Creative Solutions are Key for Rural Participation in Environmental Policy

Rural Americans have a tremendous stake in both the economy and environmental health and conservation. Rural areas account for 97 percent of the United States’ land mass, encompassing most of the country’s natural resources and, in 2015 alone, American farmers contributed $136.7 billion to the U.S. economy. But despite their substantial reliance on natural resources and interest in conservation, rural voters often feel at odds with many proposed federal environmental policies.

This opposition is not for lack of environmental concern. According to a study from the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, rural Americans are just as committed to environmental issues as their urban counterparts: over 70 percent of both groups reported that environmental issues were “very important.”

The study, led by executive in residence Robert Bonnie, explores the rural-urban voter divide on environmental issues by surveying rural attitudes towards the environment and conservation in an effort to fully understand why rural voters often oppose environmental policies.

“Rural voters are actually quite clear about the fact that they place the environment over economic growth,” Bonnie said. “Where the division really comes apparent is when you talk about government policy, particularly as it relates to the federal government. Rural voters are less trustful of government oversight and regulation around the environment.”

According to Bonnie, this skepticism toward federal environmental regulations and programs stems from a history of sweeping environmental policies that have failed to meet the needs of rural communities. Rural voters feel that they are rarely consulted in the environmental policymaking process, further eroding their trust in the federal government.

“In our interviews with rural stakeholders, there’s this real hunger and thirst to engage on these issues,” Bonnie said. “It’s not that they don’t want to be at the table—they actually do—but there is a sense that their voices haven’t been heard very well and that the policy toolbox that has been put forward around many of these issues doesn’t fit well with them.”

The study outlines the need for creative approaches to federal legislation that empowers state and local governments to craft environmental policies that both urban and rural voters can approve of. Mary Sketch, a program associate at the Center for Rural Strategies, supports this solution and believes that state and local partnerships should be built into federal environmental policy.

“Stakeholders need to be at the table, their interests and concerns need to be heard and addressed, and it needs to be a two-way street of communication,” Sketch said. “This requires more than conservation professionals dictating and regulating the conservation process. It calls for engaging landowners and other community stakeholders and building joint-ownership and empowerment through the process.”

These dynamic policy solutions would also allow rural communities to adjust federal legislation to fit the needs of a specific region while also encouraging rural support for federal regulations.

“Places and communities are all unique and we need to recognize that a one-size-fits-all management plan is usually not the best answer,” Sketch said. “It takes meeting people where they are, investment of all types of capital, and creative partnerships to move the needle.”

Policymakers can go a step further by also creating stronger pathways for science to reach rural constituencies. While some of this work is already happening, more work is needed to increase the reach of science in rural communities. One way policymakers can support this solution is by investing in local institutions and working with trusted local messengers to build connections between rural America and the nation’s top scientists.

“If you’re an environmental group and you are delivering science through your spokespeople, it’s probably not the best way to deliver it to rural communities,” Bonnie said. “There is clearly a role for cooperative extension, land grant universities, and community colleges. I think looking for those folks—those trusted voices in Rural—and figuring out ways to work with them to deliver good information, is important when thinking about this issue.”

The study’s conclusion is clear: protecting the environment and supporting rural communities are not mutually exclusive. There are opportunities for effective collaboration which will enable rural and federal environmental goals to be met simultaneously.

“We need to commit to building more just, equitable, and thriving rural societies and that is key to building prosperous environments,” Sketch said. “This takes education and awareness across the urban-rural spectrum as well as investment in our rural places in all the forms that investment takes.”

 

Author: Sydney O’Shaughnessy