Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Newcomers and oldtimers: Do classification methods matter in the study of amenity migration impacts in rural America?

  • Research Brief
  • Published:
Population and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rural, high-amenity areas in the USA continue to attract significant numbers of migrants. A common approach to investigating the potential consequences of rural in-migration is to contrast the characteristics, attitudes, and/or actions of migrants and non-migrants (or “newcomers” and “oldtimers”). However, no consensus exists on the distinctions (or the lack thereof) between these two groups in the existing literature, in part because previous research used a variety of methods to classify residence status. Drawing on household survey data from nine communities in north-central Colorado, this study illustrates how different categorizations may yield different conclusions. Categorizing resident groups by the 1970/1980 cutoff or 5-, 10-, or 20-year length of residence substantially altered the differences and similarities between newcomers and oldtimers in selected sociodemographic, perceptual, and behavior indicators. It is recommended that researchers choose the most appropriate classification approach based on specific research questions and objectives as well as important transitions in the migration patterns of their study areas. These findings have direct implications for future research on rural demographic change and socioeconomic restructuring.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  • Abrams, J., Gosnell, H., Gill, N., & Klepeis, P. (2012). Re-creating the rural, reconstructing nature: An international literature review of the environmental implications of amenity migration. Conservation and Sociey, 10(3), 270–284. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.101837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blahna, D. J. (1990). Social bases for resource conflicts in areas of reverse migration. In R. G. Lee, D. R. Filed, & W. R. Burch (Eds.), Community and forestry: Continuities in the sociology of natural resources (pp. 159–178). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassels, S., Curran, S., & Kramer, R. (2005). Do migrants degrade coastal environments? Migration, natural resource extraction and poverty in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Human Ecology, 33(3), 329–363. doi:10.1007/s10745-005-4142-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). (2015). 2014 report on the health of Colorado’s forests. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Forest Service.

  • Fortmann, L., & Huntsinger, L. (1989). The effects of nonmetropolitan population growth on resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 2(1), 9–22. doi:10.1080/08941928909380672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortmann, L., & Kusel, J. (1990). New voices, old beliefs: Forest environmentalism among new and long-standing rural residents. Rural Sociology, 55(2), 214–232. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1990.tb00681.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuguitt, G. V., Heberlein, T. A., & Rathbun, P. R. (1991). Migration consequences for household energy consumption in a nonmetropolitan recreation–retirement area. Rural Sociology, 56(1), 56–69. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1991.tb00427.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosnell, H., & Abrams, J. (2011). Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal, 76(4), 303–322. doi:10.1007/s10708-009-9295-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosnell, H., Haggerty, J. H., & Byorth, P. A. (2007). Ranch ownership change and new approaches to water resource management in Southwestern Montana: Implications for fisheries. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(4), 990–1003. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00081.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graber, E. E. (1974). Newcomers and oldtimers: Growth and change in a mountain town. Rural Sociology, 39(4), 504–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greider, T., Krannich, R. S., & Berry, E. H. (1991). Local identity, solidarity, and trust in changing rural communities. Sociological Focus, 24(4), 263–282. doi:10.2307/20831592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiner, C. C. (2014). “Been-heres vs. come-heres” and other identities and ideologies along the rural–urban interface: A comparative case study in Calaveras County, California. Land Use Policy, 41, 70–83. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L. M., Boardman, J. D., & Onge, J. M. S. (2005). The association between natural amenities, rural population growth, and long-term residents’ economic well-being. Rural Sociology, 70(4), 452–469. doi:10.1526/003601105775012714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, B. M., & Krannich, R. S. (2011). Bonded to whom? Social interactions in a high-amenity rural setting. Community Development, 44(1), 3–22. doi:10.1080/15575330.2011.583355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jobes, P. C. (1988). Nominalism, realism and planning in a changing community. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 31(4), 279–290. doi:10.1080/00207238908710432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. E., Fly, J. M., Talley, J., & Cordell, H. K. (2003). Green migration into rural America: The new frontier of environmentalism? Society & Natural Resources, 16(3), 221–238. doi:10.1080/08941920309159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krannich, R. S., Luloff, A. E., & Field, D. R. (2011). People, places and landscapes: Social change in high amenity rural areas. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, L. E., Mazza, R., & Stiefel, M. (2008). Amenity migration, rural communities, and public lands. In E. M. Donoghue & V. E. Sturtevant (Eds.), Forest community connections: Implications for research, management, and governance (pp. 127–142). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattarita-Cascante, D., & Luloff, A. E. (2011). Population change and contrasting integration, attachment, and participation in the New West-Old West. In R. S. Krannich, A. E. Luloff, & D. R. Field (Eds.), People, places and landscapes: Social change in high amenity rural areas (pp. 109–121). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendham, E., & Curtis, A. (2010). Taking over the reins: Trends and impacts of changes in rural property ownership. Society & Natural Resources, 23(7), 653–668. doi:10.1080/08941920801998893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. B. (1997). Migration, sources of income, and community change in the nonmetropolitan Northwest. The Professional Geographer, 49(4), 418–430. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. B. (2001). Rural restructuring in the American West: Land use, family and class discourses. Journal of Rural Studies, 17(4), 395–407. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00002-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploch, L. A. (1978). The reversal in migration patterns—Some rural development consequences. Rural Sociology, 43(2), 293–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin, H. (2015). Comparing newer and longer-term residents’ perceptions and actions in response to forest insect disturbance on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula: A longitudinal perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 51–62. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, H., & Flint, C. G. (2010). Capturing community context of human response to forest disturbance by insects: A multi-method assessment. Human Ecology, 38(4), 567–579. doi:10.1007/s10745-010-9334-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, H., & Flint, C. G. (2012). Integrating rural livelihoods and community interaction into migration and environment research: A conceptual framework of rural out-migration and the environment in developing countries. Society & Natural Resources, 25(10), 1056–1065. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.656184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rank, M. R., & Voss, P. R. (1982). Patterns of rural community involvement: A comparison of residents and recent inmigrants. Rural Sociology, 47(2), 197–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. D., & Krannich, R. S. (2000). “Culture clash” revisited: Newcomer and longer-term residents’ attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociology, 65(3), 396–421. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00036.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spain, D. (1993). Been-heres versus come-heres: Negotiating conflicting community identities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(2), 156–171. doi:10.1080/01944369308975865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinner, W. F., & Toney, M. B. (1980). Migrant-native differences in social background and community satisfaction in non-metropolitan Utah communities. In D. L. Brown & J. M. Wardwell (Eds.), New directions in urban–rural migration: The population turnaround in rural America (pp. 313–331). New York, USA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Troy, L. R. (1998). Recent human migration to the interior Columbia basin and implications for natural resource management. (M.S.), School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

  • US Census Bureau. (1970). Census of population and housing, 1970. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau. (2010). Census of population and housing, 2010. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, P. R. (1980). A test of the “gangplank syndrome” among recent migrants to the Upper Great Lakes region. Journal of the Community Development Society, 11(1), 95–111. doi:10.1080/15575330.1980.9987107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Projects #1005129 and #1005128. The analysis drew on data from a larger research project funded by the Pacific Northwest Research Station and Region 2, US Forest Service. The author would like to acknowledge and thank Courtney G. Flint, Michael Daab, Coryn Shiflet, Jacob Hendee, Joanna Ganning, Mallory Dolan, and Caitlin McCoy for their contribution to that project. The paper was presented at the 2015 annual meeting of USDA Multistate Research Committee W3001: The Great Recession, Its Aftermath, and Patterns of Rural and Small Town Demographic Change (Boulder, CO, September 18–19, 2015). Thoughtful comments on earlier versions of the article from Tim Futing Liao, Elizabeth Bent, participants of the W3001 research committee, as well as three anonymous reviewers and the journal editor are sincerely appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Applied Social Sciences, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri-Columbia, 216 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Hua Qin

Authors
  1. Hua Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hua Qin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qin, H. Newcomers and oldtimers: Do classification methods matter in the study of amenity migration impacts in rural America?. Popul Environ 38, 101–114 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-015-0252-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-015-0252-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation