The Effect of Turnaround Migration on the Rural Landscape: A study o~ Grayson county, Virginia by 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 in 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 by 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 metro- politan 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 commu- nity. 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 con- cepts 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 consid- ering land use in the rural landscape. In too many cases growth is en- couraged 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 own- ership 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 con- sideration 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.