Rural Prosperity - Real? Imagined? - A Facinating Study (Durango: agriculture, showing)

[jazzlover]

I just ran onto this study on rural prosperity,"WHY SOME RURAL COMMUNITIES PROSPER WHILE OTHERS DO NOT," prepared for the US Dept. of Agriculture by the University of Illinois ( http://www.ace.uiuc.edu/Reap/Isserma...Prosperity.pdf ). I urge those considering move to a rural area in Colorado (or anywhere, for that matter) to read it. It seems to lay waste to a few urban myths about prosperity in rural areas--some of which are widely held in Colorado and other Rocky Mountain states.

A synopsis of some of the conclusions:

1. Population growth does not correlate with prosperity. In fact, slow population growth correlated positively with rural county prosperity. Prosperous rural counties tended to be those with the slowest overall demographic change.

2. The most prosperous rural counties are the ones that are most rural. Rural counties with urban cores of at least 10,000 residents tend to be less prosperous.

3. Prosperous counties tend to have a higher percentage of their populations who work within the county and do not commute to neighboring counties.

4. There is not a correlation between better highway access and prosperity.

5. Few prosperous counties are recreation or retirement counties. Quoted from the study, "In short, the often recommended rural development strategy of attracting recreation visitors and retirees has not yet resulted in prosperous counties, whether because of the places selected by visitors and retirees, the consequences of their arrival, or both. Hills and mountains, one of the five major topography types, might be appealing for retirement and recreation, but these counties have the lowest prosperity percentage, chiefly because of high poverty and unemployment."

6. "Value-added" natural resource manufacturing (i.e., processing of mining and petroleum products, etc.) does not equate to higher prosperity in rural economies, whereas a diversified economy does.

7. High levels of agricultural activity and high farm employment consistently correlate positively with rural county prosperity.

8. Prosperous rural counties have less income inequality between low and high income groups. Higher income inequality correlates negatively to county prosperity.

9. Better education attainment and higher education standards positively correlate with rural county prosperity. In fact, it is the most consistent predictor of rural county prosperity.

10. Prosperous rural counties tend to have greater resident participation in local social and religious organizations (service clubs, fraternal organizations, labor unions, organized churches) than less prosperous counties.

11. Very significant for Colorado, mountainous terrain has a significant NEGATIVE correlation on county prosperity. Only 3 rural Colorado counties defined in the study as "mounainous" and "rural" made the "prosperous" list: Routt, Grand, and Chaffee.

12. Sadly, high minority populations correlate negatively with county prosperity. The only rural county in the Rocky Mountain West with a significant minority population and a population of over 10,000 that made the study's "prosperous" list was Delta County, and it was one of only 9 counties nationally to do so.

My conclusion: If one accepts the conclusions of this study and if the goal is to develop prosperous rural counties in Colorado, it would seem that most rural areas in Colorado, particularly those in the retirement/resort/mountain areas, would receive flunking grades. Most of those counties violate most or all of the "positive" correlations for county prosperity. The map contained in the study showing county prosperity for the entire US seems to validate this conclusion. It also seems to validate my often-repeated statement that if you must rely on a local income to live in most Colorado rural counties anywhere west of the Front Range, you will have a tough go of it.

[Idunn]

From your synopsis it seems the best rural location: eastern Colorado. But I wouldn't want to live there.

Altogether, very interesting. It probably often is more difficult to live in the mountains. But for some most any price would be worth it.

I noticed that Summit county didn't make the prosperous list, which perhaps goes to prove the point. Certainly lots of money there, but also great disparities. A wonderful quality of life diminished to a large degree if one cannot afford it. There seems to be many illegal aliens in the lower echelon of the work force there. And whether this the case or not, the lower tier of society, that in a sense supports all else, is effectively kept in a position of near servitude.

If one equates rural with agriculture then any mountainous region is always going to come up short. But probably many other factors at play. Perhaps this as much or more a question of society and fairness as geography.

[hello-world]

great post. thanks.

[brightdoglover]

Very interesting.
Regarding population gathering, I wonder if it's a chicken/egg thing. Poorer people often move to town/city in hope of more opportunity, making the gathering place read out poorer than dispersed areas.

I read a fascinating book called "New Neighbors, Old Fences"(?) by Peter Decker, about the economic and communal changes in Ridgway, CO (next to Ouray, one valley over from Telluride) from a mining boomtown and accompanying ranching/supplies/services economy to one where, as we speak, outside money is buying up ranches, usually with conservation easements so the sights are preserved, but there are no real economics involved except some service jobs.
I can't remember the exact title because I bought the book in Ridgway and left it in Durango after reading it. But the author is definitely Peter Decker. He is, interestingly, an "outsider" academic with a PhD who moved to the area in the 1970s to establish a ranch. At the end of the book, he had sold most of the ranch and moved his operation to Nebraska, where ranching made economic sense.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

Very interesting.
Regarding population gathering, I wonder if it's a chicken/egg thing. Poorer people often move to town/city in hope of more opportunity, making the gathering place read out poorer than dispersed areas.

I read a fascinating book called "New Neighbors, Old Fences"(?) by Peter Decker, about the economic and communal changes in Ridgway, CO (next to Ouray, one valley over from Telluride) from a mining boomtown and accompanying ranching/supplies/services economy to one where, as we speak, outside money is buying up ranches, usually with conservation easements so the sights are preserved, but there are no real economics involved except some service jobs.
I can't remember the exact title because I bought the book in Ridgway and left it in Durango after reading it. But the author is definitely Peter Decker. He is, interestingly, an "outsider" academic with a PhD who moved to the area in the 1970s to establish a ranch. At the end of the book, he had sold most of the ranch and moved his operation to Nebraska, where ranching made economic sense.

I knew Mr. Decker years back. An interesting fellow.

[brightdoglover]

Jazzlover, you knew Peter Decker? That is very interesting.

I have wanted to discuss the book with someone from the area. It looks like Decker moved there around the late 1970s (again, I don't have the book in front of me) and spoke of the communal life around neigborhood, community, ranching activities, and so on. He seems to see it as ending in the 1990s.

I started going to the area in 1988, to go to a guest ranch for great riding- it was the San Juan Guest Ranch, owned by the MacTiernans. Scott MacTiernan and his mother Pat sold the property around 1994, I think, to a famous-named family who will be keeping it in ?conservation easement? or the category of not developing it. I don't know if the valley land can be developed. The same family is buying up other large properties for the same reason.

I don't know how communal life there was in the 1970s or if it did in fact end in the 1990s as Decker seems to feel. I thought the economic changes (no ranching needed to supply the mines anymore) had slowed or ended long before that.

Ridgway/Ouray is the most beautiful place I've ever seen, but it doesn't look like a place for full-time living. Another MacTiernan told me that it gets dark at 1p in Ouray in the winter because of the gorgeous mountains.Of course, work is always an issue there, as are housing costs. I wish I knew a good answer.

[jazzlover]

Peter Decker was Colorado's Commissioner of Agriculture from 1987-89 in the Roy Romer administration.

[hello-world]

isn't ouray the inspiration for galt's gulch (atlas shrugged)? is the libertarian party strong there?

[multitrak]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

11. Very significant for Colorado, mountainous terrain has a significant NEGATIVE correlation on county prosperity. Only 3 rural Colorado counties defined in the study as "mounainous" and "rural" made the "prosperous" list: Routt, Grand, and Chaffee.

mineral county, in the heart of the san juan mtns, is rural, mountainous and prosperous according to the cited report. although the population density is around 1 person per square mile, its prosperity must be related to the wolf creek ski area and creede.