Native Alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality

There is no doubt that defining and measuring ‘rurality’ is problematic. In states such as Alaska on the western Pacific coast of the United States, more than two-thirds of the State is classified as ‘remote rural’. In 2000, despite only 10 per cent of the general Alaskan population living in these...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Sherval, Meg
Other Authors: The University of Newcastle. Faculty of Science & Information Technology, School of Environmental and Life Sciences
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2009
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/926965
id ftunivnewcastnsw:uon:10000
record_format openpolar
spelling ftunivnewcastnsw:uon:10000 2023-05-15T14:57:51+02:00 Native Alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality Sherval, Meg The University of Newcastle. Faculty of Science & Information Technology, School of Environmental and Life Sciences 2009 http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/926965 eng eng Elsevier Journal of Rural Studies Vol. 25, Issue 4, p. 425 - 434 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.05.005 arctic homelands native Alaskans rurality rural spaces remoteness sub-arctic sustainability journal article 2009 ftunivnewcastnsw 2018-07-27T00:16:12Z There is no doubt that defining and measuring ‘rurality’ is problematic. In states such as Alaska on the western Pacific coast of the United States, more than two-thirds of the State is classified as ‘remote rural’. In 2000, despite only 10 per cent of the general Alaskan population living in these regions, for more than 41 per cent of Alaskan Natives, these places represent their traditional homelands. These areas generically referred to as the ‘Alaskan bush’ are considered remote, isolated and distant by not only the rest of mainland United States, but also, by most urban Alaskans. Labelling these places thus, continues to reinforce and sustain the much recognised ‘rural–urban divide’ and in turn, influences top-down policy decisions which in Alaska tend to stereotype and pigeonhole regional development, rather than recognise reinterpretations of it. This paper therefore, considers how rurality is defined and measured in and by the State of Alaska and more broadly by the United States government. It questions whether these definitions are adequate descriptions of the realities on the ground and whether such labelling hinders growth, and economic and cultural survival. It also suggests that current interpretations of rurality need to be reconceptualised. Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Alaska NOVA: The University of Newcastle Research Online (Australia) Arctic Pacific
institution Open Polar
collection NOVA: The University of Newcastle Research Online (Australia)
op_collection_id ftunivnewcastnsw
language English
topic arctic
homelands
native Alaskans
rurality
rural spaces
remoteness
sub-arctic
sustainability
spellingShingle arctic
homelands
native Alaskans
rurality
rural spaces
remoteness
sub-arctic
sustainability
Sherval, Meg
Native Alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality
topic_facet arctic
homelands
native Alaskans
rurality
rural spaces
remoteness
sub-arctic
sustainability
description There is no doubt that defining and measuring ‘rurality’ is problematic. In states such as Alaska on the western Pacific coast of the United States, more than two-thirds of the State is classified as ‘remote rural’. In 2000, despite only 10 per cent of the general Alaskan population living in these regions, for more than 41 per cent of Alaskan Natives, these places represent their traditional homelands. These areas generically referred to as the ‘Alaskan bush’ are considered remote, isolated and distant by not only the rest of mainland United States, but also, by most urban Alaskans. Labelling these places thus, continues to reinforce and sustain the much recognised ‘rural–urban divide’ and in turn, influences top-down policy decisions which in Alaska tend to stereotype and pigeonhole regional development, rather than recognise reinterpretations of it. This paper therefore, considers how rurality is defined and measured in and by the State of Alaska and more broadly by the United States government. It questions whether these definitions are adequate descriptions of the realities on the ground and whether such labelling hinders growth, and economic and cultural survival. It also suggests that current interpretations of rurality need to be reconceptualised.
author2 The University of Newcastle. Faculty of Science & Information Technology, School of Environmental and Life Sciences
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Sherval, Meg
author_facet Sherval, Meg
author_sort Sherval, Meg
title Native Alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality
title_short Native Alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality
title_full Native Alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality
title_fullStr Native Alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality
title_full_unstemmed Native Alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality
title_sort native alaskan engagement with social constructions of rurality
publisher Elsevier
publishDate 2009
url http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/926965
geographic Arctic
Pacific
geographic_facet Arctic
Pacific
genre Arctic
Alaska
genre_facet Arctic
Alaska
op_relation Journal of Rural Studies Vol. 25, Issue 4, p. 425 - 434
10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.05.005
_version_ 1766329959415021568