The Effect of Turnaround Migration on the Rural Landscape

The Effect of Turnaround Migration on the Rural Landscape:

A study o~ Grayson county, Virginia

James F. Shepherd

thesis submitted to the Faculty of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master

Department of Landscape Architecture

APPROVED:

Benjamin C. Johnson, Jeanne B. Howard Chairman

Linda A. Irvine Jean H. Speer

March, 1986

Blacksburg, Virginia The Effect of Turnaround Migration on the Rural Landscape:

A study of Grayson County, Virginia

James F. Shepherd

Benjamin C. Johnson, Chairman

Department of Landscape Architecture

(ABSTRACT)

Research has shown that more people are migrating to rural areas from

urban ones. Rural areas are now composed of a variety of residents from different social and economic backgrounds. Because of this variety of

residents, potential for social conflicts exists. One area of possible conflict is the difference in attitudes regarding land use and objectives

for the rural landscape. Some planners and sociologists believe a better understanding of the impact of urban migration on the rural landscape is needed. The future character of the rural landscape is uncertain.

This research will concentrate on the potential conflicts in attitudes

toward the rural landscape among the different groups of residents who now live there. From the possible research questions raised in this area of study, the following hypothesis is suggested: Rural natives and non- natives have a shared interest in preserving the character of the rural

landscape.in which they reside. Testing this hypothesis should provide the land use planner and the landscape architect with a framework with which to evaluate plans and decisions for rural areas. The study area

for this research will be Grayson County, Virginia. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people supported and encouraged me while working on this thesis.

First, I would like to thank the numerous people I interviewed in Grayson

County who welcomed me into their homes and offices and were willing to share some of their time.

Second, I would like to thank my thesis committee. I thank Jeanne

Howard for her encouragement and interest in rural-urban issues. I thank

Linda Irvine for her support and enthusiasm. I thank Jean Speer for sharing her keen insight into the people of Appalachia and for introducing me to different ways of research. I am also grateful to her of all the help she gave before and during my presentation at the Blue Ridge Parkway

50th Anniversary Conference. I thank my committee chairman, Ben Johnson, for his initial encouragement, his constant belief in the project and for his friendship during my tenure at Virginia Tech.

Third, I thank my classmates: Brian, Cary, Ron, Warren, Bunny, Liza and Leslie for their companionship throughout our graduate study strug- gles, triumphs and pleasures (particularly the lunches). I would also like to thank Lynn for her help with SPSS and Maxine and Nora for an- swering all my questions about word processing.

Last, I would like to thank my family for their constant love and support. I especially thank my mother, a Grayson County native, for all her love and giving me an appreciation for the rural landscape.

Acknowledgements iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Intr-oduction 1

Study Area: Grayson County, Virginia 3

Grayson County Location Map 4

Resear-ch Dir-ection 7

Research Question 9

Liter-atur-e Review 12

Historical Background 12

Current Migration Trends 16

Current Studies 18

Method 23

Gathering Background Knowledge and Selection of Sample 24

Development of Interview Format 27

Collection of Data 28

Tabulation and Analysis of Data 29

Conclusions and Recommendations 30

Method Flow Chart 32

Results and Discussion 33

Grayson County Magisterial Districts 34

Proposed Blue Ridge Dam Project 40

Table of Contents iv Conclusions and Reconanendations 60

Recommendations 65

Bibliography 68

Appendix A. Primary Documents 71

Appendix B. Frequencies 77

Appendix c. Biographical Data Sheet 93

Appendix D. Native Interview Format 95

Appendix E. Non-native Interview Format 98

Appendix F. Code Book 101

Appendix G. Field Note Form 113

Appendix H. Tape Log Form 115

Appendix I. Release Form 117

Vita 118

Table of Contents v INTRODUCTION

Census data indicate that the rural population continues to increase.

The first significant evidence of the shift from urban to rural areas in population patterns occurred in 1970. A new phenomenon has been taking place: non-metropolitan areas are growing at a faster rate than metropolitan ones (Marans and Wellman, 1978). Growth in rural areas now ex- ceeds that of metropolitan counties. This shift in population growth from rural-to-urban to urban-to-rural is termed turnaround migration (Marans and Wellman, 1978). Most rural population growth is occurring in and around small rural cities and towns (Zube, 1977).

Although each rural area may possess unique characteristics, there are several common factors which contribute to turnaround migration

(Marans and Wellman 1978, Zube 1977, Stephenson 1984, Healy and Short

1981, Schwarzweller 1979, Schiefelbien 1977, Shelly 1978, Dubbink 1984).

• Industries locate in rural areas providing employment.

• Transportation and highway systems are improved.

• A great number of national parks and recreational areas are created.

• Dissatisfaction with the urban environment attracts many retirees,

recreationists and persons seeking a different lifestyle.

Introduction 1 • Development of residential areas in a variety of price ranges makes

the rural areas more accessible to a larger economic market.

Because the diverse groups of rural residents have different attitudes

regarding their residential environment, potential for social conflicts

exists for the rural landscape (Healy and Short, 1981). Understanding

social conflict in areas experiencing turnaround migration is vital to

rural areas which want to retain their non-urban quality of life (Wellman

1980). Turnaround migration may upset the rural sense of community

(Wellman 1980). If we want to retain a rural quality of life, we need a better understanding of conflicts which might occur in the rural community. The community plays an important role in people's social well-being

(Wellman 1980). Currently, the rural landscape is clouded by a shared desire to live in a rural community that "conceals quite divergent concepts and objectives" (Dubbink, 1984).

Rural population growth is bringing about changes in land use as well as the appearance of the rural landscape (Zube, 1977). Land use seldom has a single purpose. It is closely linked to food production, energy use, environmental quality and rural and urban development. These mul- tiple areas must be considered when studying land use (Chicoine, Scott and Jones, 1980).

Growth and development is an obvious source of conflict when considering land use in the rural landscape. In too many cases growth is encouraged without consideration of how to control it. Robert B. Riley

( 1977) asks an important question: "How do we introduce new settlers with all their paraphernalia of affluence into the landscape without destroy-

Introduction 2 ing those very amenities which they came to enjoy?" Presently, "rural

sprawl" is being created, a sprawl of houses along both sides of every

good road out of town (Riley, 1977). If rural areas are to prosper, they must be different from cities and suburbs (Riley, 1977).

The complexity of the problem appears overwhelming. Riley thinks such

an enormous job of planning for the rural landscape should not start with money, new tax structures or political channels, but with considering the needs of people who live in the countryside now (Riley, 1977). "After

two decades of grappling with the complexities of urban civilization, we are learning, painfully, that the 'big' problems of money and land ownership and political authority often turn out to be less important than the attitudes of people" (Riley, 1977).

Study Area: Grayson County, Virginia

Riley (1977) believes it is best to study an area where new principles

for the rural landscape will have the potential to create the most change.

These are regions with few people, where present poverty exists in a

landscape of underdeveloped richness (Riley, 1977). Grayson County,

Virginia is a rural area appropriate for such a study.

Introduction 3 Grayson County Location Map

··-0 ®--·-··-- .® s·-··--·-

Introduction 4 An operational definition of the term rural area is needed to clarify what is meant by rural for Grayson County. As populations change, the term rural is becoming more and more ambiguous. Rural sociologists have been grappling with a general definition for rural for a long time. One approach to the definition has been any area which is not urban. Some demographers define rural in terms of population size and density. How- ever, this does not consider culture or lifestyle and yet another consideration is geographical area or region.

Culture and lifestyle are terms in which to define rural in Grayson

County. Due to isolation and low density of population the area has known few 20th century intrusions. Culture and lifestyle center on agriculture of small self-sufficient farms which have been slow to accept change.

Schoenbaum (1979) describes the upper New River Valley, consisting of Grayson County, Virginia and Ashe and Alleghany Counties in North

Carolina as:

A unique, unified mountain region, very different from the steep- sided gorges of the lower valley or the broader middle valley of Virginia. The winding courses of the New River and its tributaries enclose rich bottoms of seventy-five to two hundred acres against the curve of the hills, creating an almost perfect setting for small farms units. The geographic characteristic was the determining factor in the cultural and economic evolution of the area.

A history of isolation has resulted in the "rural" culture and lifestyle of Grayson County remaining relatively unaffected until the 1970's

(Schoebaum 1979). The area also differs from other parts of Appalachia in the absence of coal and coal mining.

Grayson County, Virginia, is a rural area which is beginning to experience population growth as a result of the common factors which contribute to turnaround migration. Some employment stability has been

Introduction 5 provided to the County by an exercise equipment manufacturer (Nautilus) locating in the town of Independence. Grayson County is the home of the

Mount Rogers National Recreational Area, Grayson Highlands State Park and also the headwaters for the scenic New River. Low density of population, a clean environment, and an abundance of natural beauty have attracted many retirees and persons seeking a different lifestyle to the County.

The 1980 Census data indicated that Grayson County had a population of

16,579 (U.S. Census, 1980), while the town of Independence, the seat of county government, had a population of 1,112. A 7.4 percent increase in population occurred within the ten year period between the 1970 and 1980 census. From the 1940's Grayson County has seen a steady out-migration pattern and a loss in population (Comprehensive Plan, Grayson County,

Virginia, 1980). The recent increase in population indicates the county is experiencing the early stages of turnaround migration (Wellman, 1985).

Introduction 6 RESEARCH DIRECTION

Healy and Short (1981) see the need for more research in the rural

landscape. They realize that unless the forces and trends in the

settlement of rural areas are identified a great deal will be lost. If

these trends are left unmanaged they could affect supplies of food and

timber as well as drastically change the look of the rural landscape.

Vast quantities of potentially productive rural land are devoted to urban,

residential, or recreational use and parcel sizes are becoming smaller.

Land and timber are being neglected or abused by their owners. If this

continues, "it may take literally decades to cope with the results'' (Healy

and Short 1981).

Healy and Short (1981) call for the creation of new models of rural

physical development and new institutions for owning and managing rural

land. A new body of knowledge must be put together regarding rural

planning and design. This new body of. knowledge should borrow from urban

planning, but also include insights into landscape architecture, agri-

cultural economics, geography, forestry, regional science, rural sociol-

ogy, history, cultural anthropology and folklore. The diversity of the

rural landscape and the diversity of people must be considered. Partic-

ipation of government and the participation of the rural landowner must

be included in the solutions (Healy and Short 1981).

Landscape architects and planners must understand the desires and

aspirations of the rural landowner so that they can guide the landowners'

energies into a more constructive direction (Healy and Short 1981).

Research Direction 7 Achieving this constructive direction is a goal of the landscape architect

in the rural landscape. This direction is to conserve the rural land-

scape's traditional, productive, environmental and aesthetic functions

(Healy and Short 1981).

This study will concentrate on attitudes toward the rural landscape which the current residents of Grayson County possess. Attitude toward

the rural landscape is one area of possible conflict in a region beginning

to experience turnaround migration. A better understanding of the rural

landscape and rural land use issues can be achieved by studying attitudes of the local residents. This study will concentrate on the more influential residents of Grayson County. These are the people who will make

the ultimate decisions regarding land use. However, a clearer understanding of attitudes on these issues is needed from all types of residents. Therefore, attitudes of typical rural residents will also be

considered. Several questions which will help to achieve this understanding will be addressed. These questions relate to the purpose of this study:

1. Who are the people now residing in Grayson County? Where do they come

from, why are they there and how long have they lived in Grayson

County? Are they permanent or summer residents?

2. What kinds of attitudes do people from different backgrounds and with

varying durations of residence have regarding their living environ-

ment, i.e. their homes and property, neighborhoods and over all

quality of life in Grayson County?

Research Direction 8 3. How do the different groups of residents feel about local governmental

services especially those efforts to guide and control growth and

development?

4. How much growth and new development do the different types of resi-

dents want to see in Grayson County? What would they oppose or favor?

What would people be willing to sacrifice in order to attract their

favored types of development?

5. What are each resident's personal plans and expectations for the fu-

ture? Do they expect to remain in the same house and keep their

property within their family or are they willing to sell all or part

of their land holdings?

Research Question

This study will attempt to discern .potential differences in attitudes toward among various groups of people now residing in Grayson County toward the rural landscape, in general, and in specific, toward qualities in the landscape which they value highly. A better understanding of the resident's perception of these landscape qualities are the objectives for this study and can be summed up by the following:

• The native person's attitudes toward perceived landscape qualities.

Research Direction 9 • The migrant's attitude toward the perceived landscape quality prior

to moving to the area.

• The migrant's attitude toward the perceived landscape quality after

moving to the rural landscape.

• The migrant's attitude toward the perceived landscape as duration of

residency increases.

The terms perception and attitude are often use in connection with

each other, but a distinction between these terms is needed to help

clarify the direction of this research. Perception means an awareness

of the landscape or environment. Often with an awareness of the land-

scape, one will also possess an appreciation. It was assumed for this

research that a perception or awareness toward the landscape will differ

among residents ranging from almost no awareness to a very high awareness.

In this study, attitude will mean the .mental position which a person has

toward the landscape or land use. It is assumed that every person has

an attitude or mental position toward the landscape.

Ultimately, this research will help to reach a better understanding

of what Grayson County residents perceive as threats to the rural land-

scape and how they intend to protect what they value highly. In other words, what is the tolerance level of the Grayson County resident regarding change in the rural landscape and how much change are they willing to allow. The hypothesis for the study is: Rural natives and non-natives have a shared interest in preserving the chararcter of the rural landscape

Research Direction 10 in which they reside. For this study the phrase "rural landscapen refers

to the rural community in Grayson County in which people reside. As

mentioned earlier, Grayson County has a unique rural landscape which

concentrates on a cultural lifestyle of small self-sufficient farming. This rural community consists of a hierarchy. of spaces: (a) private spaces which include a resident's home and immediate surroundings; (b) semi-

private spaces which are privately owned land or farms which are viewed

by many, but controlled by the owner; (c) semi-public spaces which include

the roadways and the views from them; (d) public spaces which include

state and national parks and forests. In Grayson County it is possible to view one, a combination, or all of these spaces at one time. Testing this hypothesis should provide land use planners, landscape architects

and concerned citizens with a framework with which to evaluate environmental plans and future growth decisions while maintaining the landscape quality of the area.

Research Direction 11 LITERATURE REVIEW

Historical Background

Attitudes of rural Americans toward land use have always been diffi-

cult to determine (Stephenson 1984). Often land use attitudes associated

with a particular group of rural residents are not really their own, but

in fact are attitudes which have been "imported, cultivated, or at least

enhanced by visitors from outside who were convinced such traits should

be found" (Stephenson 1984). 1be first settlers of America found the

native American Indians unlike the environmental conservationist stere-

otype we know (Cowdrey 1983). European colonists found Indians who

"pressed against the land's resources and reshaped its forms in line with

their own desires" (Cowdrey 1983). Colonists of the first generation

instigated ideas of land conservation and practiced it. John Smith was

appalled by the Indian's habit of indiscriminately killing wildlife and

argued for the destruction of the Indians to save the country's resources

(Cowdrey 1983). However, later generations of colonists began to assume

land use attitudes different from the first.

Coming from Europe, many of these settlers were overwhelmed by the vast abundance of land and wildlife. As the land became more and more

exploited and populated, the settlers pushed westward. Appalachia was a varied and inviting region and invasion by settlers came quickly after movement began in the Virginia Piedmont area. Movement into Tennessee

Literature Review 12 and Kentucky continued in the 1770's despite the Revolutionary War and

Indian resistance (Cowdrey 1983).

Stephenson (1984) notes that in the early period of Appalachian

settlement the practice of what we call land development played an im-

portant role. Wealthy members of the elites such as William Beverly in

Virginia and Richard Henderson in North Carolina obtained large tracts

of land from the Crown or through private purchases and resold them as

smaller parcels. William Beverly obtained about 113,000 acres of land

in the Shenandoah Valley from the Governor of Virginia and sold smaller

parcels to people migrating to Virginia from Pennsylvania (Stephenson

1984). Richard Henderson bought large amounts of land from the Indians

in Kentucky, and asked Daniel Boone to prepare the way for land settlement

west of the mountains (Cowdrey 1983).

For the most part, the settlers who colonized the Appalachian moun-

tains in Virginia and North Carolina were Scotch, English and Welsh. In

1842 the East Tennessee Land Company advertised that the industrial-

ization of Britain threatened the small entrepreneur and the solution was

to migrate to the beautiful valleys of East Tennessee (Gaventa 1980).

The isolation and ruggedness of the Appalachian mountains attracted the settler whose "absorbing passion was not for religious discussion", but

as one early Visitor to the Cumberland Gap wrote, "for the possession of

land for the organization and diversions of rural life" (Gaventa 1980).

Sometimes, however, the rugged mountains of Southwestern Virginia and

Western North Carolina were the only land areas available to these settlers (Speer 1985). Due to the terrain and lack of roads the Upper

New River Valley consisting of Grayson County, Virginia and Ashe and

Literature Review 13 Alleganey Counties, North Carolina did not attract as many settlers as other parts of Appalachia. Because of the area's isolation, it was re-

ferred to as the "Lost Provinces" (Schoenbaum 1979).

Western North Carolina was a place where in-migration flourished in the 1800's (Stephenson 1984). Exploitation of the land itself became the exploitation of the imagery and landscape of the mountains (Stephenson

1984). In the mid-1800's western North Carolina became a desirable hol-

iday area for the wealthy. The attraction to the area was twofold: the climate was healthy, because the threat of malaria plagued other parts of the country and the mountains provided scenic beauty (Stephenson 1984).

Western North Carolina continued to be a popular summer resort area for the wealthy through the 1800's and is so today (Stephenson 1984).

Historically, the mountainous regions of Southwest Virginia and

Grayson County have not been as popular for in-migration of summer re- sorters and the wealthy as Western North Carolina. However, the area has known some famous immigrants. Among the immigrants to Grayson County was the author, Sherwood Anderson. Anderson heard of the cool summer climate and beautiful mountains of Southwest Virginia from an associate. He established a residence in the Troutdale area of Grayson County in the

1930's on Ripshin Creek. Now on the National Historic Registry, the home is named for the creek. Anderson bought the two local newspapers in the nearby town of Marion, Virginia and combined them into one newspaper. A local Marion resident, Eleanor Copenhaver Anderson, became Anderson's last wife. She still resides in her hometown of Marion which is the burial place for her husband. Sherwood Anderson was probably one of

Literature Review 14 Grayson County's best known immigrants, but the County has experienced

additional in-migration before the most recent increases.

Railroads played an important role in the settlement and population

growth in Grayson County during the early 1900's. The mountains became

a source of employment because of the logging industry and many people

remained and settled in the area. Logging companies were dependent on

railroads to transport their product. As a result the mountains saw an

increase of in-migration and several mountain communities were created

(Fields, 1976). The increase in population and prosperity of the area

helped to draw attention to Grayson County. During this time there were persons concerned with the exploitation of the region by the logging in-

dustry (Whisnant 1983). Sudden increases in population and "prosperity" of the region were resulting in cultural changes and the loss of some established traditions. Particularly endangered was the native music of

the area. "Hillbilly" music was becoming popular throughout the United

States in the early 1930's. Many people felt this music did not represent the true music and culture of the area. Therefore, four nationally known

festivals of traditional music were started to help preserve this aspect of the region's culture. The White Top Folk Festival in Grayson County was the most interesting and the best known (Whisnant 1983). Grayson

County drew its largest crowds (20,000+) and the most national attention when the White Top Folk Festival was attended by the First Lady, Eleanor

Roosevelt in 1933 (Whisnant 1983).

Unfortunately, after the hillsides were "unmercifully stripped" of oak, popular, maple, walnut, hickory and pine, the Norfolk and Western

Railroad refused to provide passenger service to these mountain communi-

Literature Review 15 ties and tore up the tracks (Schoenbaum 1979). Also, the White Top Folk

Festival was discontinued after being canceled in 1940 because of heavy

rains. Once again, Grayson County became an isolated area. Communities

such as Troutdale, Green Cove, and Whitetop had larger populations in the

1920's and 1930's than they did in 1970 (Grayson County Comprehensive

report, 1980). Today, the resilience of the mountains has healed much

of land denuded by the extensive logging (Schoenbaum 1979).

During the 1940's and 1950's rural electrification reached Grayson

County providing some benefit to small farms. Other than home

electrification, it provided the opportunity for small factories to lo-

cate in the area which supplemented the farm economy. However, factories

were few and did not seriously affect the traditional way of life which

has remained for the most part unchanged until the 1970's (Schoenbaum

1979).

Current Migration Trends

Calvin Beale (1975) is recognized as being one of the first to realize

turnaround migration as a shift in demographic patterns. Perhaps, the

first numerical indication that the rural landscape was undergoing a

change came in the 1960's with the U.S. government's tabulations that manufacturing employment had grown more in rural areas than in metropol-

itan areas (Healy and Short 1981). The 1970's U.S. Census data continued

to support the migration trend. This census indicated that nonmetropolitan counties were growing faster than metropolitan counties.

Literature Review 16 Turnaround migration is an accepted phenomenon in the United States today

(Wellman 1980).

Sociologists also agree that there is a definite urban to rural migration. This is no longer urban-to-rural suburban spill-over, but people

are escaping cities and moving to rural areas (Stephenson 1984,

Schiefelbein 1977). Large numbers of people in cities are unhappy with urban life, or "at least the perceptions of it: the dirt, the crime, the

racial tension, the noise, the hurried pace, the sense of crowding"

(Stephenson 1984). Most current studies concerned with turnaround migration call attention to social implications of the phenomenon (Wellman

1980, Schwarzweller 1979, Ploch 1978).

Both a physical and social change in the rural landscape is occurring.

Urban residents have been moving to rural areas for many years, but until

recently, the physical composition of the rural landscape went unnoticed

(Stephenson 1984, Healy and Short 1981). Now the physical change of the

rural landscape is more apparent. Rural landowners are selling off their

land holdings to urban transplants and large corporations (Stephenson

1984). Rural family farms are being divided into smaller residential tracts, large recreational developments or extractive industries. The rural native now has a group of new "invaders" in close proximity (Healy and Short 1981). In some instances he or she has sold his or her home in the hollows and valleys and purchased another home (sometimes a mobile home) along the highway corridor (Stephenson 1984). J. B. Jackson (1970) calls these highways the "social landscape" and directs attention to the changing development along them.

Literature Review 17 Stephenson (1984) believes that rural areas, especially the Blue Ridge

Mountains and other parts of Appalachia, have always been accessible to urbanites. It has only been the image of the region which has made it seem remote (Stephenson 1984). Appalachia has a highly marketable "sense of place" and it has been converted into a commodity whose signs or meanings are more important than the place itself (Stephenson 1984). To demonstrate this point, the 1980's U.S. Census shows that much of the population increase in the Western counties of North Carolina was a result of in-migration and not just natural increases. Planners predict the same type of increases in population for Grayson County which is occurring to its southern neighbors of Avery and Watauga Counties in Western North

Carolina (Grayson County Comprehensive Plan 1980).

current Studies

Most of the literature concerning urban to rural migration describes the characteristics of newcomers. Generally, urban to rural migrants are younger and of higher socioeconomic status than the rural populations they are joining (Delong and Humphrey 1976, Schiefelbein 1977). Because of the differences between natives and non-natives numerous social conflicts may be anticipated. Among the social conf !icts which have been suggested are: competition for jobs, change in rural social stratification, disa- greement between the groups over priorities for community services, conflicts in cultural interest, taste, and lifestyle, raising taxes to pay for public services verses rural land values, disruption of the sense of

Literature Review 18 community, conflicts over environmental issues, and conflicts over growth and economic development.

Several studies have looked at specific points of possible social conflicts within changing rural communities and have found various conclusions. Ploch (1978) studied the possibility of conflicts concerning the competition for jobs in rural Maine. Newcomers, having more formal education and higher occupational status than natives, were not job com- petitive. In fact, newcomers tended to stimulate the local economy by reviving existing small businesses and creating new ones which attracted tourism. Also, no support for the "job scarcity" hypothesis was found by Price and Clay (1980) in their study of turnaround migration in rural

Michigan.

It has been suggested that urban migrants would be dissatisfied with the level of public services in rural communities. Results from various studies have been mixed on this issue. Delong (1980) reported that urban migrants were dissatisfied with the public services in his study of rural

Pennsylvania communities. Voss and Fuguitt (1979) found that migrants to Michigan's upper Great Lakes region were satisfied with most public services, except public transportation. Population growth due to migration was found to structurally disrupt public services, such as, public education, health care, social welfare, and police and fire protection, in a study by Price and Clay (1980). However, they found turnaround migration had little impact on recreational and cultural facilities.

Local institutions such as public schools and churches are thought to be areas of potential conflicts between newcomers and native residents.

Literature Review 19 Ploch (1978) and Hennigh (1978) have described the potential conflicts

in these institutions, but have not empirically tested their views.

Growth and development preferences among urban migrants and rural

natives have been the issue in several studies. Many rural sociologists

and planners reason that the urban emigrant is escaping the negative as-

pects of cities or living out a passion for small town or rural life.

These emigrants will seek to preserve the rural character of their new

residence. This reasoning has been referred to as the "gangplank" or

"last settler'! syndrome. Voss and Fuguitt ( 1979) found that the majority

of both newcomers and residents favored growth. In a later study, Voss

(1980) made a more thorough examination of the "gangplank" hypothesis.

He found urban migrants no less interested in growth and development than

established residents of the upper Great Lakes region. Ploch (1978) an-

ticipated conflict over growth, but found little evidence to support this

view. Rather, he found that natives and newcomers in rural towns in Maine

had a shared interest in preserving the ruralness of their towns. The

towns of San Juan Capistrano and Bolinas, California were studied by

Dubbink (1984). He found that Bolinas attracted the counterculturists

of the 1960's hippie's movement. San Juan Capistrano attracted retired

persons. In both towns a direct relationship between the duration of

residence and attitudes toward growth was discovered. Those persons who

had recently moved to these two towns were the most opposed to growth.

Dubbink (1984) also found that both natives and newcomers of both towns wanted to preserve the ruralness of the towns, but that they had different

concepts as to what was "rural". Natives perceptions of rural were in

terms of lifestyle, while newcomers perceived rural in terms of landscape.

Literature Review 20 Many potential social conflicts which could occur as a result of

turnaround migration were included in a study conducted by Marans and

Wellman (1978) in the upper Great Lakes region of Michigan. They found that social conflicts because of turnaround migration in their study region appeared unlikely. Newcomers and established residents had minimal differences in terms of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, satisfaction with local services and attitude toward growth and development. Outdoor recreation participation was the only area showing con- sistent differences, and it is doubtful that these differences alone will prove to be sources of serious conflict.

In most cases, in-migration to rural areas has brought about some type of change (usually positive) into the community (Dubbink 1984). In a study which is now considered a classic in rural sociology, Vidick and

Benman (1958) determined that change in rural communities is often a result of newcomers. In all studies reviewed it was suggested that turnaround migration will produce different degrees of change in each rural community (Dubbink 1984). Therefore, .a study which was conducted in a similar location as the study area for this research would be beneficial to examine. Stephenson (1984) conducted a study concerning in-migration to Western Counties in North Carolina. This area is geographically closest to Grayson County, Virginia of all the studies reviewed.

Stephenson ( 1984) compares the urban migrant in his study of "Shiloh",

North Carolina. He first looked at "Shiloh" in 1965 and then again in

1980. He found some distinctive differences in the "Shiloh" community within the 15 years. What he found in 1980 was a town settled mostly with persons whose origins were outside of North Carolina. Tax records told

Literature Review 21 an important story. "Seventy-eight percent of the town's increase in population was made up of non-natives" (Stephenson 1984). Stephenson interviewed many newcomers as well as natives and found that attitudes toward land use and social issues varied. However, he found that the main attitude of the community was one of "mutual tolerance, a keeping of distance, a muted disdain." Some of the comments from the newcomers about the natives were: "They don't know the world outside this little place."

"The low level of education is appalling." "They like the money from

Florida people, but they resent them." One native woman summarized the attitudes natives had toward newcomers by simply calling them "land takers" (Stephenson 1984).

Research in Grayson County will differ from previous studies concerning turnaround migration in three distinctive ways:

1. No research of this type has ever been conducted in Grayson County.

2. Little research has been done in areas which are just beginning to

experience turnaround migration.

3. The primary emphasis of this research will be the residents' percep-

tion of the rural landscape and land use attitudes of natives and

newcomers.

Because this research is distinctively different, it will add to understanding the future of the rural landscape.

Literature Review 22 METHOD

Prior to this investigation, no research concerning turnaround migration and rural land use attitudes had been conducted in Grayson County,

Virginia. Therefore, this investigation was considered exploratory in nature. A description of rural land use attitudes of the Grayson County resident was the objective of the project. Because of the ruralness of the study area, the issue of land use attitudes, and the exploratory nature of the investigation, a field research method was considered appropriate.

This field research method involved several tasks:

• Gathering background knowledge of Grayson County and selection of

sample.

• Development of interview format.

• Collection of data.

• Tabulation and analysis of data.

• Conclusions and Recommendations.

Method 23 Gathe~ing Backg~ound Knowledge and Selection of Sample

Background knowledge of Grayson County was being acquired several

years prior to this investigation. The investigator has friends and

relatives currently residing in Grayson County. Prior knowledge that

Grayson County is beginning to experience some turnaround migration

formed a basis for this research. To verify some of the assumptions about

Grayson County concerning turnaround migration and attitudes toward land

use, key residents were interviewed. These residents included the County

Administrator, real estate agents, newspaper editors and county land

assessors. Background information helped to provide a starting point for

the selection of the interview sample.

Patton (1980) suggests two basic sampling strategies: random and

purposeful. Random sampling is most frequently used in quantitative data

collection involving large samples. It is useful where one wants to

generalize from the sample studied about a large population. Purposeful

sampling is used when the investigate~ wants to reach a better under-

standing about "certain select cases without needing to generalize to all

such cases" (Patton 1980). Purposeful sampling is useful with more qualitative studies which have smaller concentrated samples. However, a

randomness quality is still ideal with a purposeful sample.

To lend additional credibility to a purposeful sampling strategy,

Patton (1980) suggests different techniques. Two of these were used in the purposeful sampling strategy for this study. First, sampling by geographical location was used. Second, sampling of a particular group or cases is useful to reach a clearer understanding of a larger group. An

Method 24 example of this second technique in this study is the concentrated selection of the influential people or "Movers and Shakers" in the County.

Grayson County is divided into four magisterial districts. A representative sample of each district gave a geographical distribution of the

County. Although differing in geographical area, the four magisterial districts have approximately equal populations of 4,000 persons (1980

U.S. Census). Given the nature of the field interview procedure and the effort to obtain a geographical distribution, fifty (50) informants were considered an adequate sample size.

A primary concern in the selection of the sample was to obtain a fairly equal distribution of native and non-natives within each magisterial district. Also, a concentrated effort to sample influential people or the "Movers and Shakers" of the County was decided since these people will be more likely to make ultimate decisions regarding land use. "Movers and Shakers" were determined as being those persons:

• Elected or appointed to a governing body or public office (example:

Board of Supervisors, Town Mayor)

• Employed by or at the pleasure of an elected governing body (example:

County Administrator, Town Clerk)

• Business leaders who have been selected or self-appointed to serve

on community service committees.

Method 25 The local newspaper provided a starting point in identifying these people

when it published its list of "Movers and Shakers" in the Grayson County

area (Ihe Declaration, 1985). Forty to fifty percent of the total sample

was considered to give a fair representation of this group compared to a

control group of typical rural residents.

The fifty informants were categorized into five groups:

1. "Movers and Shakers". Those influential residents who met one of the

criteria listed above.

2. Retiree or Summer home resident. Those residents who have not always

resided in Grayson County, but have retired to the County now or have

a home which they occupy only during the warm months of the year.

3. Counter-culture residents. Those residents who have chosen a life-

style which is not considered the norm in present-day Grayson County

by the majority of other residents. These residents have come to

Grayson County to pursue a lifestyle which is definitely non-urban,

back-to-nature and is sometimes spiritually based.

4. Non-native only. These are residents who are not native to the County

and do not fall into any of the above categories.

5. Native only. These are residents who are native to Grayson County

and do not fall in any of the other four categories.

Method 26 As mentioned earlier, primary concern was given to native and non-native

status in the sample selection. These five categories of grouping

informants are sub-categories which help to describe the current Grayson

County resident.

Informants for the sample were first identified and then contacted

for an interview. This method seemed to work best. A door-to-door method

based on population density was attempted to gain a more random sample,

but this procedure proved unsuccessful since rural residents were reluc-

tant to talk to a stranger concerning what they thought to be ambiguous

questions.

Development of Interview Format

An interview format was developed which considered the various types

of Grayson County residents and the purpose of the study mentioned in the

Research Direction section. Three separate questionnaire instruments

were used to obtain answers to the five questions which relate to the

purpose of the study. The three separate instruments included: (1) Bi-

ographical data sheet which was completed for every informant. This sheet

obtained demographic data including native/non-native status, age, edu-

cational level, duration of residence, amount of real property, etc. (2)

Native questionnaire form. This set of questions was asked of native

residents. (3) Non-native questionnaire form. This form was used when a informant was considered non-native to Grayson County. (See appendix

for examples of these forms. ) The native and non-native questionnaires differed only in·the first seven questions. Native residents were asked

Method 27 questions related to their perception of the Grayson County landscape and how or if it had changed since their childhood. Non-native residents were asked questions which helped to gain a description of persons moving to

Grayson County. These questions included the person's reason for re- locating, the place of prior residence, preconceptions about rural life and if these preconceptions were any different from what was actually found in Grayson County. In order to make a comparison between natives and non-natives the bulk of the land use issue questions were asked of all fifty (50) informants.

Collection of Data

A personal interview with each selected informant was the framework for the collection of data. Each interview was formally structured but, conducted informally. Advice from James Spradley's book the Ethnographic

Interyiew (1979) was followed in conducting interviews. Spradley (1979) advises the interviewer to create a relaxed atmosphere and conduct the interview much like a friendly conversation. Every informant was re- assured of the purpose of the interview and their ability to provide useful information. The interview consisted of two parts. Part one included the introduction and explanatory remarks, completion of the biographical data sheet and signing the tape-recording release form. Part two consisted of tape-recording of the "friendly conversation", conclud- ing remarks and any discussion which the informant did not want recorded.

Interviews averaged one hour in duration. They were conducted in July through November of 1985.

Method 28 A separate file was made on each of the fifty informants. In addition to the completed biographical data sheet, release form and questionnaire, a field note form and tape log form were completed on each informant and placed in the individual's file. These two forms were completed by the interviewer as soon as possible after the interview. The field note form described how the interview progressed and documented personal observations of the informant. The tape log form rated the quality of the tape-recording, gave a brief summary of the conversation and located remarks made by the informant by tape counter number. (See appendix).

Tabulation and Analysis of Data

Tabulation of the data first involved creating a data collection form and code book. This single form was created from the biographical data sheet and the two questionnaire forms. The questions from these forms were listed and a code of 0 through 9 was given for possible responses.

Each question or variable was given a-name so that a variable data file could be created for use in the Statistical Package for the Social Sci- ences (SPSS). Using the data collection and code book form, information was transferred from the Biographical data sheet and questionnaires to computer opscan sheets. Information from the questionnaires had been tape-recorded. While list~ning to the tape-recordings, each informant's responses were tabulated on a computer opscan sheet. The computer aided in the tabulation of the individual opscan sheets by creating a data file.

Next, a SPSS variable file was created from the list of questions from

Method 29 data collection and code book form. This allowed for frequencies and

cross-tabulations to be created using SPSS.

Analysis of the data involved both the SPSS system and field obser-

vations. Several variables were considered in the analysis phase. An

attempt to answer the five questions suggested in the research direction

section were again addressed, by creating cross-tabs among the variables

which these questions involved. Among others, these variables included:

magisterial district, informant group, duration of residence, native or

non-nativeness, farm or town residency, growth and development issues and

landscape perception.

To complement the more quantitative method of analysis the field re-

search aspect of this investigation was used. The analysis of the data

by personal observations was an ongoing procedure. Information recorded

on the field note and tape log forms along with the tape-recording were

consistently studied and reviewed. An effort to look for similarities

and dissimilarities was the approach used in this phase of the data

analysis.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Results from the two different aspects of the data analysis were used

to formulate conclusions about the land use attitudes of the Grayson

County resident. The observation aspect of the research was particularly useful in writing a description of the current Grayson County resident.

Conclusions from this study were compared to conclusions which Robert

Method 30 Nicholas (1983) and John Stephenson (1984) derived from their separate studies of land use and planning in Western North Carolina.

Finally, from the conclusions of this research some recommendations were proposed for Grayson County. It is hoped that these recommendations may be useful to land use planners and designers in helping them evaluate their plans and decisions for the Grayson County landscape.

The flow chart on the following page demonstrates the method used in this research process.

Method 31 Method Flow Cha~t

Research Question ---

Liter:iture Review

Research Methodology

Sampling S tr:itegy Interview Format Data Collection

Biocmlhical Data Tape~ ol lnlen'icw

Data Analysis

--~ Mo""" .t. Shale..., ____.

Qualitative Counlen:ulru~

PenomJ Obonv.11ion1 ---4 Typical Residents 1---~

Results

Conclusions

Rccommcml:Jtions

32 Method RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Description of Sample

Quantitative methods were used to write a demographic description of

the interview sample. The sample population consisted of fifty

informants: 28 natives and 22 non-natives. Of the fifty informants 22

were categorized as "Movers and Shakers". The 22 "Movers and Shakers"

can be further divided among 16 natives and 6 non-natives. An effort was

made to obtain an equal geographical distribution of informants among the

four Grayson County magisterial districts. The geographical distribution

resulted as follows:

• 15 informants from Wilson District

• 12 informants from Elk Creek District

• 11 informants from Providence District

• 12 informants from Oldtown District

The following map illustrates the magisterial districts. The source of

this map is the Grayson Comprehensive Plan of 1980.

Results and Discussion 33 Grayson coyntv .. Magisterial Districts

Results and Discussion 34 Although the four districts are relatively equal in population, Wilson

District is the largest in land area. Therefore, a slightly higher number

of informants may be justified. An effort was also made to maintain a

reasonable equal distribution among native and non-native informants.

This was maintained except for the Oldtown District. Those persons

interviewed perceived fewer newcomers living in the Oldtown District and

thought newcomers were purchasing property in less densely populated

districts of Wilson and Elk Creek. The Oldtown District, which borders

the City of Galax, is the most densely populated. No county records are

maintained on native and non-native purchases of property. Grayson County

land transactions are recorded by location and not by residential status

or former residence of the purchaser (Bolt 1985).

A 3 to 1 ratio of farm to town residency resulted from the sample

interviewed. This is approximately the same balance between farm and town

population according to the Grayson County Comprehensive Plan (1980).

The age range of the sample was 29 to 86 years. Average age of the

informants was 53 years. Grayson County has an older population compared

to other Virginia Counties (U.S. Census, 1980). This is probably a result

of the extensive out-migration of young people during the 1950's and

1960's.

The educational level of the non-native group is higher than that of the native group. This is typical of other areas which are experiencing turnaround migration. Also, the educational level of the "Movers and

Shakers" is higher than the native only group.

See the appendix section for a complete listing of all the frequencies.

Results and Discussion 35 Results bv Research Direction Questions

The five questions addressed earlier which relate to the purpose of

the study were used to organize the results of the investigation. Again,

the appendix may be referred to for comple~e frequencies of variables

which pertain to these five questions.

I. Who are the people now residing in Grayson County? Where do they come from, why are they there and how long have they lived in Grayson county? Are they permanent or summer residents?

Grayson County has begun to experience turnaround migration and a

stabilization of its existing population. Therefore, the County has a

variety of residents from different backgrounds. Of the fifty persons

interviewed, 22 or 44% were non-native. These residents moved to the

County from a variety of locations, but almost half (40%) are from the

eastern part of the United States. There was an equal distribution of

persons moving from Northern United States, Southeast United States and

from within the State of Virginia (8% each). Most non-natives had some

prior knowledge of Grayson County before they relocated. Prior knowledge

came through relatives or acquaintances or traveling in the Blue Ridge

region. The exact number of persons in each informant group for the survey sample is given below:

Results and Discussion 36 Informant Group

Native only 26%

Non-native only 16%

Movers and Shakers 44%

Counterculture 4%

Retiree 2%

Summer/Part-time 8%

Operational definitions of each informant group was given in the method section.

Both non-natives and natives expressed a high degree of satisfaction with living in Grayson County (82% very satisfied or satisfied). Non- natives mentioned the scenic beauty, low density of population and the friendliness of the people as their reasons for satisfaction. Native residents mentioned somewhat different reasons for satisfaction. Their satisfaction with living in Grayson County relates to deep rooted family ties and familiar lifestyles. The natives who remained in Grayson County during the 1950 1 s and 1960's did so because their ties to the County were stronger than the economic benefits which they could gain elsewhere. Many of the native residents who did leave to seek employment still have strong ties to the County and some are now returning here to retire. A native

"Mover and Shaker" had this to say about living in Grayson County.

I am totally satisfied with living in Grayson County. In fact, I think it's probably the greatest place to live because of the ab-

Results and Discussion 37 sence of severe weather, the tornadoes, the hurricanes and earth- quakes. We have the best water in the State of Virginia here. In my opinion, its an ideal place... Its just a super place to live.

The major event which has caused Grayson County to experience an influx of new residents and has has the greatest impact on the physical and social structure of the County was the proposed Blue Ridge Dam Project

(Young, Phipps, Cassell 1985). This project was first proposed in 1962 by Appalachian Power Company. A political controversy developed which was not ended until 1976. Grayson County Board of Supervisor Member, Jack

Phipps, who lives in the Mouth of Wilson area was one of the first farmers to write letters opposing the project proposal. During our interview

(1985), he had this to say concerning the Blue Ridge Dam Project:

The Blue Ridge Project had more influence on the people of Grayson County than anything that has ever happened here. Because a lot of people left and a lot of other people moved in. They (APCO) sold it very reasonable and land values went up tremendously in about ten years. And they couldn't afford to buy it back and only outsiders or developers bought it back. . . . . It set the County behind in over all progress fifty years.

The Blue Ridge Dam Project was a proposal by Appalachian Power Company

(APCO), a subsidiary of the American Electric Power Company to flood

40,000 acres of farmland along the New River. All land below 2566 feet in the designated area would have been inundated by water (Bolt 1985).

This proposal would force thousands of people from their homes and destroy a cultural lifestyle which had remained stable for generations to supply peak-load electricity to distance locations and dilute industrial pollutants downstream at Charleston, West Virginia. Two lakes were to be created by the pump-storage facility which would require more power to operate than it would create. Together the two developments would require the use of 27,900 acres of land in Grayson County or 9.6 percent

Results and Discussion 38 of the County's land area (Schoenbaum 1979). The map on the next page

demonstrates the size and location of the proposed two lake pump station

facility. The source of this map is Schoenbaum's book, Ihe New River

Controversy.

Results and Discussion 39 proposed Blue Ridge pam Project

Virginia

Wilkes Caun1y

North Carolina

Results and Discussion 40 Opposition to the Blue Ridge Dam Project started in 1962 by the local farmers along the New River and evolved into a major debate receiving a great deal of national attention which was not settled until 1976 by the

United States Congress (Schoenbaum 1979). Debate over the proposed project occurred on every political level. It pitted the state of North

Carolina against Virginia. North Carolina was opposed to the Blue Ridge

Dam project while Virginia supported it. Virginia officials thought the project would bring economic growth to Grayson County through construction jobs and recreation. This was questionable since APCO had made an agreement with the national labor union AFL-CIO to furnish the labor force for construction and during the optimum season for recreation the lakes would be at their lowest water level. "See-saw" political battles continued for fourteen years involving numerous groups including local citizens, state governors, state attorney generals, federal courts, Fed- eral Power Commission, United States Congress, AFL-CIO, lobbyists, and even President Ford. The controversy was finally settled in 1976 when the United States Congress voted to include the New River among the na- tion's scenic rivers. Retired North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin played an influential role in this final decision. The controversy received national attention from every major television network (Schoenbaum 1979).

During the fourteen year period APCO proceeded to buy private property in the designated flood area. Many residents felt they had no choice but to sell their land which was thought to be among the best farmland in

Grayson County. As the land was purchased it remained fallow awaiting to be flooded. When Congress stopped the Blue Ridge Dam Project, APCO was left with large acreages of land which they did not want or need.

Results and Discussion 41 They were required to offer the land first to the persons from whom

it was purchased. However, most of these people had made other arrange-

ments and were not in the position to re-purchase their former property.

Most Grayson County residents resent APCO's actions because many people

were dislocated for pre-mature reasons and APCO stood to make a profit

on the re-sell of their land. Schoenbaum (1979) wrote this concerning

the procedures and APCO's preparation of an environmental impact state-

ment:

The most serious failing of the Blue Ridge impact statement, however, was the lack of any attempt to deal with the social impacts and cost of the project. These were even more important than the adverse environmental impact in the affected area. The disruption of an established pattern of life dependent on the bottomlands of the river and its tributaries was not mentioned, let alone studied. Human dislocation was treated only in economic terms. The FPC (Federal Power Commission) never held hearings in any of the affected counties.

Regarding the impact of the project Schoenbaum (1979) continues:

But the true impact and meaning of the Blue Ridge Project can not be described in these statistical terms. In essence, the project would have provided electricity at times of peak demand for energy-hungry population centers far away for the New River Valley. In return, the mountain people were told to trade in their traditional lifestyle for a "modern," growth-oriented economy based on big-time recreation.

Even though land and homes were never destroyed by water, the proposed

Blue Ridge Dam Project had a lasting affect on the people and culture of

Grayson County. This chain of events caused Grayson County residents to view the buying and selling of land differently. For those who had been up-rooted, family attachments to the land were no longer as strong. Large acreages of land were now available which had been in families for generations. In addition the area had received tremendous national exposure.

Diffusion of a more urban attitude regarding the buying and selling of

Results and Discussion 42 land had started in Grayson County. Land in Grayson County became re- garded more as a commodity which could be marketed and sold to outsiders as well as people already in the area. Land values and land sales in

Grayson County increased since the Blue Ridge Darn project and have since remained steady (Bolt 1985). Real estate agencies experienced new prosperity uncommon for Grayson County. Advertisements for Grayson County real estate have appeared in major newspapers in North Carolina and as far away as Miami, Florida. For example, Frank Borman, a Miami resident, former astronaut and Eastern Airlines chairman, president and chief executive officer has purchased land in Grayson County. Real estate agent, Curtis Harrington, thinks that Borman will retire here.

A variety of people have brought property near the New River. One wealthy real estate developer/thoroughbred horse breeder has purchased a large tract of land along the New River and has started an exclusive subdivision call "New River Estates." The vacant farms along the New

River in the Mouth of Wilson community have been an attraction for well- educated counterculture types who came seeking a change of lifestyle.

II. What kinds of attitudes do people from different backgrounds and with varying durations of residence have regarding their living environment, i.e. their homes and property, neighborhoods and overall quality of life in Grayson County.

Eighty-six (86) percent of the sample had lived in Grayson County for more than seven (7) years. Fifty-six (56) percent had lived in the County for more than twenty-five years. Even though many of the informants no longer consider themselves newcomers they still make a distinction between native and non-native or separate themselves from the native culture. Nicholas (1983) describes two cultures present in Appalachia today:

Results and Discussion 43 The context for land use planning in western North Carolina (and Appalachia generally) can be understood as a confrontation between two very different cultures: mountain culture on the one hand and mainstream America culture on the other. Native mountain culture is rural. It depends on stability and informal ties between family and friends for political effectiveness. Kinship and land ownership often serve as the basis for social organization. Community leaders evolve by consensus and through a history of past actions. In contrast, the newcomers ("Florida Yankees") bring with them a post-industrial metropolitan culture. Metropolitan culture is mobile. It social life is organized around class or income groups. Land is viewed much like any other possession (like a house or a car) to be bought and sold as needed. Politics in metropolitan culture runs on organized interest groups.

Differences and similarities were found between natives and non- native, particularly from the qualitative part of the study. Both natives and non-natives of Grayson County are individualistic in spirit. Natives are strong individualists because they have remained in the County and have tried to sustain their culture deeply rooted in agriculture, family and religion. Now outside attitudes coming through the mass media, government programs and urban newcomers have muddled old traditions produc- ing a diffused culture whose overall characteristics are becoming increasingly difficult to discern. This is reflected in the fact that the older natives and "mountain people" still cling to their old traditions and lifestyles. As a rule, the older the native the more they maintain their past lifestyle. There are, however, extremes in the acceptance of outside attitudes. Children and grandchildren who remain in the area are accepting new attitudes more than their older relatives.

However, a strong dependency on the land and family values still remains.

One non-native said concerning the young natives: "They live in their mobile homes with their satellite dish and eat Hamburger Helper or proc- essed foods from the grocery store. " It is common for young natives to

Results and Discussion 44 move their mobile homes on family property. These natives still remember the hard work of surviving off the land, but now devote their energy to available factory jobs. However, in many cases they still do supplemental farming, such as raising a crop of tobacco. This seems to be an increasingly accepted way of life for native Grayson County while an individualistic spirit is still encouraged. Nicholas (1983) is aware of the changes and cultural diffusion in the region:

The apparent contrast between the two cultures has diminished con- siderably over the last decade. Many natives have adopted the out trapping and some values of the metropolitan culture. Some of the newcomers have rural values or they are mountain-born people coming back to their roots. As always, there is a vast gray area between the two classical extremes: the farmer and the Florida stock broker. But the fact that the residents often divide themselves into two camps--either native or outsider--offers a clue to the problem. There is a dominant perception that the two groups have nothing in common and in fact have much to fear from each other.

Regardless of the classification placed on the newcomers (retiree, counterculturist or non-native), the people who choose to re-locate to

Grayson County are more individualistic and rugged in spirit than migrants to other rural areas which already have some amenities which many urban migrants do not want to give up. Grayson County retirees realize that the area lacks the cultural, social and health facilities which are of- fered in more typical retirement communities, but are willing to sacrifice these amenities for the more peaceful lifestyle of Grayson County. One recent retiree said this regarding retiring in Grayson County:

Florida was getting too crowded for us. . . We like the uncrowded feeling here. The clean air, the clean water, friendly people and we just thought it would be a good place to live. We're rather individualistic. We don't go along with the crowd, usually. We like to strike off on our own. We're rugged individ- uals, both of us.

Results and Discussion 45 Counterculture residents realize that there is no commune network they can depend upon as in other areas, such as in Floyd County, Virginia

(Kandies 1985). These people must depend upon their own resources and usually seek the advice of older native residents in order to survive.

Those who choose to remain independent or isolated become discouraged and leave the County within three years (Hauslohner, Kandies 1985).

The diffusion of urban attitudes had produced a mixture of attitudes regarding land use with extremes being rural at on end and urban at the other. Within these extremes of attitudes are degrees of variation. Some of the residents have a rural attitude because of the lack of exposure.

They have not seen or are they aware of how other areas have grown and developed. Other persons possessing a rural attitude are aware of unplanned development and runaway growth in other areas. These residents represent a keen awareness of land use and may have actually made a full circle in their attitudes. Seeing the negative aspects of unplanned growth and development they realize the positive aspects of the rural lifestyle. They realize that the land has a higher value than the economic profit which can be made from buying, selling and developing. They realize that living on the land is a natural process and machinery and inorganic means only deplete it. This method of maintaining the land is closely associated with the "old ways" and traditional lifestyle in

Grayson County. This awareness of land use is related to the emergence of a "land ethic." The Land Stewardship Council of North Carolina defines an ethic as "a code of conduct based upon standards of moral judgement and philosophy." They define a land use ethic as:

Results and Discussion 46 A statement of moral imperatives concerning justice, use of power, views of society, and claims of privileges as they relate to planning, development, change-of-use, management, conservation, and preservation of the finite land resource.

This "land use ethic" is a higher sense of values and a keen awareness of the environment. In his classic, A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold suggested that the environment does not belbng exclusively to humans, but that we share the earth with all living things. The Land Stewardship

Council of North Carolina believes that "we literally bear the responsi- bility of maintaining the total environment in the best interest of the entire community of life." This community includes "humans, animals, plants, soil, water and minerals -- in short, the land!" During the research, this "new land ethic" attitude was not a predominate attitude among the informants. Only a very few informants were thought to possess this attitude by the researcher, but these were both natives and non- natives. This is only an emergence of an attitude and it cannot be associated with any particular group.

Many more natives and non-natives possessed an urban attitude regarding land use than a land use ethic attitude. Usually, an urban attitude was expressed through issues regarding growth and development.

Most "Movers and Shakers" are thought to have this urban attitude. Eighty

(80) percent supported some type of industrial growth. Often these informants took the approach that growth and development was the only answer for Grayson County. They expressed the idea that the County was slow to develop because of those residents possessing a rural attitude and their resistance to change. A native "Mover and Shaker" had this comment:

Results and Discussion 47 I think we have a very rural attitude and it is an attitude that too many have. It's an attitude that's probably too large. I won't say its the majority of the County, but too many people in the County have the opinion that any change is bad. Instead of taking a look at what it's really going to benefit, too many look at it as if we haven't done it in the past, why do it in the future? If its not broken, then why fix it? I do think that is too much of a dominant attitude in the County.

Another difference in natives and non-natives was their perception of what was rural. Native residents perceive rural in terms of lifestyle and past traditions. Non-natives perceived rural more in terms of the landscape. These perceptions of rural are the same as Dubbink (1984) found in his study of two California towns experiencing turnaround migration. In Grayson County these perceptions are reflected in the location of residents' homes and their living environments. Natives' homes were located according to practicality and function. Older homes are located near a spring for a water supply and are placed off the ridges for protection from the wind. Even natives who are now building new homes are more concerned about function than landscape aesthetics and views.

When possible, natives now build their homes (or place their mobile home) along the road for easy access. Non-natives locate their homes high on the ridges to obtain the best views of the landscape. Often practicality seems like the least of their concerns.

III. How do the different groups of residents feel about local services especially those efforts ta guide and control growth and development.

A majority (78%) of all the informants feel there is a need for local government to have some control over the land within the County. When asked the question "Do you think the local government ever has the right to tell a person how he or she should or should not use their land," the majority (78%) of informants in all groups agreed. Older natives were

Results and Discussion 48 the least agreeable about this issue while "Movers and Shakers" were the most agreeable. Furthermore, the majority (60%) of respondents thought that the County should have some form of zoning. Twelve (12) percent thought some form of zoning was needed, but thought it would never happen, or thought the time was not right to discuss it. This would make a total of 72% who thought some form of zoning or land use regulations is needed.

Again, the "Movers and Shakers" were strongest on this issue while the native-only group was the weakest. Those native informants who expressed a negative ~ttitude toward local government regulations to control growth were thought to have a lack of exposure to areas experiencing change and development. "Movers and Shakers" are more aware of growth and development in other areas and see a need for some type of local controls. They are uncertain of the type or form of controls, but realize the need.

"Movers and Shakers" feel that these types of government regulations will be a long time coming to Grayson County, perhaps twenty to thirty years.

"Movers and Shakers" feel that forms of zoning will be met with a great deal of opposition by the "typical" resident and this issue should not be discussed until there is a direct need.

As far as residents' attitudes toward their local elected officials, it is unfavorable. A survey question asked to determine this was the issue of the Grayson County 1908 Courthouse in Independence. The fate of this old structure has been debated by the deadlocked four-member Board of Supervisors for four years. Most Grayson County residents are frus- trated with the Supervisors and question their leadership. The majority

(64%) of informants thought the old courthouse should be saved and the

Board of Supervisors should get on with other County business. Ten (10)

Results and Discussion 49 percent were undecided about the issue. The non-native "Movers and

Shakers'' were the most extreme in their frustration with the present Board of Supervisors. A question asked to get some reaction to how the Board of Supervisors handled the issue was "Why do you think the courthouse issue has taken so long to decide?" Of the informants expressing an opinion, 44% thought the Supervisors lacked leadership to make decisions or it was bad planning on the part of the County's officials. Two of the most negative comments from non-natives concerning this issue were:

We don't have geniuses - hardly any of them have even gone to college. In fact, they have hardly been out of the County in their lives. They don't read a lot of books. These are just popular farmers who got elected.

Another newcomer said:

There are those of us (newcomers) that will put our efforts behind - when they (supervisors) come up for re-election - They will not be re-elected. We will see to that. We have the power to see that happens.

These comments illustrate an extreme among the informants. However, they do represent the fact that potential for social conflicts does exist in

Grayson County.

IV. How much growth and new development do the different types of residents want to see in Grayson County? What would they oppose or favor?

What would people be willing to sacrifice in order to attract their favored types of development?

Grayson County residents regard the County as being very economically depressed. This was not always the attitude in a County which the residents regard themselves as being independent and individualistic. Don

Results and Discussion 50 Young, the County Administrator said, "These people didn't know they were

poor until someone told them that they were." He thinks this attitude

was brought about during the 1960's and 70's with the Kennedy and Johnson

Administrations. These Administrations created the Appalachian Regional

Commission (ARC) and the "War on Poverty". According to the standards

used in government programs, residents in Grayson County were considered

economically depressed. Schoenbaum (1979) reported that in the 1970's

the three county region of Grayson County, Virginia and Ashe and Alleghany

Counties, North Carolina had a stable prosperity.

Although per capita income remains relatively low averaging just over $2,000, this is misleading because people grow or build many of the things they need. Economic activity still centers around family farm, many of which have been in the same family for generations. Major cash crops in the region include tobacco, beans, and Christmas trees.

One non-native observed the economic status of Grayson County residents:

I think the people in this County do not realize how fortunate they are. The state of Florida is absolutely ruined. It's not going to get better, its going to get worse, continuously worse. I think the people up here are very fortunate to have what they have. I know there are people below the poverty level and this and that. But they are fortunate to live here and be below the poverty level than be living in some slum in some large city.

Now both native and non-native residents of Grayson County regard the

County as being very economically depressed and place high priority on

economic development. When asked whether or not the County needed phys-

ical development and if so what type of development, fifty-six (56) per-

cent of the informants said more industry. Sixteen (16) percent thought

that no physical development was needed. These informants were in the

counterculture and summer home groups. Two "value judgement" questions were asked pertaining to development. First, informants were asked to

Results and Discussion 51 make the choice of a factory or farm locating next to their property.

The results were fairly equal with forty-two (42) percent preferring the factory and forty (40) percent preferring a farm. Second, informants were asked to decide between a private ski resort locating in the western part of the County or the land being left the way it is. Sixty-six (66) percent favored the development of a ski resort, sixteen (16) percent favored leaving the land as it was and six (6) percent thought the area was not suited for a ski resort.

Several rural farmers would not object to a factory locating next to them. One native said, "It would raise the value of my house. That's would be the way I would look at it" Another native farmer said this:

With farming as it is. . . the situation. . . The people in Grayson County need the opportunity to work without going out of the County and we don't have that now. I would have to favor industry, at the present time due to the farm prices.

This attitude of favoring industrial development is most prevalent among the "Movers and Shakers" and weakest among the smaller sampled retirees and counterculture groups. Many "Movers and Shakers" expressed the attitude that they would only prevent those industries which cause the most obvious detriments to the environment. This would be industries which would add obvious air and water pollutants. Residents also expressed opposition to strip mining (for minerals other than coal such as gypsum and uranium). Also, the County being a site for a nuclear waste dump was an objectionable land use often mentioned.

Even though informants expressed a desire for growth and have expressed opposition to some types of detrimental land uses locating in the area, Grayson County leaders and residents have not made decisions as to

Results and Discussion 52 what direction the County should take for industrial growth or develop-

ment. Currently, the County is taking a very short term view of devel-

opment since they have not taken any definite approaches in order to

prevent even those industries and types of development that they regard

as objectionable. County officials think of zoning as an unmentionable

issue at this time. Possible sites have been discussed as industrial

locations, but nothing has been accepted formally. Grayson County seems

to have accepted the "wait and see" type of planning. They wait for a

crisis and then see what can be done about it. Action is taken only when

the need arises. An example to illustrate this point is related to the

proposed Blue Ridge Dam project. Grayson County realized the need for

county-wide land use zoning when this project was proposed. Zoning reg-

ulations were written for the County ready to be accepted by the Board

of Supervisors. When the project was cancelled, these zoning regulations

were placed on a shelf and never mentioned again because County officials

do not see the need.

Another perception regarding growth and development which was present

among the "Movers and Shakers" was that Grayson County is 20 to 30 years

behind other areas and it needs to "catch up" for the County to prosper.

A native "Mover and Shaker" expressed,

Other places are twenty years more advanced than we are when it comes to that type of development (industrial). I don't like to say this, but from what I've observed and from what I've read I'm afraid we are behind the times in that type of development.

This is probably an accurate assumption. However, the situation is only

complicated by a lack of action and growing frustration. Frustration

among the "Movers and Shakers" increases because of their eagerness to

Results and Discussion 53 accept growth and development to "catch up" with other communities and

their perception that the general Grayson County public is opposed to any

change and growth. In this case, "Movers and Shakers" are mostly the business leaders and not the elected officials (especially the Board of

Supervisors). In essence, this is a potential conflict between those

residents with an urban atti~ude and those with a rural attitude. v. What are each resident's personal plans and expectations for the future? Do they expect to remain in the same house and keep their property within their family or are they willing to sell all or part of their land holdings?

The majority (72%) of the fifty informants do not have personal plans to sell their property or part of their property in the next five years.

Perhaps a more appropriate question would have been - "Would you sell your home or some of your property if you stood to make a profit?" The results of such a question can only be speculated, but it is likely that they would have responded differently.

There was not a strong sentiment among land owners as to whether or not they preferred their land to remain in their family, even though several informants responded to the question in this way. The idea of passing the family farm to the next generation was expressed in some cases, but overall it was not a strong sentiment. People seem indifferent about this issue, stating that their children had moved out of the County in order to make a living and their property would be sold and divided among their heirs. The following list gives informant responses and percentages to the question: "What would you like to see happen with your property when you are no longer here?"

Results and Discussion 54 What will happen to property in the future?

Remain in family 36%

Part of estate 32%

No difference 18%

Other 8%

Very few informants have made any definite plans for their land to remain within their families.

Several incidents have contributed to the attitude regarding current and future plans for Grayson County residents' personal property. The sentiment of passing one's land to the next generation started weakening in the 1950's when a generation of natives left the County to gain employment (Don Young 1985). Also, the proposed Blue Ridge Dam project contributed to the weakening of this sentiment. Many families sold their land during this time. In many cases, this was property which had been in families for generations. In addition, the diffusion of attitudes regarding land as a possession which is bought and sold has influenced this sentiment. Now personal property is treated more as a commodity.

It is a possession residents can sell or trade for other possessions.

As mentioned earlier, the native and newcomer have a different perception of what is rural and this is reflected in their homes and private property. Natives perceive rural in terms of lifestyle. They locate their homes for the purpose of maintaining a lifestyle of practicality.

Results and Discussion 55 Newcomers perceive rural in terms of the landscape and locate their homes in order to obtain the best views.

Another perception possessed by both natives and non-natives, is the concept that the County has an abundance of useable land. However, the two groups differ somewhat in how they express this perception. Natives think there is an abundance of land and welcome newcomers and new land uses because they have never felt enclosed or crowded in Grayson County.

Non-natives think there is an abundance of land because of the low density of population. This is one reason they move to Grayson County. They feel protected from encroachment of others and urban growth. They will purchase enough land when they first move to the County or if their privacy is threatened they will purchase adjacent property to "protect" themselves. One non-native expressed this attitude while we viewed his property:

We have about five acres of pasture land here. I'm not really interested in raising cattle, but it protects us from others moving in close to us and its pleasant to view. I'd like to buy that property down next to the road for added assurance.

Another attitude related to personal property which was expressed by all informants, but in different ways, was resentment toward the state and federal governments. This attitude is stronger among the native residents. A question which related to this issue was: "What was your opinion of the federal government buying people's homes and property to create the Mount Rogers Recreational Area (MRRA)?" Thirty (30) percent of the informants were against the government "taking" land to create

MRRA. Forty-two (42) percent thought it was a good thing for the government to buy private property because an area for many people to enjoy

Results and Discussion 56 had been created. Twenty (20) percent of the informants had mixed feelings concerning the issue. Those natives who felt the strongest about this issue were in some way directly affected by the incident. Even though forty-two (42) percent thought the creation of Mount Rogers Rec- reational Area was a good thing, they felt that the government owned too much land in Grayson County. Also, some informants equated Mount Rogers

Recreational Area or the National Recreational Area with Grayson

Highlands State Park. Grayson Highlands State Park borders Mount Rogers

Recreational Area, but is a state facility. (Grayson Highlands State Park is a well accepted facility in Grayson County. Forty-four (44) percent of the informants thought of it as their favorite place within the entire

County. )

Several "Movers and Shakers" thought the government owned too much land resulting in a smaller tax base for an already economically poor county. The creation of Mount Rogers Recreational Area is clearly a question of eminent domain. Non-natives had a better understanding of this concept. They understand that government land belongs to everyone for the public's benefit and enjoyment. It is more difficult for natives to understand this concept than non-natives. In many cases they feel as though the "government" (state and federal) is an outside entity which they are not a part of and have little control over. These feelings are understood more clearly when considering the long history of outside government intervention in Grayson County affecting personal homes and property. First, the proposed Blue Ridge Dam project forced many residents to sell their homes and property. Even though a private company

(Appalachian Power Company) was making the proposal, approval from dif-

Results and Discussion 57 ferent government agencies, such as the Federal Power Commission was

needed. Second, the federal government or the U.S. Forest Service created

the Mount Rogers Recreational Area and the State of Virginia created

Grayson Highlands State Park which forced many residents to sell their

homes and re-locate. Third, residents, particularly in the Wilson Dis-

trict, feel they are under the uneasy threat that the U.S. Forest Service

will change their National Recreation Area boundary wanting more of their

land. One Whitetop native said:

The people didn't understand the taking of land by the government and they changed the borders a couple of times on it. A lot of people didn't understand it. Not only the uneducated people, but several people with an education are worried about the government taking the remainder of it... Recently, when they made a change in the plan-- they had cut off some of the corners they had left before. I think they were trying to straighten the boundary line up. This got people upset again. They thought the original boundary line was where it was going to go and that was it. Now they come back and are going to take a few acres here and a few acres there to straighten it up. Congress set the boundary for the Na- tional Recreational Area, but they seem to be moving down and down and down and this begins to worry the people because they keep changing the boundary.

To re-enforce a feeling of resentment toward government, particularly

among native residents, is the feeling there was no purpose in the gov-

ernment taking their homes and property. Natives feel strongly about this

issue because this disrupted a lifestyle and rural community they once

knew. They see the land not being used in the way it once was. People

they knew were forced to move, their houses were torn down and their barns burned. The land has been left "to grow up" as one native woman said.

Land that was once used for many agricultural purposes is now left to produce only its natural beauty. Natives definitely prefer the land in

a productive agricultural use which is representative of their past

Results and Discussion 58 self-sufficient farming lifestyle rather than seeing land in conservation or timber production. Ninety-eight (98) percent of the natives mentioned some connection with the land and past agricultural lifestyle when asked about growing up in Grayson County.

Results and Discussion 59 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research was undertaken with the hypothesis: Rural natives and non-natives have a shared interest in preserving the character of the rural landscape in which they reside. Support for this hypothesis was not so obvious after first reviewing the results of the study. What was apparent was, as turnaround migration increases, attitudes toward the rural landscape becomes more urban in orientation. Turnaround migration is only one of the factors influencing cultural and physical landscape changes in Grayson County. The proposed Blue Ridge Dam Project and its after affects was a major influence on the diffusion of different land use attitudes in Grayson County. Other influences include the media, changing values and outside government programs.

Support for the hypothesis was found after closer interpretation of the results. Both natives and non-natives have an interest in preserving the character of the rural landscape. This interest is present in both groups, but expressed differently. "Character of the rural landscape" is exemplified by how natives and non-natives perceive rural. Both natives and non-natives value the rural landscape highly. Natives perceive rural in terms of lifestyle. They value a past rural lifestyle centered on self-sufficient farming. Non-natives perceive rural in terms of the landscape. The landscape they prefer to view is the self-sufficient farming landscape valued by natives. One Florida retiree stressed many times during our interview his love for pastoral landscape views. Natives

Conclusions and Recommendations 60 and non-natives value the same thing in the Grayson County landscape, but

they "tell the story differently."

It must be understood that the rural landscape (or any landscape)

is constantly changing. Grayson County natives are no longer the isolated

people they once were. Values and attitudes of rural residents are also

undergoing change. Although they do not always demonstrate what they

appreciate in the landscape, Grayson County natives still value a past

lifestyle based on hard work of living off the land. The small farms on

gently rolling hillsides interrupted with the wildness of forested moun-

tains represent a way of life for the Grayson County native. This same

way of life, or the landscape it provides, is valued by non-natives.

However, non-natives are shocked and become critical when they realize

their perception of rural is changing. An example is the critical com-

ments concerning young natives locating mobile homes along the roadways

or next to their parents' old farm houses. It may be concluded that the

two groups have difficulty understanding they value the same thing in the

Grayson County landscape.

Social differences among natives and non-natives are resulting in different perceptions of rural and the rural landscape. These social and

cultural differences among the residents may cause potential conflicts

concerning future land use. Potential for social conflicts does exist

in Grayson County, but they are not as strong as in other areas experiencing turnaround migration, such as Western North Carolina. Several differences were found among Grayson County residents that were not present in the studies by Nicholas (1983) and Stephenson (1984) in Western

North Carolina. Some of these differences can really be expressed in

Conclusions and Recommendations 61 terms of attributes for Grayson County. First, the strongest attribute

Grayson County has based on field research performed during this project is its people. Almost all fifty informants mentioned the kindness and friendliness of the people. One new summer home resident said,

I must say, everything we have found here is beyond our expectations - beauty, people, particularly the peopre. . . I tell you, we spent many years in the mountains of Western North Carolina. Which is ... Western North Carolina, west of Franklin. And they are mountain people like these are mountain people. But, there's a more gentleness to the people here, ah, and also, the mountains are more gentle.

A native "Mover and Shaker" had this to say about the people:

As a general rule, if you were a total stranger, you could go about anywhere you wanted to in this County and somebody would provide for your needs. I think that is the thing that's the big asset in this area.

Second, newcomers are seeking out the natives in order to gain acceptance or sometimes out of necessity for survival. Natives are welcoming newcomers who show a willingness to learn their skills and traditions. A major factor why natives have accepted newcomers is that as a result of the massive out-migration in the 1950's and 1960's the County was left with few young people to carry on the traditions and skills of the natives. When a newcomer makes the effort to befriend the older native he or she is warmly accepted and both benefit greatly.

Third, potential for conflicts regarding land use attitudes are not felt as strongly in Grayson County because turnaround migration is just starting here. Stephenson's ( 1984) research in "Shiloh", North Carolina is a study from which Grayson County can learn. A likely direction for

Grayson County's future is on the same lines as counties in Western North

Carolina (Comprehensive Plan, Grayson County, Virginia 1980). Stephenson

Conclusions and Recommendations 62 found a much greater degree of social conflict between newcomers and na-

tives than was found in Grayson County. Perhaps, a major reason why this

conflict in attitudes was not found in Grayson County to the degree it was in "Shiloh" was that Western North Carolina has known a much higher

degree of turnaround migration. If Grayson County residents are aware

of the potential social conflicts which may come with increased turnaround migration, they may be in the position to alleviate some of them.

Even though Grayson County may possess some strong attributes, these

are endangered because of the County's uncertainty toward the future.

One attitude which is certain is Grayson County's desire for some type of industrial growth. However, this places Grayson County in an extremely vulnerable position. Since the residents are eager to accept industry they may accept some undesirable growth and development because they have not made any prior plans and decisions regarding what they value in the

landscape and how they plan to protect it.

At the present time there are basically two ways in which Grayson

County could develop and neither provides a very desirable future:

1. Grayson County could develop much like every other rural community

experiencing urban growth and development. This would mean unplanned

strip development leading out of the towns, farms continuing to be

subdivided for commercial and residential use and an uncontrolled

variety of land uses throughout the County depleting the natural en-

vironment.

Conclusions and Recommendations 63 2. Grayson County could develop much like the first scenario, but "sell"

their cultural heritage to visiting outside tourists. This "selling

of Appalachia" or Grayson County soon becomes a false representation

of an endangered culture.

Conclusions and Recommendations 64 RECOMMENDATIONS

It has been concluded from this study that natives and non-natives value the same thing in the Grayson County landscape. They both value a landscape produced by hard work of self-sufficient farming interrupted with a view of forested mountains. Based upon this conclusion, recommendations may be made for Grayson County. Recommendations can be made in order to attempt to maintain what is valued in the landscape while balancing changing social attitudes.

It is vital that Grayson County make some decisions as to the future of the County. The study has demonstrated the desire for industrial growth, but residents and leaders are vague as to the types of industry they are willing to accept. Furthermore, no action or planning has been taken in this direction. When decisions are made and action is taken it is vital that all Grayson County residents have a voice. Decisions should not be made only by and for the "Movers and Shakers" or those residents possessing an urban attitude. The rural attitude and the land ethic attitude needs to be heard. Groups of residents with differing attitudes need to accept one another and work together for the values they both share in the rural landscape. Increased community development efforts could help to alleviate some of the fears and misunderstandings among the different cultures now present in Grayson County. Urban attitude holders and "Movers and Shakers" need to realize that the good of Grayson County cannot be accomplished if they dominate the decision and planning process.

Rural attitude residents must take actions and make sure their opinions

Recommendations 65 are known and included in the process. Each group or culture must reach a better understanding of the other.

Groups working together for the good of all has always been a difficult problem whenever different people reside in a common region.

Kirkpatrick Sale (1985) quotes Lewis Mumford's work, The Culture of Cities

(1938) when he discusses the "re-building of regions"

We must create in every region people who will be accustomed, from school onward, to humanist attitudes, co-operative methods, ra- tional controls. These people will know in detail where they live and how they live: they will be united by a common feeling for their landscape, their literature and language, their local ways, and out of their own self-respect they will have a sympathetic understanding with other regions and different local peculiarities. They will be actively interested in the form and culture of their locality, which means their community and their own personalities. Such people will contribute to our land-planning, our industry planning, our community planning the authority of their own understanding, and the pressure of their own desires.

Bringing about the re-building of a region can be a difficult task, particularly in Grayson County. Schoenbaum (1979) noted the difficulty of different groups working together for a common good as an important lesson from the efforts to save the New River:

Another lesson of the struggle to preserve the New is that environmentalist values alone are not enough to carry the day in the political arena. Concern with wildlife and aesthetics are too narrow and elitist to appeal to a broad segment of society. Places of natural beauty and historical importance like the New River will be preserved only if a broad cross section of the population is convinced that they are part of our heritage as a people. The management of our resources is inseparable from the context of the American cultural tradition.

The Blue Ridge Dam Project proposal was a controversial issue which took a united effort of many different groups to defeat. It may be even more difficult for Grayson County residents to unite to preserve what they value in the Grayson County landscape because it is not as clear an issue.

Recommendations 66 But, Grayson County residents must realize that the importance of this issue. The future of Grayson County as they know it is in jeopardy unless they come to a better understanding of one another and work together.

Landscape architects and land planners are in a position to help in this understanding process. This research is an example. It is also a timely issue since this research is extremely important to the future of the rural landscape which is the future of rural culture. Landscape architects and land planners must understand rural cultures so that they may provide the best possible decisions and designs for the rural landscape.

Recommendations 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beale, Calvin L. Th.e Revival of Population Growth in Nonmetropolitan America. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975.

Interview with Leon Bolt, Grayson County L~nd Assessor, 1985.

Interview with Dick Cassell, Grayson County Extension Agent, 1985.

Constantini, Edmond, and Kenneth Hanf. "Environmental Concerns and Lake Tahoe." Environment and Behavior. 4 (June 1972): 29-242.

Cowdrey, Albert E. Th.is Land. Th.is South. Lexington, Kentucky: Uni- versity Press of Kentucky, 1983.

Dailey, George H., Jr., and Rex R. Campbell. "The Ozark-Ouachito Upland Growth and Consequences." New Directions in Urban-Rural Migration. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Dillman, Don A. and Caryl J. Hobbs. Rural Society in the United States. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1982.

Dubbink, David. "I'll Like My Town Medium-Rural, Please." Journal of the American Planning Association. 4 (Fall 1984): 406-417.

Fields, Bettye-Lou. Grayson County: A History in Words and Pictures. Independence, Virginia: Grayson County Historical Society, 1976.

Gaventa, John. Power and Powerlessness. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1980.

Graber, Edith E. "Newcomers and Oldtimers: Growth and Change in a Mountain Town." Rural Sociology 39 (April, 1974): 504-513.

Grayson County, Virginia., Comprehensive Plan (November 20, 1980).

Healy, Robert G. and James Short. "The Changing Rural Landscape." vironment 23 (December 1981): 7-11, 30-34.

Interview with Curtis Harrington, Grayson County Real Estate Broker, 1985.

Interview with David Hauslohner, local Grange president, 1985.

Jackson, J.B. Landscapes. ed. Ervin H. Zube. Amherst, Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1977.

Bibliography 68 Interview with Jerry Kandies, Natural Food Store owner, 1985.

The Land Stewardship Council of North Carolina. A Land Use Ethic For North Carolina. Raliegh, North Carolina. January, 1985.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, Inc. 1949.

Marans, Robert W. and John D. Wellman. The Oualitv of Nonmetropolitan Liying. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Univetsity of Michigan, 1978.

Nicholas, Robert. "The Future of Land Use Planning in Appalachia," Center for Urban and Regional Studies. The University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: June, 1983.

Patton, Michael Q. Qualitatiye Eyaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1980.

Interview with Jack Phipps, Member of the Grayson County Board of Super- visors, 1985.

Ploch, Louis A. "Effects of Turnaround Migration on Community Structure in Maine," New Directions in Urban-Rural Migration. New York, New York: Academic Press. 1980.

Price, Michael L. and Daniel C. Clay. "Structural Disturbances in Rural Communities: Some Repercussions of the Migration Turnaround in Michigan." Rural Sociology 45 (April, 1980): 591-607.

Riley, Robert B. "New Mexico Village in a Future Landscape." Changing Rural Landscapes. Amherst, Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1977.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. Dwellers in the Land.San Franciso: Sierra Club Books, 1985.

Schiefelbein, Susan. "Return of the Native." Saturday Reyiew (November 1977): 10-11.

Schoenbaum, Thomas J. The New Riyer Controyersy. Winston- Salem, North Carolina: John F. Blair, Publisher, 1979.

Schwarzweller, Harry K. "Migration and the Changing Rural Scene." fu!.!:l!.l Sociology. 44 (Spring 1979): 7-23.

Shelley, Fred M. "Migration Patterns Leading to Population Change in the Nonmetropolitan South." Growth and Change. 9 (April 1978): 14-23.

Spradley, James P. 'fhe Ethnographic Interyiew. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

Bibliography 69 Interview with Jean H. Speer. Director, Appalachian Studies Program, Virginia Tech. Blacksburg, Viginia. 1985.

Stephenson, John B. "Escape to the Periphery: Commodifying Place in Rural Appalachia." Appalachian Journal. 11 (Spring 1984): 187-200.

Vidich, Arthur J. and Joseph Bensman. Small Towns in Mass Society. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1958.

Voss, Paul R. "A Test of the 'Gangplank Syndrome' Among Recent Migrants to the Upper Great Lakes Region." Journal of the Community Deyelop- ment Society 11 (January, 1980): 95-111.

Wellman, J. Douglas. "Social Conflicts Associated with Turnaround Mi- gration: Evidence from Northern Michigan." Blacksburg, Virginia: Department of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1980.

Whisnant, David E. All That Is Natiye & Fine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983.

"Who You Should Know", The Declaration. 30 January 1985, special sec. B, p. B2.

Interview with Donald Young, County Administrator for Grayson County, 1985.

Zube, Ervin H. and Margaret J. Zube, editors. Changing Rural Landscapes. Amherst, Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1977.

Bibliography 70 APPENDIX A. PRIMARY DOCUMENTS

The tape recorded interviews are the primary documents for this research thesis. Copies of all the tapes, as well as some photographs of some of the people interviewed, are available at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia in the Special Collections Section of the Newman Library.

Abstracts of Tape Interviews

All interviews were conducted by James F. Shepherd. All taped persons interviewed were asked basically the same questions by the interviewer. A list of the questions are provided in the appendix of this document.

1. Anderson, Junior (1948 - ). Fries. Mayor of Fries and Bank Branch Manager. Talks about the town of Fries and the influence of Washington Mills on the life and history of the area. Date of interview: 10-31-85.

2. Anderson, Mildred (1925 - ). Mouth of Wilson. Homemaker and factory worker. Talks about life in the Grant and Mouth of Wilson communities. Farming and newcomers to the area are discussed. Date of interview: 8-6-85.

3. Barker, William (1931 - ). Fries. Plant Manager of Fries Riegel Textile Industries (former Washington Mills). Describes his fondness for the area, particularly the New River, the people and native music and culture. Gave ideas for improving recreation along the New River. Date of interview: 10-31-85

4. Beamer, Louise (1925 - ). Baywood. Volunteer Coordinator at Senior Citizen Program. Moved to Grayson County from Carroll County 40 years ago. Talked about life in a Black community in Grayson County. Date of interview: 11-4-85.

5. Blevins, Harvey (1925 - ). Galax. Bus driver for Rooftop (Community Action Program) Senior Citizens. Former truck driver for Galax factory. Also involved in farming. Talked about farming and the need for more industry and job opportunities in the area. Date of interview: 10-31-85.

6. Blevins, Jont (1900 - ). Whitetop. Retired, but also works part- time for the Green Thumb Project. Grandfather of interviewer. Talked about selling land to newcomers, life in Whitetop are: raising food, chestnut blight, playing music. Date of interview: 8-8-85

Appendix A. Primary Documents 71 7. Blevins, Oatie (1911 - ). Whitetop. Housewife. Discusses how people's values have changed, what the ~'hitetop area was like many years ago and selling land to Jim Weaver. Husband Basil contributes to the conversation. Date of interview: 10-6-85.

8. Boyer, Watson (1914 - ). Galax. Retired engineer. Moved from Florida for permanent residency in Grayson County. Describes having to be individualistic to adjust to Grayson County. Prefers the clean environment over the lack of "urban" development such as restaurants and shopping centers.·· Date of interview: 11-6-85.

9. Burris, Pat (1947 - ). Independence. Town Clerk for Independ- ence. Talks about Grayson County Arts Council and newcomers. Expresses frustration with the town's lack of involvement in issues to improve the town and County. Also, talks about the old courthouse issue. Date of interview: 8-7-85.

10. Carrico, James A. (1921 - ). Green Valley. Farmer and Member of Board of Supervisors. Talks about farming, industry, property owners rights and government not having excessive control over land. Describes issues and their relationship to person's right to make a profit. Date of interview: 11-3-85.

11. Cassell, Dick. (1936 - ). Independence. County Extension Agent. Talks about major influences on the County including Blue Ridge Dam Project. Describes past agricultural practices and new crops to replace tobacco. Date of interview: 8-6-85.

12. Christenson, Lars. (1911 - ). Elk Creek. Retired meteorologist for U.S. government. Compares Grayson County to other areas in the United States and Europe in which he has lived. Date of interview: 8-11-85.

13. Clark, Deborah T. (1954 - ). Grant. Interpreter at Grayson Highlands State Park. Describes the changing social aspects of the County. Discusses the school system. Seeks higher ideals for allowing native people to express themselves. Talks about the effects of the textile industries on the local people and Grayson Highlands State Park as a means of retaining some of the local culture. Date of interview: 8-5-85.

14. Conduff, Tom. (1944 - ). Baywood. Owner/Manager of a small sewing factory. Talks about industry locating in the area. Also discusses how land is being developed limiting natural areas for hunting and outdoor recreation. Date of interview: 11-6-85.

15. Cox, Wanda. (1942 - ). Galax. Real Estate Broker. Talks about growing up in area and changes in development, especially around Galax. Talks about good relationship with newcomers. Date of interview: 11-6-85.

Appendix A. Primary Documents 72 16. Diamond, Lloyd. (1935 - ). Baywood. Local Grocery Store Manager and part-time farmer. Discusses local farmers' need for outside income. Talks about the Baywood area in the past. Date of interview: 11-6-85.

17. Gibson, Martha LaRa. (1930 - ). Grant. Former Seattle School Principal. Current farmer and counter-life style community leader. Talks about what attracted her to Grayson County, the school she is starting here and the relationship of newcomers and natives. Date of interview: 10-16~85.

18. Greer, Alex (1899 - ). Cabin Creek. Retired. Worked for the Green Thumb Project at Grayson Highlands State Park. Discusses visitors to the State Park and how it was created for them while people who grew up here are indifferent about the beauty of the area. Talks about how people survived in the past, raising sheep, corn, wheat, rye, and thrashing of grains. Date of interview: 10-6-85.

19. Hauslohner, David (1954 - ). Troutdale. Farmer. Very artic- ulate. Talks about local culture, transition from urban life, native's willingness to share skills and traditions, economic and community development. Wife Amy contributes to discussion on many of these topics. Date of interview: 8-4-85.

20. Harrington, Curtis. (1933 - ). Independence. Real Estate Broker. Talks about the real estate business in Grayson County and the influx of newcomers and retirees. Opposes current subdivision regulations and would like them changed. Date of interview: 10-3-85.

21. Harrington, Max. (1930 - ). Elk Creek. Farmer and Maintenance worker for County School Board. Talks about farming in the Elk Creek area and the need farmers have for outside income. Date of interview: 10-28-85.

22. Harvey, Sidney (1930 - ). Elk Creek. Assistant Superintendent of Grayson County Schools. Talk about newcomers to Grayson County and affects on the school system. Also, discusses Grayson County as a place attracting retirees. Date of interview: 10-28-85.

23. Haynes, Elaine. (1950 - ). Fries. Real Estate Agent, Disc Jockey and Inn Manager. Discusses the beauty of the area and need for more development particularly in areas which would give people employment. Date of interview: 10-31-85.

24. Haynes, Jerry. (1951 - ). Fries. City Engineer for the City of Galax. Discusses the attitudes of the people of Grayson County. Talks about the need for development in the County. Date of interview: 11-1-85.

Appendix A. Primary Documents 73 25. Hodges, James (1926 - ). Fries. Superintendent of Grayson County Schools. Answered questions of interview from the point of view of how it affects the County schools. Date of interview: 10-29-85.

26. Hoffman, Charlie (1927 - ). Grant. Farmer. Discusses life growing up in the Grant community, farming, need for factories and newcomers. Date of interview: 8-5-85.

27. Hoffman, Robert (1924 - ). Indepehdence. Retired Minister. Talks about being a newcomer to the area, the people, and the natural beauty. Mentions his own wood working skills and hobbies. Date of interview: 10-8-85.

28. Hyatt, Glenn (1952 - ). Baywood. Investigator for Grayson County Sheriff's Department. Talks about changes in area since he has lived there. Discusses newcomers both good and bad influences on the community. Date of interview: 11-4-85.

29. Jennings, Curtis (1951 - ). Baywood. Bank Branch Manager. Talks about growing up in the area where the Nautilus factory is now located an how the landscape has changed. Date of interview: 8-6-85.

30. Kandies, Jerry (1947 - ). Independence. Natural Food Store Owner. Talks about coming to Grayson County from Brooklyn, New York and the adjustments to rural life. Date of interview: 7-26-85.

31. Lindsey, Jean (1941 - ). Independence. Pharmacist. Owns a pharmacy and talked about how downtown Independence is declining and moving her store out of the downtown area. Date of interview: 10-14-85.

32. McGrath, Mark (1948 - ). Troutdale. Library Director at Grayson County Library. Talked about the culture and traditions of the area. Emphasized people's involvement in community decisions, lack of exposure of some native people and what change in the landscape could occur in the future. Date of interview: 10-4-85.

33. Mitchell, Bill (1946 - ). Troutdale. Mayor of Troutdale and employed by a local industry. Talked about changes in the Troutdale community in his lifetime. The building where the Troutdale Dining Room is located was his grandmother's home. Date of interview: 10-7-85.

34. North, John (1954 - ). Independence. Newspaper owner and Ed- itor. Talks about success of his newspaper, discouragement with local people, lack of development and slow progress of the area. Date of interview: 7-26-85.

Appendix A. Primary Documents 74 35. Packard, Norman ( 1917 - ). Independence. Retired Engineer. Talks about moving to Grayson County from the Northeast, the different lifestyle, and how newcomers' attitudes will change the area. Date of interview: 10-4-85.

36. Phipps, Jack (1935 - ). Mouth of Wilson. Farmer and member of the Board of Supervisors. Discusses the impact of the proposed Blue Ridge Dam project on Grayson County, people's attitudes toward growth and the influx of newcomers to the Mouth of Wilson area. Date of interview: 10-14-85:

37. Potter, Ransford (1920 - ). Troutdale. Retired Real Estate Broker in Florida. Will live in Grayson County six months out of the year. Talks about his impressions of the area's people, beauty, and way of life. Date of interview: 8-7-85.

38. Reeves, E. F. "Sonny" ( 1928 - ). Independence. Real Estate Agent. Discusses real estate business in Grayson County, how the area has changed and newcomers. Date of interview: 10-8-85.

39. Satterwhite, John ( 1904 - ). Fries. Insurance Businessman. Talks about the Fries area, the affect of the mill an the town, and how natives regard newcomers to the area. Date of interview: 10-28-85.

40. Sikes, Ronnie ( 1947 - ). Fairview. Works with a Galax industry. Member of the Board of Supervisors. Discusses development for Grayson County. Declined to discuss courthouse issue. Date of interview: 10-22-85.

41. Sullins, Max (1929 - ). Whitetop. Manpower Director at Mountain Community Action Program in Marion, Virginia. Talks about his grandfather's store in the Whitetop area, collection of herbs and berries to sell and the past rural lifestyle from a community store owners' point of view. Date of interview: 10-9-85.

42. Taylor, Hope (1924 - ). Fries. Town Clerk for the Town of Fries. Talks about her love for Fries, the affect of the mill on the town, and the Colonial Inn in the past. Date of interview: 10-31-85.

43. Vaught, Douglas (1951 - ). Baywood. Commonwealth Attorney for Galax. Basically answered interview questions and discussed changes in the Baywood area he has seen in his lifetime. Date of interview: 11-4-85.

44. Watson, Lydia (1956 - ). Fairview. Office Manager at Encore Industries. Talks about the need of factories to supply jobs and other area needs. Date of interview: 11-6-85.

Appendix A. Primary Documents 75 45. Weaver, Carol (1925 - ). Whitetop. Retired Bank Officer. A Florida native who comes to the Briar Ridge area six months out of the year. Her deceased husband made the road up to Briar Ridge and built the first houses there. Date of interview: 8-12-85.

46. Weaver, Jim (1935 - 1985). Whitetop. Businessman. Died in De- cember, 1985 after interview. Son of the man who first built the current houses on Briar Ridge. Talked about love of area, the people and how he would like to see the area maintained. Date of interview: 8-19-85.

47. Wherry, Wayne (1942 - ). Spring Valley. Owner of a garment factory. Talks about satisfaction with the area, the people and beauty. Date of interview: 11-3-85.

48. Wright, Clarence G. (1912 - ). Independence. Retired Dairy Farmer. First interview. Tape did not record and not available. Date of interview: 7-22-85.

49. Young, Donald (1947 - ). Independence. County Administrator for Grayson County. Discusses the impact of the proposed Blue Ridge Dam project, the attitudes of the county people toward land use, newcomers and zoning regulations. Date of interview: 10-3-85.

50. Young, F.R. "Junior" (1948 - ). Independence. Treasurer for Grayson County. Talks about moving back to Grayson County after living in Baltimore, Maryland, the slow progress of the County, attitudes of the people and the influx of newcomers. Date of interview: 10-4-85.

Appendix A. Primary Documents 76 APPENDIX B. FREQUENCIES

Note all values of "o" and 11 911 represent missing values. In these cases the informant did not know or had no answer.

MAGDIS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

WILSON 1 15 30.0 30.0 30.0 ELK CREEK 2 12 24.0 24.0 54.0 PROVIDENCE 3 11 22.0 22.0 76.0 OLDTOWN 4 12 24.0 24.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

NAT NATIVE OR NON-NATIVE

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

NATIVE 1 28 56.0 56.0 56.0 NON-NATIVE 2 22 44.0 44.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

INGROUP INFORMATIVE GROUP

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

NATIVE ONLY 1 13 26.0 26.0 26.0 NON-NATIVE ONLY 2 8 16.0 16.0 42.0 MOVER AND SHAKER 3 22 44.0 44.0 86.0 COUNTERCULTURAL 4 2 4.0 4.0 90.0 RETIREE 5 1 2.0 2.0 92.0 SUMMER/PART-TIME 6 4 8.0 8.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100. 0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

Appendix B. Frequencies 77 SEX SEX

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

MALE 1 38 76.0 76.0 76.0 FEMALE 2 12 24.0 24.0 100.0 _.., _____ ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------AGE AGE

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

29-35 2 9 18.0 18.0 18.0 36-42 3 10 20.0 20.0 38.0 43-49 4 3 6.0 6.0 44.0 50-55 5 8 16.0 16.0 60.0 56-62 6 9 18.0 18.0 78.0 63-69 7 4 8.0 8. 0 86.0 70-75 8 4 8.0 8. 0 94.0 76 OR HIGHER 9 3 6. 0 6.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------LENGTII LENGTII OF RESIDENCE IN COUNTY

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

< 1 YEAR 1 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 YEAR, < 3 2 2 4.0 4.0 8.0 5 YEARS, < 7 4 3 6.0 6.0 14.0 7 YEARS,< 10 5 7 14.0 14.0 28.0 10 YEARS,< 15 6 4 8.0 8.0 36.0 15 YEARS,< 25 7 4 8.0 8.0 44.0 25 YEARS OR MORE 8 28 56.0 56.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------ED EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

Appendix B. Frequencies 78 VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0-5 1 3 6.0 6.0 6.0 6-8 2 3 6.0 6.0 12.0 12 OR HS DIPLOMA 4 12 24.0 24.0 36.0 1-2 YEAR COLLEGE 5 10 20.0 20.0 56.0 3-BACHELOR DEGREE 6 15 30.0 30.0 86.0 MASTER DEGREE 7 5 10.0 10.0 96.0 DOCTORAL DEGREE 8 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------·- - EMPLOY EMPLOYMENT STATUS

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

EMPLOYED 1 33 66.0 66.0 66.0 UNEMPLOYED 2 1 2.0 2.0 68.0 RETIRED 3 11 22.0 22.0 90.0 HOUSEWIFE 4 2 4.0 4.0 94.0 SELF-EMPLOYED 6 3 6.0 6.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------OCCUP MAIN OCCUPATION

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

FARMER 1 7 14.0 14.0 14.0 FACTORY WORKER 2 1 2.0 2.0 16.0 BUSINESS 3 15 30.0 30.0 46.0 PROFESSIONAL 4 6 12.0 12.0 58.0 PUBLIC SERVICE 5 12 24.0 24.0 82.0 OTHER WORK AND FARMING 6 7 14.0 14.0 96.0 HOUSEWIFE 7 1 2.0 2.0 98.0 8 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100. 0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------MARTIAL MARTIAL STATUS

VALID CUM

Appendix B. Frequencies 79 VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

MARRIED 1 42 84.0 84.0 84.0 SINGLE 2 2 4.0 4.0 88.0 DIVORCED 3 4 8.0 8.0 96.0 WIDOW /WIDOWER 4 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------CHILD NUMBER OF CHILDREN VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 NONE 1 3 6.0 6.0 10.0 1 2 10 20.0 20.0 30.0 2 3 16 32.0 32.0 62.0 3 4 10 20.0 20.0 82.0 4 5 6 12.0 12.0 94.0 6 7 1 2.0 2.0 96.0 7 OR MORE 8 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

CHILDLIV WHERE ARE CHILDREN LIVING VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 5 10.0 10.0 10.0 LIVE OUTSIDE OF COUNTY 1 14 28.0 28.0 38.0 IN THE HOME 2 17 34.0 34.0 72.0 OWN HOMES, IN COUNTY 3 3 6.0 6.0 78.0 HO~ES,IN AND OUT 4 5 10.0 10.0 88.0 AT HOME, OUT OF CO. 5 6 12.0 12.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

HOME HOME OWNERSHIP VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

Appendix B. Frequencies 80 0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 OWN 1 46 92.0 92.0 94.0 REt-.'T 2 1 2.0 2.0 96.0 OTHER 3 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------LAND HOW MUCH LAND IS HOME LOCATED ON?

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 < 1 ACRE 1 9 18.0 18.0 22.0 1 ACRE< 5 2 10 20.0 20.0 42.0 5 ACRES <15 3 6 12.0 12.0 54.0 15 ACRES< 50 4 8 16.0 16.0 70.0 50 ACRES 8 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

FARM FARM OR TOWN RESIDENCY

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

FARM 1 15 30.0 30.0 30.0 IN FARM AREA 2 23 46.0 46.0 76.0 IN OR NEAR TOWN 3 12 24.0 24.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------OTHERLAN OWN OTHER LAND IN COUNTY

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 YES 1 15 30.0 30.0 32.0 NO 2 34 68.0 68.0 100.0 ------

Appendix B. Frequencies 81 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------DACRES HOW MANY ACRES OF OTHER LAND

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 36 72.0 72.0 72.0 < 1 ACRE 1 4 8. 0 8.0 80.0 5 ACRES<15 3 2 4.0 4.0 84.0 15 ACRES<50 4 1 2.0 2.0 86.0 50 ACRES 8 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------OFUTURE FUTIJRE PLANS FOR OTHER LAND VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 36 72.0 72.0 72. 0 KEEP IN FAMILY 1 2 4.0 4.0 76.0 TAX BENEFITS 2 1 2.0 2.0 78.0 SELL FOR PROFIT 3 7 14.0 14.0 92.0 OWNER SATISFACTION 4 3 6.0 6.0 98.0 OTHER 5 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

SELL PLANS TO SELL PRESENT HOME/LAND VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 4 8. 0 8.0 8.0 YES 1 10 20.0 20.0 28.0 NO 2 36 72.0 72.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

Appendix B. Frequencies 82 WHYSELL WHY WOULD YOU SELL PRESENT HOME/LAND VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 40 80.0 80.0 80.0 FOR PROFIT 1 2 4.0 4.0 84.0 CANNOT MAINTAIN 2 3 6.0 6.0 90.0 MOVE 3 5 10.0 10.0 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

HAPPEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO PROPERTY IN FUTURE

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 3 6.0 6.0 6.0 REMAIN IN FAMILY 1 18 36.0 36.0 42.0 PART OF ESTATE 2 16 32.0 32.0 74.0 NO DIFFERENCE 3 9 18.0 18.0 92. 0 MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE 4 2 4.0 4.0 96.0 OTHER 5 1 2.0 2.0 98.0 7 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

MOVE WHERE DID NON-NATIVE MOVE FROM

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 28 56.0 56.0 56.0 NORTHEAST U.S. 1 6 12.0 12.0 68.0 SOlITHEAST U. S. 2 5 10.0 10.0 78.0 MIDWEST U. S. 3 1 2.0 2.0 80.0 NORTHWEST U.S. 4 1 2. 0 2.0 82.0 NEIGHBORING COUNTY 6 3 6.0 6.0 88.0 WITHIN VIRGINIA 7 6 12.0 12.0 100.0

TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

Appendix B. Frequencies 83 ------TYPECITY PLACE MOVED FROM, CITY, SUBURB ETC. ------

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 28 56.0 56.0 56.0 CITY 1 9 18.0 18.0 74.0 SUBURB 2 3 6.0 6. 0 80.0 S~tALL TOWN 3 7 14.0 14.0 94.0 COUNTRY 4 3 6.0 6.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------BROUGHT REASON FOR MOVING TO COUNTY

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 11 22.0 22.0 22.0 CITY PROBLEMS 1 1 2.0 2.0 24.0 ENVIRONMENT 2 1 2.0 2.0 26.0 ONE AND TWO 3 4 8.0 8.0 34.0 FAMILY TIES 4 17 34.0 34.0 68.0 BUSINESS 5 9 18.0 18.0 86.0 COMBINATION 6 7 14.0 14.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

SATISFY SATISFACTION WITH LIVING IN COUNTY

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 3 6. 0 6.0 6.0 VERY SATISFIED 1 38 76. CJ 76.0 82.0 SATISFIED 2 8 16.0 16.0 98.0 VERY UNSATISFIED 4 1 2. 0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------SATISFYC HAS SATISFACTION LEVEL CHANGED

VALID CUM

Appendix B. Frequencies 84 VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 0 30 60.0 60.0 60.0 YES, CHANGED BE1TER 1 10 20.0 20.0 80.0 YES, UNEXPECTED 2 4 8.0 8.0 88.0 NO CHANGED 3 6 12.0 12.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

SATISFYW WHY HAS SATISFACTION CHANGED? VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 0 37 74.0 74.0 74.0 UNWILLINGNESS 1 2 4.0 4.0 78.0 BECO~E INVOLVED 2 2 4.0 4.0 82.0 PEOPLE MORE ACCEPTING 3 5 10.0 10.0 92.0 BOTH 2 AND 3 4 2 4.0 4.0 96.0 HARDER WORK 5 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------SATISFYT TIME PERIOD WHEN SATISFACTION CHANGED VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 0 35 70.0 70.0 70.0 PAST 1-5 YEARS 1 3 6.0 6.0 76.0 PAST 10 YEARS 2 1 2.0 2.0 78.0 10 TO 20 YEARS AGO 3 1 2.0 2.0 80.0 WITHIN < 1 YEAR 4 4 8.0 8.0 88.0 1 YEAR, < 3 5 4 8.0 8. 0 96.0 3 YEARS < 5 6 1 2.0 2.0 98.0 10 OR MORE 8 1 2.0 2. 0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

GEN NUMBER OF FAMILY GENERATIONS IN COUNTY VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

Appendix B. Frequencies 85 0 21 42.0 42.0 42.0 2 2 2 4.0 4.0 46.0 3 3 8 16.0 16.0 62.0 4 4 10 20.0 20.0 82.0 5 5 4 8.0 8.0 90.0 6 OR MORE 6 5 10.0 10.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------TELLME WHAT WAS THE PAST LIKE IN COUNTY

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 20 40.0 40.0 40.0 CONNECTION WITH LAND 1 26 52.0 52.0 92.0 NO CONNECT! ON 2 2 4.0 4.0 96.0 OTHER 3 1 2.0 2.0 98.0 4 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

LIVING HOW DID PEOPLE MAKE A LIVING

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 17 34.0 34.0 34.0 OFF THE LAND 1 5 10.0 10.0 44.0 FACTORY WORK 3 1 2.0 2.0 46.0 FARMING AND FACTORY 4 9 18.0 18.0 64.0 FAIU1ING 5 18 36.0 36.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------SURVIVE DEPENDENCY ON LAND IN PAST

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 20 40.0 40.0 40.0 YES 1 28 56.0 56.0 96.0 NO 2 1 2. 0 2.0 98.0

Appendix B. Frequencies 86 4 1 2.0 2.0 100.0

TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

CLEARED MORE OR LESS CLEARED LAND VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 20 40.0 40.0 40.0 MORE 1 9 18.0 18.0 58.0 LESS 2 13 26.0 26.0 84.0 ABOUT THE SAME 3 8 16.0 16.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

LOOKS AREA CHANGED IN WAY IT LOOKS VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 18 36.0 36.0 36.0 YES 1 22 44.0 44.0 80.0 NO 2 9 18.0 18.0 98.0 4 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------CHANGED WAYS LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 19 38.0 38.0 38.0 MORE HOUSES 1 14 28.0 28.0 66.0 FARMS SUBDIVIDED 2 3 6.0 6.0 72. 0 LESS HOUSES BUT MORE 3 4 8.0 8.0 80.0 MORE FACTORIES 4 3 6.0 6.0 86.0 ABOUT THE SAME 5 5 10.0 10.0 96.0 LESS WATER 6 1 2.0 2.0 98.0 OTHER 7 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

Appendix B. Frequencies 87 ------MPEOPLE MORE PEOPLE MOVING INTO AREA VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 YES 1 44 88.0 88.0 92. 0 NO 2 4 8.0 8.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------HOUSES NEWCOMERS BUILDING HOMES OR BUYING VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 15 30.0 30.0 30.0 BUILDING NEW 1 12 24.0 24.0 54.0 BUYING OLD 2 1 2.0 2.0 56.0 EQUAL 3 22 44.0 44.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------RELATE RELATIONSHIP WITH NEWCOMERS OR NATIVES VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 4 8.0 8.0 8.0 GOOD 1 31 62.0 62.0 70.0 TYPICAL 2 10 20.0 20.0 90.0 NOT SO GOOD 3 1 2.0 2.0 92.0 LITTLE OR NO CONTACT 4 4 8.0 8.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

DEVELOP TYPE OF PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDED VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

Appendix B. Frequencies 88 MORE INDUSTRY 1 28 56.0 56.0 56.0 BEITER ROADS 2 3 6.0 6.0 62.0 NONE 3 8 16.0 16.0 78.0 IMPROVE EXISTING 4 6 12.0 12.0 90.0 PLACES FOR YOUTH 5 1 2.0 2.0 92.0 BETTER SANITATION FACILITIES 7 1 2.0 2.0 94.0 OTIIER 8 2 4.0 4.0 98.0 9 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

FACTORY FAVOR FACTORY OR FARMLAND

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 FACTORY 1 17 34.0 34.0 36.0 FARM 2 20 40.0 40.0 76.0 NO DIFFERENCE 3 2 4.0 4.0 80.0 ONLY CLEAN INDUSTRY 4 4 8.0 8.0 88.0 5 4 8.0 8.0 96.0 9 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------SKI FAVOR SKI RESORT OR LAND LEFT ALONE ------

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 1 2.0 2. 0 2.0 SKI RESORT 1 33 66.0 66.0 68.0 LEAVE AS IS 2 8 16.0 16.0 84.0 AREA NOT SUITED 3 3 6.0 6.0 90.0 OTHER 4 3 6.0 6.0 96.0 9 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

CONTROL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER PRIVATE LAND

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

Appendix B. Frequencies 89 YES 1 39 78.0 78.0 78.0 NO 2 10 20.0 20.0 98.0 9 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------ZONE FAVOR ZONING IN COUNTY VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

NO 1 11 22.0 22.0 22.0 YES 2 30 60.0 60.0 82.0 NEVER HAPPEN 3 5 10.0 10.0 92. 0 ONLY WHEN NEED ARISE 4 1 2.0 2.0 94.0 9 3 6.0 6.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------MRRA GOVERNMENT BUYING LAND FOR MRRA VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

AGAINST TAKING LAND 1 15 30.0 30.0 30.0 GOOD THING 2 21 42.0 42.0 72. 0 MIXED FEELINGS 3 10 20.0 20.0 92.0 9 4 8.0 8.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------BADUSE UNWISE USE OF LAND IN COUNTY VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

NONE 1 28 56.0 56.0 56.0 AGRICULTURE PRACTICES 2 9 18.0 18.0 74.0 UNATTENDED LAND 3 1 2.0 2.0 76.0 PROPOSED DAM 4 6 12.0 12.0 88.0 JUNK YARDS 5 1 2.0 2.0 90.0

Appendix B. Frequencies 90 GOV. BUYING LAND 6 1 2.0 2.0 92.0 OTHER 8 2 4.0 4.0 96.0 9 2 4.0 4.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------TYPEDEV OPPOSED WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 5 10.0 10.0 10.0 NONE 1 8 16.0 16.0 26.0 NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP 2 8 16.0 16.0 42.0 STRIP MINING 3 9 18. 0. 18.0 60.0 TIMBER PRACTICES 4 3 6.0 6.0 66.0 JUNK YARDS 5 3 6.0 6.0 72.0 STRIP DEVELOPMENT 6 5 10.0 10.0 82.0 OTHER 8 5 10.0 10.0 92.0 9 4 8.0 8.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------COURTH RESTORE OR REMOVE OLD COURTHOUSE

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 4 8.0 8.0 8.0 RESTORE 1 25 50.0 50.0 58.0 TEAR DOWN 2 8 16.0 16.0 74.0 UNDECIDED 3 5 10.0 10.0 84.0 RESTORE, BUT NO TAX 4 7 14.0 14.0 98.0 9 1 2. 0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0

COURTDEC COURTHOUSE ISSUE HAS TAKEN SO LONG?

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 5 10.0 10.0 10.0 SUPERVISOR DEADLOCK 1 11 22.0 22.0 32.0

Appendix B. Frequencies 91 SUPS WILL NOT DECIDE 2 13 26.0 26.0 58.0 ISSUE OF PUBLIC FUND 3 7 14.0 14.0 72. 0 BAD PLANNING 4 9 18.0 18.0 90.0 OTHER 5 2 4.0 4.0 94.0 9 3 6.0 6.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------PLACE FAVORITE PLACE IN COUNTY?

VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 NO PARTICULAR PLACE 1 2 4.0 4.0 6.0 GRAYSON HIGHLAND 2 12 24.0 24.0 30.0 NEW RIVER 3 3 6. 0 6.0 36.0 MANY + GRAY. H. PARK 4 10 20.0 20.0 56.0 PRIVATE LAND 5 8 16.0 16.0 72.0 COUNTY IN GENERAL 6 8 16.0 16.0 88.0 ELK CREEK 7 5 10.0 10.0 98.0 OTHER 8 1 2.0 2.0 100.0 ------TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 50 MISSING CASES 0 ------

Appendix B. Frequencies 92 APPENDIX C. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA SHEET

Biographical Data Sheet

Date: ____ Tape#__ _ Informant Group______

2. Mailing address: ______Town ______State_~

3. Section of County~------~Telephone.~------

4. Magisterial District------~

6. Highest educational level completed?~------

7. Are you presently employed, unemployed, retired, housewife or other?

8. What is/was your main occupation?~------

10. Do you have children and if so how many? ______~

11. Where are your children living now?~------

12. How long have you lived in Grayson County?

______months or years ------~all my life (more than 25 years)

13. Do you own your home, rent, or have other arrangements?

14. How much land is your home locate on?

15. Do you own any other land in this county?

yes or no

Appendix C. Biographical Data Sheet 93 16. If yes, how many acres?

17. If yes, what do you plan to do with this land in the future? ______

18. Do you think you might sell this (house/trailer) or part of your land in the next five years? ------~ 19. Why might you sell your house or tr,hiler or part of your land?

20. What do you think will happen to your property when you are no longer here? Do you think it will be inherited and used by your relatives, passed on to your relatives, but sold, sold to someone else, or don't have any idea?

Appendix C. Biographical Data Sheet 94 APPENDIX D. NATIVE INTERVIEW FORMAT

Native Resident Interview Format

I am trying to learn what this area was like many years ago and how people felt about living here. I would.like to learn from you, your feelings about the land here and if these feelings have changed any over the years. I would like to learn how you feel about new people coming into this area. Hy questions are fairly simple, but if you do not understand what I am saying, please ask me to explain it better. Because what you can tell me is very important to me, would you mind if I tape-recorded our conversation? (Get Release Signed) The first question I have is:

1. How many generations of your family have owned property in this County or where you now live?

2. Could you tell me what it was like living here in Grayson County in the days when you were growing up or when you were a young man/woman? How did you and others make a living then?

3. Has the area changed very much in the way it looks? Are there more or less houses, trailers, roads or other things?

4. Is there more or less cleared land now?

5. Would you agree that people depended a great deal on the land for their survival?

6. How satisfied are you with living here in Grayson County? Would you say you are very satisfied, just satisfied, not satisfied, or very unsatisfied? Why?

Appendix D. Native Interview Format 95 7. Have you noticed more people from different places moving near you?

8. If so are they buying old homes or building new ones?

9. Do you talk to the newcomers very much? What do they have to say? How would describe your relationship with the newcomers or natives?

10. What do you think this County needs as far as development and growth? More stores? Better roads? factories? more houses? or what?

11. What if there were two groups of people wanting to buy a large piece of land near you. One group wanted to put a factory there and another group wanted to keep the land as farmland and farm it. What would you like to see happen?

12. What if a large piece of land was for sale and a group from down in North Carolina wanted to build a ski resort on it like those around Boone. Another group of people thought the land should be left the way it is. What group would you favor?

13. Do you think there are ever any cases when the local government should have a say in how a person should use his or her land?

14. You know some counties use zoning to determine where different land uses such as farmland, factories, stores etc. should or should not be located. Would you favor zoning for this county?

Appendix D. Native Interview Format 96 15. What did you think about the government buying those people's houses and property and making it a part of the Mount Rogers Recreational Area?

16. Do you think there has been a bad or unwise use of land in Grayson County?

17. Is there a type of development or land use of the land that you would not like to see happen in Grayson County?

18. You know the old Independence Courthouse has caused quite a debate as to whether to restore it or tear it down or not. I was wondering, where do you stand on this issue?

19. Why do you think this issue has caused so long to decide?

20. Is there a particular place(s) near your home or anywhere in Grayson County that you think is very pretty and you enjoy going there? If so, where is this place? Could you describe this place to me?

Appendix D. Native Interview Format 97 APPENDIX E. NON-NATIVE INTERVIEW FORMAT

Non-native Resident Questionnaire

I am trying to learn what it is like for people to live in another area and then move to Grayson County. .I want to know what you like about living here. I want to know if living here is what you thought it would be before you moved here. Hy questions are fairly simple, but if you do not understand what I am saying, please ask me to explain it better. Because what you can tell me is very important to me, would you mind if I tape-recorded our conversation? (Get Release Signedl The first question I have is:

1. If you have not lived here all of your life where did you move here from?

2. Would you say that is a city, suburb, small town, or out in the country?

3. What brought you here to Grayson County?

4. How satisfied are you with living here? Would you say you are very satisfied, satisfied, not very satisfied, or very unsatisfied?

5. Would you say your satisfaction with living in Grayson County has changed after living here for a while? If so, how? Is it better or worst?

6. Why did your satisfaction about living here change?

7. When or how long after moving here would you say you satisfaction changed? Can you explain?

Appendix E. Non-native Interview Format 98 8. Do you talk to the older residents in your community? I mean the people that are native to Grayson County? How would you describe your relationship with them?

9. What do you think this County needs"as far as development and growth? More stores? Better roads? Factories? More houses? or What?

10. What if there were two groups of people wanting to buy a large piece of land next to you. One group wanted to put a factory there and another group wanted to keep the land as farmland and farm it. What would you like to see happen?

11. What if a large piece of land was for sale and a group from North Carolina wanted to build a ski resort on it like those around Boone. Another group of people thought the land should be left the way it is. What group would you favor? Why?

12. Do you think there are ever any cases when the local government should have a say in how a person should use his or her land?

13. You know some counties use zoning to determine where different land uses such as farmland, factories, stores, etc. should or should not be located. Would you favor some type of zoning for this County?

14. What did you think about the government buying those people's houses and property and making it a part of the Mount Rogers Recreational Area?

Appendix E. Non-native Interview Format 99 15. Do you think there has been a bad or unwise use of land in Grayson County?

16. Is there a type of development or other use of the land that you would not like to see happen in Grayson County?

17. You know the old Independence Courthouse has caused quite a debate as to whether or restore if or tear it down. I was wondering, where do you stand on this issue?

18. Is there a particular place(s) near your home or anywhere in Grayson County that you think is very pretty and you enjoy going there? If so, where is this place? Could you describe this place to me?

Appendix E. Non-native Interview Format 100 APPENDIX F. CODE BOOK

Questionnaire: Data Collection Form and Code Book

1. Hagdis Magisterial District?

0 = no response 1 = Wilson 2 = Elk Creek 3 = Providence 4 = Oldtown 9 = don't know

2. Nat Do you consider yourself a native or non-native?

0 = no response 1 = Native 2 = Non-native 9 = don't know

3. Ingr-oup Informative Group?

0 = no response 1 = Native only 2 = Non-native only 3 = Mover and Shaker 4 = Countercultural 5 = Retiree 6 = Summer/part-time resident 9 = don't know

4. Sex Sex:

0 = no response 1 = Male 2 = female 9 = don't know

5. Age Age:

0 = no response 1 = 0 - 28 2 = 29 - 35 3 = 36 - 42 4 = 43 - 49 5 = 50 - 55 6 = 56 - 62

Appendix F. Code Book 101 7 = 63 - 69 8 = 70 - 75 9 = 76 or higher 6. Length How long have you lived in Grayson County? 0 = no response 1 = < 1 year 2 = 1 year, but < 3 years 3 = 3 years, but < 5 years 4 = 5 years, but < 7 years 5 = 7 years, but < 10 years 6 = 10 years, but < 15 years 7 = 15 years, but < 25 years 8 = 25 years or more 9 = don't know

7. Ed Educational level - grade completed: 0 = no response 1 = 0 - 5 2 = 6 - 8 3 = 9 - 11 4 = 12 or high school diploma 5 = 1 - 2 year college 6 = 3 - Bachelor degree 7 = Masters degree 8 = Doctoral degree 9 = don't know 8. Employ Employment status:

0 = no response 1 = employed 2 = unemployed 3 = retired 4 = housewife or student 5 = public assistance 6 = self-employed 7 = other 0 = no response 9 = don't know 9. Occup What is/was your main occupation? (current or present)

0 = no response 1 = farmer 2 = factory worker 3 = business: real estate, banker, office or factory manager 4 = professional: attorney, pharmacist, engineer

Appendix F. Code Book 102 5 = public service: social services, education, police service 6 = other work and farming 7 = housewife 8 = other 9 = don't know

10. Martial Martial status? 0 = no response 1 = married 2 = single 3 = divorced 4 = widow/widower 5 = other 9 = don't know 11. child Do you have children and if so how many? 0 = no response 1 = none 2 = 1 3 = 2 4 = 3 5 = 4 6 = 5 7 = 6 8 = 7 or more 9 = don't know 12. childliv Where are your children living now? 0 = no response 1 = live outside of County 2 = in the home 3 = have own homes, but still in County 4 = have own homes, some in County and some moved out of area 5 = some at home, some out of County 6 = other 9 = don't know 13. Home Do you own your home, rent, or have other arrangements? 0 = no response 1 = own home 2 = rent 3 = other 9 = don't know 14. Land How much land is your home locate on?

Appendix F. Code Book 103 0 = no response 1 = < 1 acre 2 = 1 acre but < 5 acres 3 = 5 acres but < 15 acres 4 = 15 acres but < 50 acres 5 = 50 acres but < 100 acres 6 = 100 acres but < 200 acres 7 = 200 acres but < 350 acres 8 = 350 acres or more ~~~~- 9 = don't know

15. Farm Do you live on a farm, in farm area; but not a farm, residential area close to or in town? 0 = no response 1 = farm 2 = in farm area; but not a farm. 3 = residential area in or near town. 9 = don't know 16. Otherlan Do you own any other land in this county?

0 = no response 1 = yes 2 = no 9 = Don't know 17. Dacres If yes, how many acres? 0 = no response 1 = < 1 acre 2 = 1 acre, but < 5 acres 3 = 5 acres, but < 15 acres 4 = 15 acres, but < 50 acres 5 = 50 acres, but < 100 acres 6 = 100 acres, but < 200 acres 7 = 200 acres, but < 350 acres 8 = 350 acres or more 9 = don't know 18. Future If yes, what do you plan to do with this land in the future? 0 = no response 1 = keep and will to relatives 2 = keep for tax benefits 3 = would sell for profit 4 = keep for the satisfaction of owning land 5 = other 9 = don't know

Appendix F. Code Book 104 19. Sell Do you think you might sell or have you sold your house or trailer or part of your land within the next or past five years?

0 = no response 1 = yes 2 = no 9 =don't know

20. Whysell Why might you sell your house or trailer or part of your land?

0 = no response 1 = for profit 2 = cannot maintain, would rather sell to someone who would 3 = change or move to another location 4 = other 9 = don't know

21. Happen What do you think will happen to your property when you are no longer here?

0 = no response 1 = inherited by relatives but desires it to remain in family 2 = part of estate 3 = does not any difference 4 = sold to non-family and you move somewhere else 5 = other 9 = don't know Questions which do not pertain to informant are coded "O = no response."

22. Move If you have not lived here all of you life where did you move here from?

0 = no response 1 = Northeast United States 2 = Southeast United States 3 = Midwest United States 4 = Northwest United States 5 = Southeast United States 6 = Neighboring Counties to Grayson County, Virginia 7 = Within the State of Virginia 9 = don't know

23. Typecity Would you say that is a city, suburb, small town or out in the country?

0 = no response 1 = city 2 = suburb 3 = small town

Appendix F. Code Book 105 4 = country 5 = other 9 =don't know

24. Brought What brought you here to Grayson County or why have you stayed?

0 = no response 1 = Escape the problems of urban life 2 = climate, mountains and low-liensity of population 3 = both one and two 4 = family ties 5 = business opportunities 6 = combination of the above reasons 7 = other 9 = don't know

25. Satisfy How satisfied are you with living here? Would you say you are very satisfied, satisfied, not very satisfied, or very unsatisfied?

0 = no response 1 = very satisfied 2 = satisfied 3 = not very satisfied 4 = very unsatisfied 9 = don't know

26. Satisfyc Would you say your satisfaction with living in Grayson County has changed after living here for a while?

0 = no response 1 = yes, satisfaction has changed. It is better than expected. 2 = yes, satisfaction has changed. It is not what I expected. 3 = no, satisfaction has not changed 9 = don't know

27. Satisfyw Why did your satisfaction about living here change?

0 = no response 1 = Realized the people's unwillingness to accept change 2 = Wanted to become part of the community 3 = Native people are more accepting than expected. 4 = Both two and three above. 5 = Harder work than expected 6 = Other 9 = don't know

28. Satisfyt When or how long after moving here would you say you satisfaction changed?

Appendix F. Code Book 106 0 = no response 1 = within the past 1 to 5 years 2 = within the past 5 to 10 years 3 = 10 to 20 years ago 4 = after < 1 year 5 = 1 year, but < 3 years 6 = 3 years, but < 5 years 7 = 5 years, but < 10 years 8 = 10 or more years 9 =don't know

29. Gen How many generations of your family have lived in Grayson County?

0 = no response 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 6 = 6 9 = don't know

30. Tellme Could you tell me what it was like living here in Grayson County in the days when you were growing up or when you were a young man/woman?

0 = no response 1 = Mentioned a connection with the land in the past 2 = Did not mention a connection with the land in the past 3 = other~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9 = don't know

31. Living How did people make a living?

0 = no response 1 = Any way they could, but related to the land or agriculture. 2 = Business or professional 3 = factory work 4 = farming and factory work 5 = farming 6 = other~~~~~~~~~- 9 = don't know

32. survive In the past, would you agree that people depended more on the land for their survival?

0 = no response 1 = yes 2 = no

Appendix F. Code Book 107 3 = other~~~~~~~~~~- 9 = don't know

33. Clear-ed Is there more or less cleared land now than in the past or is it about the same? 0 = no response 1 = more cleared land 2 = less cleared land 3 = about the same 4 = other 9 = don't know 34. Looks Has the area changed in the way that it looks? 0 = no response 1 = yes 2 = no. Not a significant difference 9 = don't know 35. Changed In what ways has the landscape changed in the way it looks? 0 = no response 1 = More houses or residents 2 = Large farms have been subdivided 3 = less houses, but more forest 4 = more factories 5 = about the same 6 = less water 7 = other 9 = don't know 36. Mpeople Have you noticed more people from different places moving in near you? 0 = no response 1 = yes 2 = no 3 = other 9 = don't know 37. Houses If so, are these people building new homes or are they buying old existing homes? 0 = no response 1 = building new homes 2 = buying old existing homes 3 = about an equal number of each 4 = other 9 = don't know

Appendix F. Code Book 108 38. Relate How would you describe your relationship with the newcomers or natives?

0 = no response 1 = good 2 = typical 3 = not so good 4 = have little or no contact 9 = don't know

39. Develop What do you think this County needs as far as physical development? More stores? Better roads? factories? more houses? or what?

0 = no response 1 = more industry and better job opportunities 2 = better roads 3 = no physical development is needed 4 = improvement of existing development 5 = places for the young people to go. 6 = restaurants and places of non-native culture 7 = better sanitation facilities 8 = other (promotion of retirement facilities and tourism) 9 =don't know

40. Factory What if there were two groups of people wanting to buy a large piece of land next to your property. One group wanted to put a factory there and another group wanted to keep the land as farmland and farm it. What would you like to see happen?

0 = no response 1 = factory 2 = farm 3 = never be possible or makes no difference 4 = only clean industry permitted 9 =don't know

41. Ski What if a large piece of land was for sale and a group from North Carolina wanted to build a ski resort on it like those around Boone. Another group of people thought the land should be left the way it is? What group would you favor?

0 = no response 1 = ski resort 2 = land left as is 3 = area not suited for the development of a ski resort 4 = other 9 = don't know

Appendix F. Code Book 109 42. Control Do you think there are ever any cases when the local government should have a say in how a person should use his or her land?

0 = no response 1 = yes 2 = no 3 = other 9 = don I know

43. Zone You know some counties use zoning to determine where different land uses such as farmland, factories, stores etc. should or should not be located. Would you favor of some type of zoning for this county on a county-wide basis?

0 = no response 1 = no 2 = yes 3 = it would never happen County-wide 4 = only when the need arises 5 = other 9 = don't know

44. HRRA What did you think about the government buying those people's houses and property to create the Mount Rogers Recreational Area? 0 = no response 1 = against the taking of private land 2 = it was a good thing 3 = mixed feeling about this issue 9 = don' t know

45. Baduse Do you think there has been a bad or unwise use of land in Grayson County and if so, what has it been?

0 = no response 1 = not an overall bad use of land in Grayson County 2 = uses related to agriculture and conservation practices 3 = letting the land go unattended 4 = buying of land by APCO for the Blue Ridge Dam Project and then selling this unattended land. 5 = auto junk yards 6 = Government buying private homes and property for conservation 7 = sewer system practices 8 = other______~ 9 = don't know

Appendix F. Code Book 110 46. Typedev Is there a type of development or other use of the land that you would not like to see happen in Grayson County and if so what is it?

0 = no response 1 = none 2 = nuclear waste dump 3 = strip mining 4 = timber practices which strip the land 5 = auto junk yard and other solid waste disposals 6 = strip development and trailer parks 7 = combination of the above 8 = other 9 = don't know

47. Courth You know the old Independence Courthouse has caused quite a debate as to whether to tear it down or not. I was wondering, do you think it should be torn down or should it be restored?

0 = no response 1 =restore the old courthouse, even at taxpayer's expense 2 = tear down the old courthouse 3 = cannot come to a personal decision 4 = restore, but not at taxpayer's expense 5 = other 9 = don't know

48. Courtdec Why do you think this courthouse issue has taken so long to decide?

0 = no response 1 = only four Supervisors and they are deadlock 2 =Supervisors don't like to make decisions 3 = It is a money issue of restoring and maintaining the old courthouse at taxpayer's expense. 4 = The County made a decision to build a new courthouse before more a decision of what to do with the old one. 5 = other______~ 9 = don't know

49. Place Is there a particular place(s) near your home or anywhere in Grayson County that you think is very pretty and you enjoy going there to enjoy the scenery? If so, where is this place?

0 = no response 1 = no place in particular. 2 = Grayson Highlands State Park 3 = the New River 4 = Many places including Grayson Highlands State Park 5 = Private land owned by informant 6 = the County in general

Appendix F. Code Book 111 7 =Elk Creek - Binkerman's Falls area 8 = other______9 = don't know

Appendix F. Code Book 112 APPENDIX G. FIELD NOTE FORM

Rural Landscape Attitudes - Thesis Pro1er.t

FIELDNOT~S

Interviewed~~-~ecorded.~~~~P.hotographed~~-Filmed~~~~-Other~~~~~~~~~~~

Persons Present During Interview (Note relationship when possible)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prior Exposure (Had the person been intrviewed, filmed, photographed, recorded, etc. before? If so, when, by whom, and how do you think it affected this interview')

How did the interview progress? (Be specific about whether the person w~s relaxed, reluctant to talk, ect.)

Appendix G. Field Note Form 113 Sum111arize and exolain anv relevant information ohtained while the recorder was off

Detail vour personal obsei-vations and reactions about the person.the interview and any problems or sug~estions

Appendix G. Field Note Form 114 APPENDIX H. TAPE LOu FORM

RURAL LANDSCAPE ATTITUDES - THESIS P'l.OJECT

TAPE LOG

Tape Log

Name ______Infonnant Group~------~

Others present(Note relationship)

Location Date ------~ ------Interviewed by~------~Recorded by~------

Recorder used~------~Type of tape.______Recording speed.~-----~ Description of Recording (Check on from each line) Synchronous____ Wild sound______

Full Track_____ 2 Track____ Cassette ____ i, Track 1 way ____l,Track 2 ways___ _

Ouality of recording·------'Describe any interference.~------

Release Obtained~------~Transcribed by ------~Date~---

Spec ial Conditions for Use of Tape------~

Brief Summary Of Interview Contex and Tap Contents------~

Appendix H. Tape Log Form 115 ~~~------~~------~------DESCRIPTION/SUMMARY

Appendix H. Tape Log Form ~16 The two page vita has been removed from the scanned document.

Page 1of2 The two page vita has been removed from the scanned document.

Page 2of2