University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
71-22,513 NAPIER, Teddy Lee, 1942- THE IMPACT OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT UPON LOCAL RURAL COMMUNITIES: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO RAPID CHANGE. The Ohio State Univer’si'ty, Ph.D., 1971 Sociology, general University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany , Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE IMPACT OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT UPON LOCAL RURAL COMMUNITIES: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO RAPID CHANGE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ted';L. Napier, B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by Adviser Department of Sociology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the agencies and individuals who were essential in making this research possible. To his adviser, Dr. Kent P. Schwirian, Professor of Sociology, for his advice, constructive criticisms, and interest in the develop ment of this research. To Dr. R. F. Sletto, Dr. Robert Roth, and Dr. Wen Li for their participation in the research and their helpful suggestions. To Dr. G. Howard Phillips for his untiring efforts through advice and counsel. To the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center for financial support. To the United States Corps of Engineers and the Ohio Depart ment of Natural Resources for their cooperation in providing infor mation essential to this research. To Dr. David Boyne, Chairman of the Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Department, whose active support facilitated the conduct of the research. To the many other professionals within the Department of Agri cultural Economics and Rural Sociology, and the Department of Sociology who provided helpful counsel. ii VITA September 30, 1942 . Born— Wayne, West Virginia 1966 B.A., Marshall University, Huntington West Virginia 1967 M.A., Marshall University, Huntington West Virginia 1967-1968 . Associate Director for Research Project, U. S. Labor Department, Charleston, West Virginia 1968-19 70 Teaching Associate, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Summer of 1970 Research Associate, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State Univei'sity, Columbus, Ohio September 1, 1970 . Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University', Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS Margaret L. Lotspeich and Ted I.. Napier, A Feasibility Study and Program Development of a System of Mobile Community Service Centers in Appalachia, A Final Report to the Office of Manpower Policy, Evalu ation and Research, U. S. Department of Labor, January, 1968, pp. 150. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Sociology Studies in Urban Ecology. Professor Kent P. Schwirian Studies in Rural Sociology. Professor G. Howard Phillips Studies in Research Methodology. Professor R. F. Sletto iii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................. ii VITA .......................................................... iii TABLES ......................................................... vi INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 CHAPTER I THEORY ............................................... 3 Local Maladjustment to Change ..... ........ 3 Migration and Confrontation Theory .............. 6 Voluntary Migration .................. ........ 7 Summary of Migration Research........... 8 Confrontation Theory ............................ 9 Theory of Forced Relocation and Adjustment .... 11 Community Identification and Satisfaction ..... 15 F a m i l i s m ........................................ 19 Social Stratification ............................ 21 Social Mobility .................................. 24 Value Orientation .................... ...... 27 Summary ...................... 30 II METHODOLOGY............................................. 33 F a m i l i s m ........................................... 33 Community Satisfaction .......................... 34 Community Identification ........................ 34 Value Orientation................ 35 Physical Mobility ............................ • • 35 Social Mobility .................................. 36 Social Maladjustment 36 Instrument Construction ....... 37 Familism Scale Construction ........ ....... 40 Community Satisfaction Scale Construction ..... 42 Community Identification Scale Construction .... 44 Value Orientation Scale Construction ....... 46 Physical Mobility Scale Construction ....... 48 Social Mobility Scale Construction ........ 50 Social Maladjustment Scale Construction ...... 52 Finished Schedule ................................ 54 Index of Status Characteristics.............. 55 iv CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER Page II METHODOLOGY (continued) Discussion of the Validity of the Measuring Instruments .................. 57 Open-Ended Questions . .......................... 62 Techniques for Analysis .......................... 62 Analysis of V a r i a n c e .......................... 63 Analysis of Open-Ended Questions ................ 65 U n i v e r s e ........................................... 65 Sampling Technique .............................. 67 Interviewer Selection and Training .............. 70 III FINDINGS ................................................71 Correlation and Regression Analysis ........ 71 Findings of the Analysis of V a r i a n c e ...............76 Findings of Analysis of Variance: Community Identification.............................. 81 Findings of Analysis of Variance: Community Satisfaction.............................. 83 Findings of Analysis of Variance: Familism .... 87 Analysis of Variance of Socio-Economic Status . 87 Findings of the Analysis of Variance: Physical Mobility ..... ................ ..... 91 Findings of the Analysis of Variance: Social M o b i l i t y ....................................... 92 Findings of the Analysis of Variance: Value Orientation ...................................95 Analysis of Open-Ended Questions ......... 97 IV SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................... 106 Summary of the Hypotheses Testing.............. 107 Discussion of Findings ........................ Ill Evaluation of Findings ..... ... 116 Summary .... ............. 126 APPENDIX I .................................................... 128 APPENDIX I I .................................................... 143 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................. 157 v TABLES Table Page 1 Weighting values for constructed scales ............... 37 2 Weighting values for income............ 55 3 Weighting values for education ....................... 56 4 Weighting values for occupation ................. 56 5 Class groupings on socio-economic status ........... 57 6 General characteristics of population ................. 66 7 Socio-economic indicators for selected counties .... 67 8,9 Affected groups compared on the basis of maladjustment 77 10,11 Relocated, Non-relocatcd and base groups compared on the basis of maladjustment ..... ............ 79 12,13 Affected groups compared on the basis of maladjustment controlled for t i m e ............................ 81 14,15 Analysis of variance for total sample: community identification and maladjustment ................ 82 16,17 Analysis of variance for individual affected groups: community identification and maladjustment .... 84 18,19 Analysis of variance for total sample: community satisfaction and maladjustment .... 85 20,21 Analysis of variance for individual affected groups: community satisfaction and maladjustment ........ 86 22,23 Analysis of variance for total sample: familism and maladjustment .................. 88 24,25 Analysis of variance for individual affected groups: familism and maladjustment........................ 89 26,27 Analysis of variance for total sample: socio economic status and maladjustment 90 vi TABLES (continued) Table Page 28,29 Analysis of variance for total sample: physical mobility and maladjustment .......... ...... 91-92 30,31 Analysis of variance for individual communities: physical mobility and maladjustment ........ 93 32,33 Analysis of variance for total sample: social mobility and maladjustment ....................... 94 34,3r> Analysis of variance for individual communities: social mobility and maladjustment . 96 36,37 Analysis of variance for total sample: value orientation and maladjustment ........... 97 38,39 Analysis of variance for individual communities: value orientation and maladjustment ..................... 98 40-43 Relocation versus treatment .................... 99 44 Relocation versus attitude toward moving ....... 102 45 Elapsed time and attitude toward moving ............... 103 46 Initial shock versus movement: West Virginia ..... 104 47 Initial shock versus movement: Ohio ......... 104 48 Post shock versus movement: West Virginia ...... 104 49 Post shock versus movement: O h i o .................. 105 50 Beech Fork relocated and abandoned facilities ..... 133 51 East Lynn relocated and abandoned facilities ..... 133 52 Alum Creek relocated and abandoned facilities ..... 136 53 Summary statistics for selected projects: conditions of improvement: 1969 ............................. 141 54 Progi'ess to date on selected water resource projects, 1969 142 vii INTRODUCTION The major purposes of the present research are to determine whether or not individuals within communities directly affected by water resource development perceive their community as being no longer satisfactory in meeting their needs