Approaching the interplay between social stability and social change as a complex network of “development pathways” and the routes people and communities take as their “livelihood journeys,” this Rural Sociological Society Presidential Address explores how information and communication technologies (ICTs) influence our capabilities to choose and navigate where to go and how to get there. Access and the literacy and skills needed for effective and safe use of ICTs are increasingly influential factors for livelihoods in the so‐called digital age, impacting wellbeing and resilience. Rural‐focused social scientists can help to inform livelihood journeys, especially by asking questions about the interplay between ICTs and social inclusion to involve often‐overlooked spatial dimensions at the local and regional levels. Doing so will require dialogue, discernment, and active engagement on the topics we explore, the research methods we employ, and incorporation of the experiences, needs, and desires of rural people and places in policies and programs. As a professional association built on diverse scholarly traditions yet rooted in a shared interest for practical application for the benefit of often excluded people and places, the Rural Sociological Society has important roles to play in the digital age.
{"title":"Rural Development in the Digital Age: Exploring Information and Communication Technology through Social Inclusion☆","authors":"John J. Green","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12542","url":null,"abstract":"Approaching the interplay between social stability and social change as a complex network of “development pathways” and the routes people and communities take as their “livelihood journeys,” this Rural Sociological Society Presidential Address explores how information and communication technologies (ICTs) influence our capabilities to choose and navigate where to go and how to get there. Access and the literacy and skills needed for effective and safe use of ICTs are increasingly influential factors for livelihoods in the so‐called digital age, impacting wellbeing and resilience. Rural‐focused social scientists can help to inform livelihood journeys, especially by asking questions about the interplay between ICTs and social inclusion to involve often‐overlooked spatial dimensions at the local and regional levels. Doing so will require dialogue, discernment, and active engagement on the topics we explore, the research methods we employ, and incorporation of the experiences, needs, and desires of rural people and places in policies and programs. As a professional association built on diverse scholarly traditions yet rooted in a shared interest for practical application for the benefit of often excluded people and places, the Rural Sociological Society has important roles to play in the digital age.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141097974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thirty years ago, rural Americans got married and had children at significantly younger ages than urban Americans. More recent data indicate that these differences persist today, but our understanding of what drives these differences remains limited. To address this gap, we (1) generate Kaplan–Meier estimates of the ages of the first marriage, first union, and first birth among those who lived in rural and urban areas in 2019, (2) evaluate the extent to which rural–urban differences in the timing of family formation reflect selective migration, (3) assess whether rural–urban differences in childhood SES and demographic characteristics further explain differences in timing, and (4) explore rural–urban differences by gender. We find substantial 4.3, 3.8, and 5.1‐year gaps in the ages at which rural and urban women marry, start unions, and become parents, respectively. These gaps largely do not reflect selective migration. Differences in women's age of first birth are attributable to differences in childhood conditions, yet differences in marital and union timing remain unexplained. Rural–urban gaps in the timing of family formation are much larger among women than among men. These patterns of early family formation in rural America have critical implications for families' and children's well‐being as well as rural depopulation.
{"title":"Early Family Formation, Selective Migration, and Childhood Conditions in Rural America☆","authors":"Matthew M. Brooks, Shelley Clark","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12541","url":null,"abstract":"Thirty years ago, rural Americans got married and had children at significantly younger ages than urban Americans. More recent data indicate that these differences persist today, but our understanding of what drives these differences remains limited. To address this gap, we (1) generate Kaplan–Meier estimates of the ages of the first marriage, first union, and first birth among those who lived in rural and urban areas in 2019, (2) evaluate the extent to which rural–urban differences in the timing of family formation reflect selective migration, (3) assess whether rural–urban differences in childhood SES and demographic characteristics further explain differences in timing, and (4) explore rural–urban differences by gender. We find substantial 4.3, 3.8, and 5.1‐year gaps in the ages at which rural and urban women marry, start unions, and become parents, respectively. These gaps largely do not reflect selective migration. Differences in women's age of first birth are attributable to differences in childhood conditions, yet differences in marital and union timing remain unexplained. Rural–urban gaps in the timing of family formation are much larger among women than among men. These patterns of early family formation in rural America have critical implications for families' and children's well‐being as well as rural depopulation.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141096536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While a substantial body of literature has been built on rural well‐being, due to the great heterogeneity of rural territories, the literature is highly fragmented, even contradictory. Moreover, no systematic review of the entire domain exists to guide rural decision‐makers. Debated conceptualization, contradicting results, and pressing policy requirements make it timely to deliver a systematized state‐of‐the‐art on rural well‐being to anchor public policies in the rural development domain. By systematically reviewing the scholarly literature on rural well‐being and all documents developed by government and private entities that academia highlighted as relevant to this subject, the study provides a bibliometric and thematic analysis of the domain without a time limit. Thirty‐three rural well‐being dimensions and over 9,000 indicators within these dimensions have been identified, their interconnections established and their relevance to international development goals highlighted. The study presents the structure and content of this indicator database and provides suggestions for rural researchers and policymakers on how to use it to build their own well‐being framework. It also provides an overview of each rural well‐being dimension by discussing the key theories, the main inconsistencies, the most relevant studies and authors, the fundamental measurement frameworks, and the indicators used.
{"title":"What Is Rural Well‐Being and How Is It Measured? An Attempt to Order Chaos*","authors":"Vanda Veréb, Carla Marques, Livia Madureira, Carlos Marques, Tigran Keryan, Rui Silva","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12536","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12536","url":null,"abstract":"While a substantial body of literature has been built on rural well‐being, due to the great heterogeneity of rural territories, the literature is highly fragmented, even contradictory. Moreover, no systematic review of the entire domain exists to guide rural decision‐makers. Debated conceptualization, contradicting results, and pressing policy requirements make it timely to deliver a systematized state‐of‐the‐art on rural well‐being to anchor public policies in the rural development domain. By systematically reviewing the scholarly literature on rural well‐being and all documents developed by government and private entities that academia highlighted as relevant to this subject, the study provides a bibliometric and thematic analysis of the domain without a time limit. Thirty‐three rural well‐being dimensions and over 9,000 indicators within these dimensions have been identified, their interconnections established and their relevance to international development goals highlighted. The study presents the structure and content of this indicator database and provides suggestions for rural researchers and policymakers on how to use it to build their own well‐being framework. It also provides an overview of each rural well‐being dimension by discussing the key theories, the main inconsistencies, the most relevant studies and authors, the fundamental measurement frameworks, and the indicators used.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140910667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Markets on the Margins: Mineworkers, Job Creation and Enterprise Development, by K.Philip, James Currey, Suffolk: Woodbridge, 2018.","authors":"Jennifer Rachels","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12523","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140196119","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kathleen A. Fox, Kayleigh A. Stanek, Leonard Mukosi, Christopher Sharp, Valaura Imus-Nahsonhoya
For generations, Indigenous communities have been calling attention to a widespread form of victimization known as Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples (MMIP). In response to grassroots efforts across rural communities, there has been a marked increase in legislation at the federal and state levels to address MMIP from 2018 to the present. Federal legislation has provided the most comprehensive and coordinated model of response to MMIP. This study analyzes how the scope and themes of federal legislation addressing MMIP are mirrored in the bills recently enacted by 14 states addressing MMIP. One goal of this study is to identify strengths and limitations within state legislation and provide insight into critical areas of focus for improving state legislative responses to MMIP. Next, we analyze reports from federal MMIP legislation and the 10 states (among the 14 with legislation) that have currently published MMIP reports to date. Our analysis of MMIP reports expands knowledge on (1) how data were collected and interpreted across jurisdictions, and (2) whether states experience MMIP in similar or different ways. Drawing on our comparative analysis of legislation and reports across jurisdictions, we offer data-driven recommendations for states to consider when addressing MMIP.
{"title":"A Systematic Analysis of Statewide Reports on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples in the U.S.: What We Know and Where to Go from Here☆","authors":"Kathleen A. Fox, Kayleigh A. Stanek, Leonard Mukosi, Christopher Sharp, Valaura Imus-Nahsonhoya","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12531","url":null,"abstract":"For generations, Indigenous communities have been calling attention to a widespread form of victimization known as Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples (MMIP). In response to grassroots efforts across rural communities, there has been a marked increase in legislation at the federal and state levels to address MMIP from 2018 to the present. Federal legislation has provided the most comprehensive and coordinated model of response to MMIP. This study analyzes how the scope and themes of federal legislation addressing MMIP are mirrored in the bills recently enacted by 14 states addressing MMIP. One goal of this study is to identify strengths and limitations within state legislation and provide insight into critical areas of focus for improving state legislative responses to MMIP. Next, we analyze reports from federal MMIP legislation and the 10 states (among the 14 with legislation) that have currently published MMIP reports to date. Our analysis of MMIP reports expands knowledge on (1) how data were collected and interpreted across jurisdictions, and (2) whether states experience MMIP in similar or different ways. Drawing on our comparative analysis of legislation and reports across jurisdictions, we offer data-driven recommendations for states to consider when addressing MMIP.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140069827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Self‐employed individuals faced numerous challenges amid the global health and economic crisis that was the COVID‐19 pandemic. Similarly, rural and urban workers faced different challenges during the pandemic. This rural–urban disparity further complicates the impacts of self‐employment and exacerbates inequalities resulting from gender, race, ethnicity, or immigration status. This study examines the economic consequences of the COVID‐19 pandemic across these categories in the United States using Current Population Survey data from May 2020 to May 2022. Comparing the wage and self‐employment sectors across rural and urban areas, I examine the effects of individual, business, and geographic characteristics on the probability of work stoppages due to the health crisis. The analysis reveals that recovery from the pandemic was delayed among the self‐employed, while additional education and full‐time employment status can reduce work interruptions for these workers, as does working in select industries. Findings suggest that rural and urban minorities are more likely to face pandemic‐related work disruptions, with key differences between formal and informal self‐employment sectors. Specifically, self‐employed Asians/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans were more adversely affected in rural areas. The study concludes with several policy and program recommendations to assist vulnerable workers, especially in the rural self‐employment sector.
{"title":"Self‐Employment, the COVID‐19 Pandemic, and the Rural–Urban Divide in the United States☆","authors":"Samuel C. H. Mindes","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12534","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12534","url":null,"abstract":"Self‐employed individuals faced numerous challenges amid the global health and economic crisis that was the COVID‐19 pandemic. Similarly, rural and urban workers faced different challenges during the pandemic. This rural–urban disparity further complicates the impacts of self‐employment and exacerbates inequalities resulting from gender, race, ethnicity, or immigration status. This study examines the economic consequences of the COVID‐19 pandemic across these categories in the United States using Current Population Survey data from May 2020 to May 2022. Comparing the wage and self‐employment sectors across rural and urban areas, I examine the effects of individual, business, and geographic characteristics on the probability of work stoppages due to the health crisis. The analysis reveals that recovery from the pandemic was delayed among the self‐employed, while additional education and full‐time employment status can reduce work interruptions for these workers, as does working in select industries. Findings suggest that rural and urban minorities are more likely to face pandemic‐related work disruptions, with key differences between formal and informal self‐employment sectors. Specifically, self‐employed Asians/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans were more adversely affected in rural areas. The study concludes with several policy and program recommendations to assist vulnerable workers, especially in the rural self‐employment sector.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140043675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Julia K. Petersen, Richelle L. Winkler, Miranda H. Mockrin
Media stories highlighted accounts of migration away from city centers towards more rural destinations during the COVID‐19 pandemic, but systematic research about how the pandemic changed migration in more rural destinations is only starting to emerge. This paper relies on U.S. Postal Service change‐of‐address data to describe whether and how established domestic migration systems changed during the COVID‐19 pandemic, focusing on differences across the rural–urban gradient and by outdoor recreation resources. We find little evidence of massive urban exodus. We do find that out‐migration from rural counties declined post‐pandemic onset and has stayed low in the 3 years since, stemming the tide of net population loss in many rural places. Most rural counties that experienced net population loss prior to the pandemic saw either less net loss or net gains during the pandemic. Rural recreation counties experienced greater gains through both decreased out‐migration and increased in‐migration in the first year of the pandemic; but by year three, differences between rural recreation and non‐recreation counties had balanced. Overall, counties across Rural America saw notable change to pre‐pandemic migration patterns. This shift may benefit rural areas through long‐term population stability and/or growth but might also exacerbate housing and childcare shortages.
{"title":"Changes to Rural Migration in the COVID‐19 Pandemic☆","authors":"Julia K. Petersen, Richelle L. Winkler, Miranda H. Mockrin","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12530","url":null,"abstract":"Media stories highlighted accounts of migration away from city centers towards more rural destinations during the COVID‐19 pandemic, but systematic research about how the pandemic changed migration in more rural destinations is only starting to emerge. This paper relies on U.S. Postal Service change‐of‐address data to describe whether and how established domestic migration systems changed during the COVID‐19 pandemic, focusing on differences across the rural–urban gradient and by outdoor recreation resources. We find little evidence of massive urban exodus. We do find that out‐migration from rural counties declined post‐pandemic onset and has stayed low in the 3 years since, stemming the tide of net population loss in many rural places. Most rural counties that experienced net population loss prior to the pandemic saw either less net loss or net gains during the pandemic. Rural recreation counties experienced greater gains through both decreased out‐migration and increased in‐migration in the first year of the pandemic; but by year three, differences between rural recreation and non‐recreation counties had balanced. Overall, counties across Rural America saw notable change to pre‐pandemic migration patterns. This shift may benefit rural areas through long‐term population stability and/or growth but might also exacerbate housing and childcare shortages.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139945373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Evictions are commonplace in the United States, and their negative consequences are broad and severe. However, research on evictions to date has focused primarily on urban areas, and thus has not addressed the impact evictions have on rural renters. This paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of evictions in rural communities, where the number of renters has been increasing in recent decades. We use Eviction Lab's national eviction database to study the approximately 220,000 evictions filed in rural counties each year. While the majority of rural evictions affect families with a white head of household (57 percent in 2010), eviction filing rates are four times higher among rural Black renters than among rural white renters. Eviction filing rates are highest in heavily Black counties in the rural southeast. While eviction filings are somewhat lower in rural majority‐Hispanic counties, these communities experience low‐quality informal housing and overcrowding. Eviction rates are also higher in rural counties with higher rent burdens and where more households include children.
{"title":"Eviction and the Rental Housing Crisis in Rural America☆","authors":"C. Gershenson, Matthew Desmond","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12528","url":null,"abstract":"Evictions are commonplace in the United States, and their negative consequences are broad and severe. However, research on evictions to date has focused primarily on urban areas, and thus has not addressed the impact evictions have on rural renters. This paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of evictions in rural communities, where the number of renters has been increasing in recent decades. We use Eviction Lab's national eviction database to study the approximately 220,000 evictions filed in rural counties each year. While the majority of rural evictions affect families with a white head of household (57 percent in 2010), eviction filing rates are four times higher among rural Black renters than among rural white renters. Eviction filing rates are highest in heavily Black counties in the rural southeast. While eviction filings are somewhat lower in rural majority‐Hispanic counties, these communities experience low‐quality informal housing and overcrowding. Eviction rates are also higher in rural counties with higher rent burdens and where more households include children.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139835171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Evictions are commonplace in the United States, and their negative consequences are broad and severe. However, research on evictions to date has focused primarily on urban areas, and thus has not addressed the impact evictions have on rural renters. This paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of evictions in rural communities, where the number of renters has been increasing in recent decades. We use Eviction Lab's national eviction database to study the approximately 220,000 evictions filed in rural counties each year. While the majority of rural evictions affect families with a white head of household (57 percent in 2010), eviction filing rates are four times higher among rural Black renters than among rural white renters. Eviction filing rates are highest in heavily Black counties in the rural southeast. While eviction filings are somewhat lower in rural majority‐Hispanic counties, these communities experience low‐quality informal housing and overcrowding. Eviction rates are also higher in rural counties with higher rent burdens and where more households include children.
{"title":"Eviction and the Rental Housing Crisis in Rural America☆","authors":"C. Gershenson, Matthew Desmond","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12528","url":null,"abstract":"Evictions are commonplace in the United States, and their negative consequences are broad and severe. However, research on evictions to date has focused primarily on urban areas, and thus has not addressed the impact evictions have on rural renters. This paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of evictions in rural communities, where the number of renters has been increasing in recent decades. We use Eviction Lab's national eviction database to study the approximately 220,000 evictions filed in rural counties each year. While the majority of rural evictions affect families with a white head of household (57 percent in 2010), eviction filing rates are four times higher among rural Black renters than among rural white renters. Eviction filing rates are highest in heavily Black counties in the rural southeast. While eviction filings are somewhat lower in rural majority‐Hispanic counties, these communities experience low‐quality informal housing and overcrowding. Eviction rates are also higher in rural counties with higher rent burdens and where more households include children.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139775793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While research shows the potential benefits of local food systems to improve community economy and quality of life, there is a critique that these studies overlook how informal, non market food access practices contribute to local food systems, especially in rural places. McEntee promoted the concepts of traditional and contemporary localism in his work with rural food systems, arguing that the motivations of participants define the categories. Using narrative research with wild harvesters in the Ozark Highlands, we propose that while McEntee's definitions are useful for expanding the conversation about why people may choose local food or not, more efforts should focus on valuing and welcoming the broader intersection of priorities and strategies that people use to engage in local food systems in their communities. Promoting a wider portfolio of local food access strategies is important to communicate that there are a variety of ways to participate in localized food systems, some in regular market transactions and some in informal non‐market ways, and that all are potentially valuable in building sustainable food systems in rural areas.
{"title":"Testing and Expanding the Concept of Traditional and Contemporary Localism in Rural Local Food Systems with Ozark Wild Harvesters☆","authors":"S. Massengale, Mary Hendrickson","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12532","url":null,"abstract":"While research shows the potential benefits of local food systems to improve community economy and quality of life, there is a critique that these studies overlook how informal, non market food access practices contribute to local food systems, especially in rural places. McEntee promoted the concepts of traditional and contemporary localism in his work with rural food systems, arguing that the motivations of participants define the categories. Using narrative research with wild harvesters in the Ozark Highlands, we propose that while McEntee's definitions are useful for expanding the conversation about why people may choose local food or not, more efforts should focus on valuing and welcoming the broader intersection of priorities and strategies that people use to engage in local food systems in their communities. Promoting a wider portfolio of local food access strategies is important to communicate that there are a variety of ways to participate in localized food systems, some in regular market transactions and some in informal non‐market ways, and that all are potentially valuable in building sustainable food systems in rural areas.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139780610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：