“Been-heres vs. come-heres” and other identities and ideologies along the rural–urban interface: A comparative case study in Calaveras County, California

Abstract

The rural–urban interface is the place of transition between that which we call “urban” and that which we call “rural.” The interface is situated between two places perceived to be different, but which are indelibly linked. Although the functional differences between “rural” and “urban” people (or those seen as “been-heres” versus “come-heres”) seem to be diminishing, differing perspectives and preferences persist along the rural–urban edge. Such differences influence the way that land users, decision makers, and the community manage the environment and react to landscape change. Using a comparative case study in Calaveras County, California, I examine the differences and similarities between “been-heres” and “come-heres” along several lines: basic demographic characteristics, political party affiliations and ideologies, and conceptions of private property rights, concluding that the dichotomy is false but instructive. The been-here/come-here divide, rather than being a definitive means for characterizing stakeholders or predicting their behavior or perspectives, serves as a heuristic for understanding the starting places of certain actors. Furthermore, this kind of analysis reveals not only where and how people and perspectives contrast but also the ways that they converge. Improving our understandings differing people and perspectives is especially important as decision-makers struggle to plan for and manage livable places and sustainable environments among groups with varying preferences which may sometimes conflict.