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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
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 |