictable, significant impacts take place both before and after the periods of most intense activity; these impacts are missed by social impact assessment approaches that are excessively narrow in focus. This paper offers a conceptual frame-work that is relatively simple but that deals with impacts both across time and across potentially affected systems of the human environment, doing so in such a way as to improve the promise of social impact assessment to become more nearly comprehensive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]