A quantitative assessment of spatial patterns of socio-demographic change in coastal Maine: one process or many?

Highlights

• We provide comparative and quantitative analysis of coastal amenity migration.

• Coastal and noncoastal region shows distinctive differences in demographic, social-economic profile.

• South-north spatial gradient exists in social economic development.

• Cross scale interactions may influence amenity migration identification.

• Metrics of amenity migration is spatially dependent.

Abstract

Coastal regions are experiencing socio-demographic shifts that have local, regional, and even wider implications for coastal management and planning. These shifts can arise from different local geographic drivers. This paper considers different change processes and undertakes a quantitative analysis to investigate potential drivers and geographic variations in coastal change processes. We use coastal Maine as the study region and employ multivariate methods using American Community Survey 5-year estimate period data. We first address the question: is there a coastal effect? Secondly, we conduct a cluster analysis to identify spatial variations in processes that may be at work over the extent of the coast. Thirdly, we conduct a change analysis to identify where socio-economic and demographic shifts are occurring most rapidly. Our analysis contributes to the understanding of comparative and quantitative analysis of change processes in a coastal setting that may be variously categorized as amenity migration, counterurbanization, suburbanization, or touristification depending on geographic context. Comparative results show clear separation between coastal and non-coastal communities on several individual indicators. The K-means cluster analysis reveals multivariate differentiation among the group of coastal communities. The ranked change analysis indicates differentiation among the coastal group, pointing toward potential differentiation in processes driving these changes.

Introduction

Coastal regions around the globe are experiencing socio-demographic shifts and a number of coastal community case studies (Gurran, 2008; Colburn & Jepson, 2012; Thompson et al., 2016; Collins, 2013) have grappled with how to conceptualize these change processes. Should they be understood as gentrification or some other process? In rural regions, including coastal regions, such shifts have been variously described (Abrams & Bliss, 2013; Phillips, 2005) as rural gentrification, rural restructuring, counterurbanization or exurbanization, suburbanization, coastal gentrification, amenity migration and even touristification. What we might surmise is that no single conceptualization for non-metropolitan coastal regions applies and that different forms and drivers are operating within different geographic settings.

Rural gentrification processes, associated with re-use, adaptation and redevelopment of agricultural, industrial and residential properties by in-migrants (Phillips, 2002), have invoked analogies to concepts from urban gentrification with different twists. In place of cultural and economic draws of gentrifying urban environments, open spaces, scenic landscapes, and recreational opportunities are seen as rural gentrification draws. Undercapitalized land in urban settings arising from disinvestment in the historic built environment translates to availability of undeveloped or underutilized land in a rural context (Collins, 2013). Collins (2013) notes that changes to New Zealand's coast have been interpreted as a rural gentrification process but argues it may be better characterized as a suburbanization process. Displacement has been cited as a key characteristic of urban (Clark, 2004; Lees et al., 2013; Shaw, 2008) and rural gentrification (Stockdale, 2010) and it appears in Colburn and Jepson’s (2012) characterization of coastal gentrification, described as an in-migration of new higher income residents (frequently retirees) seeking shorefront property for its amenities, leading to increased land values and displacement of resource-dependent activities from the waterfront. The displacement in this context is not so much about persons from a location as a way of life.

Rural gentrification has, in turn, been closely tied to patterns of counterurbanization, a phenomenon described as being driven by increasing residential mobility, countryside lifestyle preferences, and highly educated, qualified and affluent migrants (Stockdale, 2010). Woods (2011) characterized counterurbanization as a type of amenity migration with global connotations that broadly covers coastal and mountain areas, and essentially any ‘idyllic’ pastoral landscapes. Amenity migration in turn has been described as a movement of people drawn to natural amenity regions resulting in significant changes in the ownership, use, and governance of rural lands, as well as composition and socioeconomic dynamics of rural communities(Gosnell & Abrams, 2011). Gurran (2008) describes amenity migration as being driven by an aging population, technological developments in telecommunications and transportation, and a growing cultural orientation towards leisure and lifestyle in western societies. Another term, rural restructuring has been associated with transitions from productive industries like agriculture, forestry, and fishing to service and consumption-based industries relating to leisure, tourism, retail, and personal care. Gurran (2008) in discussing Australia's coastal migration movement suggests it is less about rural restructuring and more a new type of urbanization that is creating new centers close to large metropolitan areas, in scenically attractive areas, or in places with tourist potential. A tourist dimension to the phenomena has also been addressed. Hines (2010) characterizes a class of rural gentrifiers as ”permanent tourists”. Touristification, as discussed by Ojeda and Kieffer (2020) and described by Jansen-Verbeke (2009) has global drivers but local manifestations that transform host territories, promote new ways of using space and modify cultural landscapes and the socio-economic profile of the tourism destination. Clearly these terms share some conceptual overlap but what many studies note is the need to recognize nuance of process relative to geographic context (Darling, 2005).

Coastal Maine, widely recognized for its scenic beauty, attracts tourists, seasonal residents, and longer-term residents desiring to own property with scenic views or access to the coast. Given its natural aesthetic quality, noticeable socio-demographic shifts in this setting have been most closely associated with amenity migration (Thompson et al., 2016). In this study we examine this coastal setting and investigate spatial variation in socio-economic change processes along its extent. While its scenic quality makes it a target for amenity migration or touristification, these are not necessarily the sole drivers along the length of the coast. Prior coastal studies (Collins, 2013; Gurran, 2008) note that single conceptualizations are often not appropriate. Gurran (2008) in fact defines different coastal community categories based on population and distance from urban centers to help characterize different change patterns. In this study we apply a quantitative analysis using census data to first address the question: is there a coastal effect? i.e., do coastal towns appear to be experiencing different socio-economic changes than their adjacent interior neighbors. Secondly, through a quantitative comparative and cluster analysis we seek to understand spatial variations in the process that may be at work over the extent of the coast. Thirdly, we apply a change analysis to identify where amenity migration indicators are occurring most rapidly.

Quantitative approaches to any socio-demographic change phenomena using census data have been critiqued on the grounds that they lack sufficient detail for a nuanced analysis (Bostic & Martin, 2003; Hammel & Wyly, 1996). However, socio-economic and demographic trends can be associated with measurable changes in census variables and multivariate methods can be applied to capture variable interactions (Folch et al., 2016). While recognizing that a study based solely on census data analysis may lack some subtlety, it allows an analysis across a broader regional scale relative to more common qualitative observational case studies limited to small subsets of communities. This paper contributes to investigation of spatial patterning in coastal socio-economic and demographic trends by examining evidence of spatial variation in amenity migration indicators along the entire Maine coast.