Condos in the Woods: The Growth of Seasonal and Retirement Homes in Northern Wisconsin

Chapter 3: A National Perspective on the Reinvention of Rural Areas

I n recent decades, there has been an ebb and flow of population and changing demographic composition of communities as some parts of rural America have been rediscovered. In this chapter, we examine three national trends in rural community change: in-migration, rural housing growth, and growth in seasonal homeownership. These three major sociodemographic trends are contributing significant community change in many rural areas rich in natural amenities. Seasonal homeownership is part of a broader transformation of rural communities as they also face new migrants, particularly urbanites and retirees, but we also explore the unique features of seasonal homeownership that differentiate it from other changes in natural amenity communities. Further, we show that these changes are the result of a new relationship to natural resources in rural regions as they shift from extractive industries to natural amenity development. Since industrialization, the predominant population trend has been urbanization and a declining rural population (Johnson ; Ravenstein ). Demographers and other rural social scientists expected this trend to continue indefinitely, driven by increased farm size and mechanization in extractive industries and the attraction of urban lifestyle and economic opportunities . It was a surprise, then, when some contemporary rural communities started to grow and experience new in-migration. During the s, the rural population loss of earlier decades began to slow, and there was evidence of new migration into U.S. nonmetropolitan counties. However, young adults continued to leave nonmetropolitan areas in large numbers, driven by the same economic and social factors of earlier decades. Instead, new arrivals of older adults and retirees into nonmetropolitan counties led chapter  A National Perspective on the Reinvention of Rural Areas  the reversal of the population decline. Detailed analysis by Johnson and Fuguitt () revealed that very little of this change occurred within counties dominated by farming. Instead, the new in-migration occurred primarily in nonmetropolitan counties with recreation economies and in “commuting counties” where  percent or more of the workers commuted to metropolitan counties for employment. This trend continued through the s, with even higher rates of inmigration for many nonmetropolitan areas. For the first time in recent history , rural areas of the United States experienced growth rates higher than those of cities (Fuguitt ). While out-migration was still present for young adults (those in their twenties), this population loss had declined significantly . The new migration flow from urban to rural areas was excitedly called the “rural renaissance,” “rural turn around,” or “rural rebound” (Johnson and Fuguitt ). Following a brief decline in the s, the s witnessed a return to the rural migration and growth of the s. Natural increase from births accounted for little of the population growth during recent decades. Instead, out-migration away from nonmetropolitan areas slowed, and urban to rural migration brought new residents to rural communities (McGranahan ). Several factors were at work in this new rural migration trend. Suburban and rural counties began to diversify their employment structure, relying less on resource extraction as their sole economic base. Innovations in transportation and communication such as the dawn of telecommuting also helped diminish the “friction of distance,” giving companies and individuals more flexibility regarding their location. But most important was the increased importance of non-economic factors such as the natural environment and quality of life on migration decisions, attracting migrants to rural areas that are rich in scenic and recreational amenities (Beale and Johnson ; Brown et al. ; Frey and Johnson ; Johnson and Beale ; Johnson and Fuguitt ; McGranahan ; A. Nelson ; A. Nelson and Dueker ; Rudzitis ; Schwarzweller ). Impacts of Population Change: Different Values, Cultures Clash Rural communities have often experienced significant social conflict as a result of shifting to a non-extractive relationship to natural resources and the integration of new migrants. In this section we review the literature examining some challenging social impacts of new rural populations, including conflicts over natural resource use and a lack of community cohesion.  A National Perspective on the Reinvention of Rural Areas For many new migrants, the preservation of rural landscapes—preventing development—is a critical natural resource issue. Halfacree and Boyle () argue that new residents commodify rural places for their natural amenities and aesthetics, leading to conflict over natural resources in the “post-productivist countryside.” Newcomers prefer to preserve idealized landscapes of rolling hills, farms, forests, and open spaces (Halfacree and Boyle ; Halseth ; P. Nelson ; Shumway and Lethbridge ; Smutny ; Walker and Fortmann ). In contrast, many longtime residents support new growth and development, seeing growth as...