The New Economy and the Forest: Rural Development in the Post‐Industrial Spaces of the Rural Alleghenies^*

Abstract

Objective. Government policy has long linked resource production with economic development in surrounding rural communities. The purpose of this article is to examine how the USDA Forest Service's (USFS) resource‐based, rural development policies have shifted due to economic restructuring and environmental challenges to the “management” of nature. Methods. Historical data was gathered on USFS timber harvests and policies toward forest‐dependent communities. Data was also gathered through interviews and participant‐observation on a USFS‐supported, locally planned ecotourism project. Results. USFS rural development policies have shifted from predominantly providing federally determined, sustained timber harvests in the industrial era to increasingly emphasizing local, amenity‐based entrepreneurship and economic diversification in the post‐industrial era. Conclusions. USFS rural development policies and resource production have been de‐coupled. However, amenity‐based development may depend both on amenity migrants and sustained commitment from external sources to support local initiative, given limited entrepreneurship in rural areas long dependent on high‐wage extraction and manufacturing.

Can Health Care Services Attract Retirees And Contribute to the Economic Sustainability of Rural Places?

“…A literature is emerging on amenity-based rural sustainability (e.g., Che 2003, Bukenya, Gebremedhin, and Shaeffer 2003, Nzaku and Bukenya 2005. Complementary to this literature are investigations into how rural amenities can attract migrants to the area.…”

Understanding local innovation systems in peripheral tourism destinations

“…Instead, the system appeared hamstrung by a strong local culture of dependence on public sector leadership (through organisations like BRTBA, the BVIC, the GTWP or the former regional marketing office), and a lack of local ambition to take collective action without the guidance of official government or industry bodies. Dependence on public sector leadership for the management of knowledge exchange is not uncommon in peripheral regions (Doloreux & Dionne, 2008) and has previously been explained by embedded attitudes and practices inherited from traditional rural industries, which used to receive high levels of government protection and centralised industry leadership (Carson & Carson, 2011;Che, 2003). Again, what is interesting is that many newcomers seem to have absorbed a similar dependence mentality within a very short time and have not been able to unlock the system by introducing new connections and knowledge.…”

“…Communities additionally may not have the internal capabilities to make connections beyond the local. For example, communities can be constrained in their ambitions to form collaborative initiatives due to an entrenched dependence on external decision-makers to manage the region (Carson & Carson, 2011;Che, 2003). They may also have become locked into established relations, practices and routines due to a prolonged dependence on particular industry structures, and therefore, rely on newcomers to the system to establish new vital connections for knowledge transfer and learning (Carson & Carson, 2011;Kneafsey, 2000;Saxena & Ilbery, 2008).…”

Bringing home the bacon: Industry, employment, and income in boreal Canada

“…In Australia, scholars note the emergence of a post-productivist countryside, where sustainable agriculture, economic diversification and policies in support of social and cultural diversity have become a more prominent aspect of rural development (Argent 2002). Similarly, Che (2003) documents the decoupling of rural development and forest production policies in Pennsylvania, which signal a need to focus on amenity migration, nature-based tourism, and local entrepreneurship as important factors in the post-industrial context of forest communities. Given the global demand for raw materials, Canada's forest products industry is likely to remain strong.…”