|
The population and employment analyses in earlier chapters
have focused on long-term change, from 1970 through 2007.
Rural growth has been uneven over time, making analyses
of any short periods unrepresentative of broad trends.
The current decade has seen much lower overall rural population
growth than in the 1990s, at least according to county
population estimates released by the Bureau of the Census
(see ERS county-level population
data).
Estimates for 2000-07
Nevertheless, the general geographic pattern remained
much the same in 2000-07 as for the entire 1970-2007 period:
population shifted away from counties low on the natural
amenities scale and lacking forest cover and toward higher
amenity areas, particularly those with a mix of forest
and open land. The basic difference is that annual average
population change was lower everywhere in 2000-07.
d
Growth may have slowed inordinately in some counties
at the highest level of natural amenities. In general,
the very high-amenity counties, as
we saw in the first chapter, have had the highest
rates of population growth since 1970. In 1990-2000 (using
the 2003 nonmetro county classification to ensure that
the analysis is of the same counties as the chart), the
median population gain in very high natural amenity counties
reached 20 percent, 4 percentage points above the next
highest amenity category. And median house values were
over 60 percent higher than expected on the basis of homeowner
income—considerably higher than the value for the
next highest amenity level, and a jump of nearly 20 percentage
points from 1990. These high housing values may reflect
new limitations on growth. Counties may be adopting growth
control measures to keep population growth from overwhelming
the amenities that brought many residents to these areas
in the first place. This suggests that population change
is becoming less accurate as an indicator of the relative
attractiveness of counties.
 |
Further Considerations
Landscape and climate have played a substantial role
in rural population and employment change over the past
several decades, but they are unlikely to be the only
quality-of-life factors affecting rural growth. Families
with children are likely to pay attention to the quality
of local schools. Historical settings and cultural factors
such as the presence of artists are important for residents
as well as tourists—although the presence of artists
itself depends on natural amenities (see Arts
Employment Is Burgeoning in Some Rural Areas in Amber
Waves).
Rural development policy tends to focus on employment
(see Amenity-Based
Development in the Rural Development Strategies briefing
room). Prospective projects are typically evaluated on
the basis of projected additions to the number of jobs
in an area. For areas with high poverty rates and few
jobs, this is appropriate in the short run. In the long
run, however, developing scenic amenities such as a mix
of forest and open land cover, and improving local schools
may be the key to attracting and keeping the talent required
to make growth sustainable in these counties (see The
Creative Class: A Key to Rural Growth in Amber
Waves).
|
