Commentary: Special issue of GeoJournal on Amenity Migration, Exurbia, and Emerging Rural Landscapes

The series of sessions at the 2007 AAG in Chicago and this special issue of GeoJournal that they have spawned reflect a growing excitement surrounding rural dynamics among North American geographers. When I initially began exploring rural restructuring in the early 1990s, I was forced to draw heavily on theorizations of rural change derived from the UK context, and this was especially true for theorizations of class dynamics implicated within processes of rural change. Rural spaces and the processes that transform them are geographically heterogeneous, so this exciting and excited group of young scholars working within rural North America is particularly encouraging given the need to explore these topics in different geographic contexts. The series of papers presented in these sessions sparked many thoughts, but my comments below are limited to three substantive themes that I see as needing further clarity and/or exploration: better definitions of ‘amenity’ and ‘exurbia’; greater connections between work conducted at varying spatial scales; research on amenity migration with a greater sensitivity to racial/ethnic differences. First, the terms ‘amenity’ and ‘exurbia’ require definitions with greater clarity and breadth. I particularly like Peter Walker’s (Walker et al. 2006; Walker 2009) typology of exurbia (considering the varied impacts of the transition from resource use to ruralresidential use). His typology acknowledges that exurbia is a spatially moving target. Exurban growth in the Western United States is considerably different from exurban growth in New England, because the urban landscapes are so different in those places. Geographers are particularly well-suited to provide this needed clarity because of our sensitivity the spatial variations. In a similar vein, ‘amenities’ is poorly defined. A large volume of empirical work has employed the USDA’s natural amenities index, yet this index leaves many regions, such as New England, void of any natural amenities. However, if you ask most residents of New England about their region’s natural landscape, they would celebrate the fall foliage, the four-season climate, and access to public lands and mountains. For many residents across any number of regions, natural amenities are in the ‘eye of the beholder.’ Furthermore, we too quickly shift from a discussion of amenities to a discussion of ‘natural’ amenities. Amenity migrants are likely to be simultaneously responding to perceptions of natural as well as social amenities when they move to the countryside and contribute to exurban growth. Therefore, we need more robust and nuanced understanding of these terms. My second comment revolves around the importance of geographic scale in work examining issues of P. B. Nelson (&) Department of Geography, Middlebury College, McCardell Bicentennial Hall 313, Middlebury, VT 05753, USA e-mail: pbnelson@middlebury.edu