This article, based on 84 in‐depth interviews and 10 months of ethnography, focuses on the rural Washington community of “Paradise Valley,” whose economic bases in mining, ranching, and logging declined by the end of the twentieth century. Recently, economic development has focused on amenity‐based tourism and second‐home ownership, as well as attracting wealthy in‐migrants. Job growth has been concentrated in construction and service sectors, particularly low‐paid, part‐time, and seasonal jobs in hospitality, retail, and food services. The community has changed from a relatively homogenous population of working‐class residents to a more diverse and divided community. The article explores outcomes of these changes, including gentrification and housing shortages, unemployment and underemployment, and a social divide in which the community's longtime and working‐class residents are marginalized. I explore these social consequences of amenity‐based development, illustrating the ways in which the social divide is reproduced and the gradual disenfranchisement of those with roots in earlier social and economic systems in the valley, focusing on the changing meanings and uses of different types of symbolic capital.
The experience of rural poverty is in many ways unique from that of urban poverty. In the rural setting, social cohesion creates pressure on the poor to behave in ways that are consistent with local values. This paper, based on qualitative research done in an isolated, rural Northern California community, argues that in this setting the survival strategies of the poor are chosen because they are socially rational rather than economically optimal. The choice of socially acceptable coping strategies is ultimately beneficial because it creates "moral capital," which can be traded for both social capital in the form of community support, and economic capital in the form of job opportunities.
Impact and relevance are valued by both plant pathologists and the supporters of research and extension. Impact has been characterized as the “So what?” of research results, and in applied research in agriculture typically involves some change in human behavior. This might involve, for instance, avoidance of broad spectrum pesticides, use of economic thresholds, or adoption of a new cultural practice in disease management. Changes in human behavior often are slow and difficult, even when the potential benefits of change seem clear. Research and extension personnel working with farmers have discussed for decades the apparent slow pace of adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) and other less-pesticide-intensive management practices. The reasons why change is slow are numerous, but one aspect that warrants consideration is how changes in farm practices are communicated to farmers. Effectively communicating changes in pest management practices at the farm level requires a system of research and extension management that differs from that to which most biological scientists are accustomed. What is the motivation for farmers to deviate from historical practices? How persuasive are concepts of environmental sustainability, integrated pest management, risk management, and economic gain in communicating the needs for change? In addressing these questions, it is useful to understand some of the basic determinants of farmers' decision processes and motivations to adopt practices. This article discusses these issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.