Population Growth in High-Amenity Rural Areas: Does it Bring Socioeconomic Benefits for Long-Term Residents?
Population Growth in High-Amenity Rural Areas: Does it Bring Socioeconomic Benefits for Long-Term Residents?
复制标题
舒适度高的农村地区的人口增长：是否为长期居民带来社会经济效益？
DOI：
10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00462.x
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Boardman,JasonD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Onge,JarronMSaint;Hunter,LoriM;Boardman,JasonD
近年来，以自然舒适为特点的农村地区的人口增长率大大高于非舒适地区（Graves，1983;约翰逊和Beale，1994;约翰逊，1999; McGranahan，1999; Roback，1988;罗森，1979）。从20世纪90年代开始，净移民超过了自然增长，成为农村人口增长的根本原因（富尔顿等人，1997年）。研究表明，移民到舒适的地区是吸引有利的气候，有吸引力的风景，和各种娱乐机会（德勒等人，2001年）。虽然这些趋势的经济和人口方面有相当好的记录，但对这种增长的影响却没有进行严格的探讨。理论上有理由相信，人口增长既可能有利于也可能损害长期居民的社会和经济福祉。除了少数例外（例如，Hunter等人，二○ ○五年;里德和布朗，2005年），探索这些影响的全国性实证研究很少，因为大多数现有研究都是基于小样本或案例研究（Bergstrom等人，1990; Howe等人，1997; McKean等人，2005;威廉姆斯，1998）。我们的研究旨在通过确定这些居民与其他农村地区的长期居民相比所经历的社会经济地位（SES）的变化，来建立我们对农村增长对长期居民影响的认识。这样的理解是重要的，因为增长和变化继续代表美国各地许多便利设施丰富的农村地区。 对与生活便利设施有关的移徙进行的理论和经验研究往往侧重于区域移徙趋势，而往往忽视对长期居民的具体影响（见Garber-Yonts，2004年，对与生活便利设施有关的移徙理论的有益回顾）。通常情况下，解决移民影响的轶事和实证研究已经将便利设施驱动的人口增长的影响分为长期居民的积极或消极解释，我们分别称之为集体进步和对跖特权。 第一，集体进步模式预计，移民和长期居民都将受益于与生活便利设施有关的移民（约翰逊，1999年; Rudzitis，1999年; Shumway，1997年; Shumway和Otterstrom，2001年）。根据约翰逊（1999年），人口增长在建筑业创造了更多的就业机会，并增加了零售和商业服务业对雇员的需求（另见Rudzitis，1999年; Shumway，1997年; Shumway和Davis，1996年; Vias，1999年）。 与不太理想的地区相比，风景优美的农村地区增加就业机会的速度更快，这些地区的居民的真实的人均收入增长更快（亨德森和麦克丹尼尔，1998年）。此外，研究表明，娱乐业的发展可以通过与新商品和服务激增以及经济多样化有关的年轻工人的移民来改变相对停滞的经济（里德和布朗，2005年）。 另一种观点是，对跖特权的观点认为，长期的农村居民和新移民占据了性质不同的社会位置。因此，移民可能会在不断变化的经济中享有特权地位。 通常，农村地区的新移徙者不遵循传统的移徙经济理论，他们收入较高，受教育程度较高，从事的职业按农村标准来说是非传统的，而且不寻求社会经济收益（Rudzitis，1999年; Shumway，1997年; Shumway和Davis，1996年）。因此，成熟的专业人士和季节性服务工作者能够利用当前的生活成本和不断变化的...
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 constructionand 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 …