Search

Media stories highlighted accounts of migration away from city centers towards more rural destinations during the COVID‐19 pandemic, but systematic research about how the pandemic changed migration in more rural destinations is only starting to emerge. This paper relies on U.S. Postal Service change‐of‐address data to describe whether and how established domestic migration systems changed during the COVID‐19 pandemic, focusing on differences across the rural–urban gradient and by outdoor recreation resources. We find little evidence of massive urban exodus. We do find that out‐migration from rural counties declined post‐pandemic onset and has stayed low in the 3 years since, stemming the tide of net population loss in many rural places. Most rural counties that experienced net population loss prior to the pandemic saw either less net loss or net gains during the pandemic. Rural recreation counties experienced greater gains through both decreased out‐migration and increased in‐migration in the first year of the pandemic; but by year three, differences between rural recreation and non‐recreation counties had balanced. Overall, counties across Rural America saw notable change to pre‐pandemic migration patterns. This shift may benefit rural areas through long‐term population stability and/or growth but might also exacerbate housing and childcare shortages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With one‐third of rural areas in the United States living in persistently high poverty, churches are some of the most prolific—and often only—sources of resource‐provision in rural places. This paper qualitatively examines the complex role that churches play as resource providers in rural areas. Further, we examine the ways churches are helpful and/or harmful in meeting the needs of those experiencing vulnerability. We fuse hegemonic Christianity with social exclusion and neoliberalism to argue that rural people may not only experience ostracization and othering, but can also lose access to already‐limited resources in rural areas as a result. Using community‐based action research, ethnography, 47 semi‐structured interviews, and research participant‐driven photography from a town we call Gordon, we find that while churches are important resource‐providers, they perpetuate hegemonic Christianity, hold exclusionary power, and act as critical gatekeepers for resources. This often results in ostracization and jeopardizes resource provision for those most vulnerable. This is a critical finding that demonstrates the complexity of resource provision, church influence, and rurality. We highlight participants' suggestions for ways to expand services in rural places without solely relying on religious organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural resource development, both extractive (oil, gas, mining, and timber) and non‐extractive (tourism, real estate, outdoor recreation), has been found to negatively impact economic prosperity in rural America. One mechanism recently proposed for why this occurs is high levels of labor market concentration, or oligopsony. Oligopsony occurs when there are few employers within a labor market and can lead to suppressed wages and a power imbalance between employers and workers. In this paper, we test the moderating effect of labor market concentration on the relationship between natural resource development and per capita income and poverty in rural America from 2010 to 2016. By comparing results between extractive and non‐extractive development, as well as manufacturing, we show that labor market concentration attenuates the beneficial relationship observed at low levels of specialization in natural resources—particularly for extractive forms of development. Further, by finding no significant relationship between manufacturing specialization and economic prosperity, nor any moderating effect of labor market concentration in the case of manufacturing, we demonstrate that natural resource development and labor market concentration have a unique relationship with rural American economic prosperity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With one‐third of rural areas in the United States living in persistently high poverty, churches are some of the most prolific—and often only—sources of resource‐provision in rural places. This paper qualitatively examines the complex role that churches play as resource providers in rural areas. Further, we examine the ways churches are helpful and/or harmful in meeting the needs of those experiencing vulnerability. We fuse hegemonic Christianity with social exclusion and neoliberalism to argue that rural people may not only experience ostracization and othering, but can also lose access to already‐limited resources in rural areas as a result. Using community‐based action research, ethnography, 47 semi‐structured interviews, and research participant‐driven photography from a town we call Gordon, we find that while churches are important resource‐providers, they perpetuate hegemonic Christianity, hold exclusionary power, and act as critical gatekeepers for resources. This often results in ostracization and jeopardizes resource provision for those most vulnerable. This is a critical finding that demonstrates the complexity of resource provision, church influence, and rurality. We highlight participants' suggestions for ways to expand services in rural places without solely relying on religious organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The stories we tell about ourselves and our communities have the power to impact perceptions of marginalized communities, both positively and negatively. Narratives affect how people view themselves, their town, and other members of their community and thus shape personal interactions, local culture, social situations, and even decisions about allocation of resources. When those stories are rooted in discursive frames—what we can understand as the links between ideology and narrative—they can also perpetuate and reify power inequities. Within rural America, local elites and residents alike use narratives and discursive framing to erase or exclude communities of color and, at times, poor whites in unique ways. This happens through explicit and willful ignorance of narratives of difference that could both complicate normative assumptions and highlight histories of dispossession within rural towns. Drawing on 30 interviews and 12 months of ethnography in the midwestern town of Moses, we provide a case study that demonstrates how narratives perpetuated by both decision makers and residents, across racial and class backgrounds, are rooted in colorblind racism and classblindness regarding African Americans, Mexican Americans, and poor whites. These narratives frame perceptions of residents and neighborhoods, influence town‐level decisions, and erase local histories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rural residents in the United States do not always agree on local development priorities, yet understanding and accounting for their preferences is a step towards more effective and equitable community development. We use survey data spanning different types of rural Intermountain West communities to gauge residents' preference weights for economic and environmental rural development goals. Given that community tenure and age are often related to development preferences, respondents are divided into three groups based on these factors using a classification tree approach. Long‐term residents (>36 percent of life spent in the community) have the strongest economic preferences, while older newcomers have the strongest environmental preferences. The Leti heterogeneity index reveals that long‐term residents also displayed the greatest homogeneity of preferences. Ordered probit analysis shows that goal preferences are also related to sex, education, household income, community financial security, and the share of county income derived from wealth assets. These findings provide a more nuanced and methods‐based understanding of residential tenure in a community and its relationship to development attitudes across a variety of rural place types, all valuable information for rural community and economic development practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early in the COVID‐19 pandemic, people living in cities were much more likely than rural residents to become infected with and die from the virus. Beginning in the summer of 2020, however, the proportional increase in virus spread became much greater in rural areas. By March 2021, per capita cases and deaths were greater in nonmetro than in metro areas. Multi‐variate regression analysis found that political views were the most important variable explaining per capita COVID‐19 cases, while measures of disadvantage were the best predictors of COVID‐19 deaths. Counties with high proportions of Trump voters had higher per capita cases, and in nonmetro areas, these counties had higher death rates. Overall, the best predictor of COVID‐19 death rates is low levels of educational attainment, high poverty rates, and high minority populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]