—~ it   S   Study of 12 Washington county neigh-
h ’ H °
A .
_ `       borhoods reveals characteristics of new
ter T
Q •
  lg ·
c l ~ Ne hborhoodse ml °l‘l "*S*‘l**"‘S
»(-H
is
—r-Me By GORDON DEJONG and C- MILTON COUGHENOIU of farmers was slightly larger than that estimated for
L_ the entire county (11 percent).*l
. ` There has hardly been a time in Kentucky history For purposos of furthor auoiysrsa farm operators
yy when the inward and outward movement of rural Wort, oiussrgou into rirroo groupss Group A form ·
st Peellle llas llel elealesl Pleblellls lOl` leeal l`lll'*ll eOlll‘ operators were residents in the survey areas in both I
· munities. Of particular concern in recent decades 1951) aud 1955 (group B uro those form ooorurors who
‘ as has lleell llle lllOVelllelll Olll el lllllll llelgllbellleeds le had lived in the areas in 1950, but who had left the
llle Vlllages tllld ellles- lll allelllpllllg tv llllalyze lllese survey neighborhoods by 1955. Farm operators who
' llllwelllellls allel tllell llllPlle·ltlells f¤rl<>¤=1l¤€1shb<>1- had become residents in the survey areas between
_ .— 1 hoods, several questions may be asked. How much 1951) uuri 1955 oro iu (group C_
_ out—movement and in—movement is there in farm neigh-
" ’ borhoods? In comparison with permanent residents, wllel Klnds 0* F¤l'¤‘|€|'$ l-ell'? .
...;_ what kinds of farmers left the neighborhood and came C0lllPlll`lsOll of llle lllllllels Wlle lelt (CYOUP B)
1 ju? with those who remained Grou n A not onl Jermits
1* I 1
In recent Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station elle lll see ll0W llle lW0 gl`0llPs €llll€l`» but also P0lllls
V ‘ As, studies il] Wggiiiiigtgii C()1111ty’ i11f01·1*11k1ti()11 was ggfii- to 1)()SSll)lC l`€z1S()1]Sl`()l' tll(:‘ Ollt-li]lgI'2ltlOI'l. SIgI]lHC2ll`Itly,
ered concerning mobility in 12 neighborhoods. VVash- llle 'KWO QYOUPS of liifm 0P€1`1lt01`S W€1‘¢‘ alike with 1*3-
. ~El iiigton County is iocated in the ()11t€1* Bi11€g1‘aSS GOO- g2l.I`(l to C(l1lC1lltl()Il, Zl.g€, SUIIYCUS of l'zlI'Il] lIlfOI`I'IlZ1tl()ll
, nomic area and is predominantly agricultural. In this ll$<“ bllly 277 (*0 bblcelltl those who left as com >ared with 12 iercent of those
kk ··'llf ` ' l ‘·> ·> l 1955 Tl'·
Wele *tl ‘llllllllg lll tlb Slllyey ‘ll*‘l ly ' · _ lls who remained were tenant operators.
""° l"SS= llbwevblh was baltllllly flflsef by all lllllllx of 66 Three likely bases for the outlinigration of tenants
ui new farmers between 1950 and 1955, which made a mr,.
llet less Ol 13 llelcbllt llll tlle 5`ybllll llbl`l(l‘l· Tllls loss (I) They may have moved to another location to
l » . . ·
) »—~— become farm owners or to obtain a better farm to rent.
l The authors are Graduate Assistant and Assoeiate Rural Soeiologist
up in the Department of Rural Sociology, respectively. _W
=iIa1_1oorl’$ level-of-living index, 1950, for Washington county was ¢= 1*11111 1)_ ttielmirisoii, l’opnlu1inn Iirtiiiiulrrs for K¤·nti·cku Counties,
, 115 as compared with the state average of 86. Margaret ]. Ilagood, Ko _.1rrr_ 1.jxr,1_ g1u_1>ruu_ 11r.r,1_ Q1 (iuru. ]$)55)_ `
1* * Gladys K. Bowles, and Robert R. Mount, Farni-Operator Family I.ei;eI-<:f» `
Living Iml<*xe.s·. U. S. Department nf Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing , . .
A smrir-.·, smiasiimi Buiierm 204 (sims iss?). ·(·<>¤¤tH¤¤M*