
































Microsoft Word - 241-Final.docx


King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 4, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Audrey E. H. King, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 439 Ag Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, 

audrey.king@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6150-0223 

2. J. Shane Robinson, Professor, Oklahoma State University, 100 ITLE, Stillwater, OK 74078, shane.robinson@okstate.edu,  
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9506-5752 

3. Tyson E. Ochsner, Professor, Oklahoma State University, 368 Ag Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, tyson.ochsner@okstate.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0875-4491 
4. Paul Weckler, Professor, Oklahoma State University, 111 Ag Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, paul.weckler@okstate.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-2925 
5. Mark Woodring, Assistant Dean, Oklahoma State University, Center for Rural Health, Tulsa, OK 74107, 

mark.woodring@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0195-4231 
17 

 

Residents’ Perceptions of the Need and Potential for Rural 
Renewal in Two Farming-Dependent Counties 

 
A. E. H. King1, J. S. Robinson2, T. E. Ochsner3, P. Weckler4, M. Woodring5 

 
 

  

Abstract 

Many rural counties in the U.S. are struggling, particularly farming-dependent counties experiencing 
persistent poverty. This Rapid Rural Appraisal study focused on two farming-dependent counties in 
rural Oklahoma experiencing persistent poverty, population declines, and related stressors. In a 
series of open forums, rural community members most frequently referenced built capital (i.e., 
infrastructure) as the major reason that prevented the growth of new businesses and suppressed 
pride in the community. In comparison, community members expressed their greatest 
accomplishments and sources of hope which involved human capital, in the way of the school 
systems, teachers, and students, and social capital, in the way of their athletic teams, churches, and 
relationships with each other. Although these counties rely heavily on agriculture as a major 
contributor to their economy, residents expressed challenges and concerns related to high 
concentrations of nitrate in the drinking water and seasonal air pollution related to agricultural 
processing facilities. Recommendations include encouraging residents in these two counties to rally 
together around their perceived strengths—human and social capital—to actively solve the problems 
identified during the open forums. 
 

Keywords 

Community capitals framework, community development, sustainable livelihoods 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  18 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Numerous rural communities are threatened by declines in their built, human, and natural 
capital (Crowe, 2006; Renkow, 2003). Rural residents around the world face major challenges in 
maintaining and developing infrastructure systems, mitigating poverty, and slowing the 
outward migration of its population in a pursuit to sustain local quality of life (Rodríguez-Pose & 
Hardy, 2015). In Oklahoma, nearly one-third of its residents live in rural, non-metro, areas 
(USDA ERS, 2021) with populations less than 2,500 (U.S. Census, 2016); 19 of its counties are 
farming-dependent, indicating that farming accounted for at least 25% of the county’s earnings, 
or 16% of its employment (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Resource 
Service, 2017). When canvasing the >3,000 counties and county-equivalents in the U.S., only 38 
are categorized by the USDA ERS (2017) as having low levels of education, low employment, 
sustained population loss, persistent poverty, and persistent child poverty. Two of those 
counties are the focus of this study.  
 
Research has noted that farming communities frequently experience low population density, 
accessibility, and economic resources (Argent, 2020). Even in farming-dependent communities, 
many rural farming families require at least one member to earn income outside of the farm 
(Beach & Kulcsár, 2015). As such, population growth has been slow in farming-dependent 
counties across the U.S., with many such counties in the Great Plains region experiencing 
pronounced population declines (Johnson, 2012). Although numerous challenges are present, 
rural communities also have an abundance of assets. People in rural counties need to work 
together to identify and resolve community needs and shortcomings (Rivera & Alex, 2007). To 
do so, residents should “align their diverse attitudes, motivations and values into a shared 
knowledge pool and collective or concerted action” (Tisenkopfs et al., 2015, p. 15) so they 
might realize greater community outputs (Bertin et al., 2014). 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Our study was underpinned by the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach of the Institute for 
Development Studies (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Scoones, 1998), which considers five 
capitals—natural, built, human, social, and financial—an emphasis of the Rural Renewal 
Initiative (RRI) at Oklahoma State University. That list was expanded for this study by also 
considering cultural and political capitals, following the Community Capitals Framework of 
Emery’s and Flora’s (2006) model (see Figure 1). The Rural Renewal through Sustainable 
Livelihoods and Community Capitals (RR-SLCC) Framework allows researchers to assess a 
community’s assets and evaluate its current situation (Gutierrez-Montes et al., 2009) through 
action-based research (Pigg et al., 2013) by analyzing its “efforts from a systems perspective by 
identifying assets in each capital . . . the interaction among capitals, and the resulting impacts 
across capitals” (Emery & Flora, 2006, p. 20).  
 
 
 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  19 
 

Figure 1 
 
Increasing Rural Renewal through Sustainable Livelihoods and Community Capitals (RR-SLCC) 
Framework 

 
 
Rural communities are vulnerable to both long-term trends (i.e., population decline, drought, 
and poverty) and immediate shocks (i.e., loss of industry, severe weather, and funding cuts). 
These vulnerabilities can impact one or more community capitals. When these community 
capitals are impacted, they can directly influence, and are influenced by, institutions, policies, 
and processes, which can cause or contribute to additional vulnerabilities facing rural 
communities. All these components and interactions can affect livelihood strategies and 
outcomes, which ultimately impacts a community’s various capitals (see Figure 1). 
 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  20 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of the study was twofold: (a) explore residents’ perceptions of their rural 
communities, and (b) apply these findings to the RR-SLCC Framework. The research question 
guiding the study was: How do rural residents perceive the strengths, weaknesses, 
opportunities, and threats affecting their communities? 
 

Methods 
 
Two farming-dependent counties in Oklahoma were selected as the focus communities for this 
study because they were categorized as having prolonged population decline, low education, 
low employment, and persistent poverty and childhood poverty (United States Department of 
Agriculture, Economic Resource Service [USDA ERS], 2017). Further, these two counties rank at 
the bottom in Oklahoma in economic indicators, specifically people in poverty (24% and 20%, 
respectively) and children in poverty (35% and 30%, respectively; USDA ERS, 2021). Clearly, 
these two counties exhibit a need for development and renewal. 
 
We conducted a rapid rural appraisal (RRA) (Chambers, 1981) of residents living in two target 
communities. An RRA is a “systematic but semi-structured activity out in the field by a 
multidisciplinary team and is designed to obtain new information” (Crawford, 1997, p. 86). RRA 
uses a variety of methods to learn about rural conditions in a cost-effective way, but the most 
distinctive part of this method is the team-based approach. RRA team members should 
represent a variety of technical backgrounds and possess varying skill sets and research 
expertise (Crawford, 1997). 
 
We conducted our RRA through six community forums with approximately 120 participants in 
two counties in Oklahoma in 2019. The forums were open format, conducted in public spaces, 
and offered in various towns of the two target counties to promote attendance and 
accessibility. Each forum included an opening session with introductions, handouts with open-
ended questions related to participants’ hopes and dreams for their county, and blank Post-it 
posters for community members to record their perceived strengths, weaknesses, 
opportunities, and threats related to their respective county. Community members were 
encouraged to contribute thoughts to and engage with each other in a collaborative and 
comprehensive community analysis. Each forum concluded with a rich discussion among 
facilitators and community members where major ideas were summarized and research 
opportunities identified. Each forum lasted roughly two hours. Four types of data were 
collected at the community forums: focus group interviews, individual reflection documents, 
group posters, and observations of physical facilities. Researchers also journaled and compiled 
field notes during data collection. 
 
All data were compiled digitally and input into MAXQDA2020. Glaser’s (1965) constant 
comparative method was used to conduct a multistage analysis consisting of open, axial, and 
selective coding. Codes were developed to categorize the data in two distinct ways. First, data 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  21 
 

were aligned with the seven community capital categories (Emery & Flora, 2006). Next, they 
were sorted into perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.  
 
We used Lincoln’s and Guba’s (1985) four standards of qualitative quality to guide our 
decisions. Specifically, credibility was achieved through persistent and intentional observations 
and triangulation of the data across participants in both target counties. Triangulation was 
ensured through observations and reflection. Outside researchers reviewed the instrument and 
research process prior to the study, as well as the findings after the study, to establish 
dependability. Finally, confirmability was achieved through an audit trail established from our 
journaling of notes taken during each open forum. Following these standards enhanced the 
rigor and trustworthiness of the data and subsequent interpretations. 
 

Findings 
 
In all, 440 unique codes were identified (see Table 1). Of the seven forms of community 
capitals, residents mentioned built capital (f = 175) more than any other followed by human 
capital (f = 92). The total mentions of strengths and weaknesses were nearly equal (f = 154 and 
157, respectively). Moreover, community members mentioned relatively the same number of 
opportunities as they did threats (f = 61 and 68, respectively).  
 
Table 1  
 
Frequency of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats by Community Capitals 
Community 
Capitals 

 
Strengths  Weaknesses  Opportunities  Threats  Total 

Built   67  52  24  32  175 
Human  30  40  13  9  92 
Social  25  15  10  15  65 
Financial  10  24  7  3  44 
Natural  20  5  2  2  29 
Cultural  1  18  2  4  25 
Political  1  3  3  3  10 
Total  154  157  61  68  440 

 
Built Capital 
The built capital of communities was the most frequently mentioned source of concern for their 
residents. Although there had been a few recent improvements in both counties’ infrastructure, 
residents had numerous concerns. Three themes emerged in built capital: roads, water, and 
buildings. Specifically, a frequent complaint among residents was the poor condition of roads in 
the communities. Regarding roads, one resident stated, “I would like to see new things built, 
especially new roads.” This finding aligned with researcher notes. While driving through the 
various towns in these two counties, it was obvious that the roads were in major need of repair, 
with most roads riddled with substantial potholes.  



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  22 
 

 
Water infrastructure was another major theme that emerged in the built capital category. One 
resident stated: “We need to rebuild our physical infrastructure, specifically sewer and 
drainage.” Another stated gravely: “Our drinking water is not suitable for children under six 
months old.” Numerous public notices hung on storefronts in one focus town warned residents 
that pregnant women and infants should not drink the water due to its high nitrate levels. 
 
Buildings and housing also were major concerns, both the lack of housing and the poor 
condition of existing homes and commercial buildings. Although local civic groups had achieved 
some cosmetic improvements in downtown areas, many residents desired further 
improvements to buildings. “What can we do with all the dilapidated homes? No money to haul 
off [contaminated refuse]. Can’t buy them. We need a solution!” explained one resident 
emphatically. Another community member asked, “How do we address fallen down homes 
legally?” Demolishing such structures was deemed infeasible due to uncooperative or absentee 
owners, restrictive environmental regulations, and high costs. Residents perceived 
improvements to built capital would enhance the community’s attractiveness to new 
businesses and residents.  
 
On the other hand, each community had its share of historic sites, which were identified as 
strengths by residents. Numerous residents mentioned their admiration for their local 
museums and theaters. In addition, community members referenced with pride the new 
benches, trees, and paint that had been recently added to improve their downtown areas. 
“New trees were planted on Broadway as part of the Broadway Initiative Cleanup,” said one 
proud resident. Another added: “Fourteen facades [i.e., store fronts] were improved in 
downtown.” Such improvements were perceived as a source of optimism and pride for the 
entire community. 
 
The topic of high-speed internet emerged as an opportunity for improvement in both counties. 
Most notably, residents recognized the need to increase educational access as well as 
opportunities for people to work remotely. One resident claimed, “Free public internet access 
would allow for distance learning,” which could open venues for all residents. Participants were 
also hopeful that additional opportunities for recreation, specifically for youth, might be 
created in their communities. They were especially interested in creating a walking trail or 
fitness area and developing community meeting spaces. One resident stated: “We need 
reasons for people to stay here. We need places that entertain youth [such as] arcades, movies, 
sports, coffee house, etc.” Another asked pointedly, “Why isn’t [sic.] there more things 
available for our youth to do?”  
 
Residents acknowledged threats to their optimism. The recently closed hospital was a point of 
concern for residents in one of the focus counties. Although many were interested in reviving it, 
others wanted to see the building repurposed and used in a different way. During the 
discussion, one participant asked if it might be “possible to convert the closed hospital to a 
cancer or diabetes facility.” In general, the revitalization of buildings, schools, and housing were 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  23 
 

a high priority for several residents. One stated, “I hope we begin to invest in our infrastructure 
to ensure opportunities in the future.”  
 
Human Capital  
Healthcare, education, and employment were frequent discussion topics among the residents 
of these rural communities. Access and improvement to healthcare were deemed as 
opportunities in both counties. A strong desire exists to have access to an emergency room or 
urgent care facility in their counties. Participants advocated for mental health services, 
equitable access, and improved health care options. Residents were equally optimistic and 
concerned about education. A new library, involvement in the area Career Tech center, and 
recent achievements in competitive robotics teams were some highlights. However, stabilizing 
the statewide education system, creating more diverse education opportunities for youth, and 
attracting high-quality educators were concerns for participants. In addition, residents noted 
that there were limited opportunities for educated people to find employment and too few 
people to fill current job openings, particularly for farm labor. One resident stated: 
“Competitive wages are needed to keep current residents [from leaving the community].” What 
is more, the community identified a lack of childcare, after school care, and elderly care, as well 
as their ability to retain youth in the community. “We have high achieving students, but most 
leave for ‘greener pastures,’” explained one resident. Another suggested the need to find ways 
“to change the atmosphere for young adults so they can see hope.” Residents spoke about the 
strengths of their communities being high-quality schools, including students, faculty, and new 
teaching hires. One resident stated pointedly: “Our biggest and best natural resource is our 
people.” Another added, “[The] system has been the highlight [of our community] the last ten 
years, with more improvement and things to brag about happening every year.”  
 
Social Capital 
Social capital was perceived by participants as a major strength of their communities. 
Specifically, residents were enthused about the recent successes of high school athletic teams, 
revived community events and organizations, and local 4-H and FFA programs. Despite these 
strengths, many participants had questions about access to community assets and the current 
poverty levels in their counties. One resident asked, “How can we better integrate our 
community racially [and] economically?” Another participant inquired, “How do we raise those 
in poverty to a higher quality of life?” Racial inequality also showed up as a threat for residents, 
and some expressed concern about the perceived high number of illegal and undocumented 
immigrants. One participant shared his frustration with the naturalization process: “We have a 
high population of illegal immigrants. Can we develop a program to speed up the legal 
process?” Another mentioned offering up open-access English classes for this population. 
 
Opportunities included sustaining community offerings, retaining the population, and providing 
drug counseling for residents in their counties. One resident stated, “My goal for my 
community in the next ten years is to keep people and assets in our community.” Communities 
were anxious to create an opportunity to celebrate the community itself, continue the work of 
community advocacy organizations, and increase the attractiveness of the community to 
outsiders. One resident stated, “We need to develop a plan to celebrate the community itself.” 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  24 
 

 
Financial Capital 
Residents desired to attract more businesses, develop existing businesses, and grow the local 
economy. Several residents were interested in diversifying community income sources beyond 
city sales taxes. Residents were curious about optimizing their local resources. One asked, “How 
do we sell what we have? Energy? People? Retirement location? Mesquite?” Some mentioned 
repurposing old buildings into new businesses as an opportunity, but others quickly mentioned 
the lack of financial capital necessary to do so. Another weakness was identified as their 
community having extreme inequality in socio-economic status. A person stated: “We lack a 
middle class [because] it is difficult to attract new industries and businesses to our community.” 
Utility costs were also mentioned as being prohibitive to new business startups.  
 
The threats to financial capital identified by residents included their apprehension about the 
state government’s willingness to continue to provide equitable funding to rural areas. Another 
threat to the financial stability of the counties involved the death of its residents. In many 
cases, their wealth left the community by being transferred to family members who no longer 
lived in the area, further depleting the counties’ financial resources. Finally, residents boasted 
about a factory that had moved into the community a few years ago. They admitted that it 
provided numerous jobs, which equated to financial capital for the county; however, they were 
concerned about losing the business and the effect it would have on the community long term 
if they did.  
 
Natural Capital  
Participants indicated innovations in agriculture, such as drip irrigation, were strengths of their 
communities. One resident stated, “We have had blessed crops through intensive crop 
management.” Another added that the current cotton crop was the “largest . . . of all time.” 
Although cotton production was deemed to be a strength by many in the audience, residents 
also recognized opportunities exist for improving cotton ginning procedures for cleaner air 
quality. “On windy days, air quality is really low,” explained one resident. Additionally, one 
resident admitted, “I’d like to learn how to improve my crop management practices.” Another 
advocated for improving the county’s dairy operations. At the time of data collection, the 
growth and sale of medical marijuana had been recently legalized in Oklahoma. This was 
perceived as both  positive and negative by community members. Although it was an exciting 
potential revenue stream, it created concern for residents regarding water and energy 
conservation. “It will be interesting to see how medical marijuana affects us all long-term,” said 
one concerned resident. Many feared that the heavy use of irrigation water for medical 
marijuana could negatively affect their ability to water their cotton regularly. “Using our natural 
resources, like water, effectively will be even more important in the future,” voiced one 
concerned farmer. In addition to water use, residents also had concerns about the effect 
agricultural practices, such as applying nitrogen fertilizer to the soil, may have on their long-
term health. “How does that use affect water sources and overall water quality in the area, and 
moreover, how does it affect our health?” asked one resident. Residents were hopeful natural 
resources could continue to be used responsibly and that the next generation of farmers could 
develop new procedures through adequate mentorship and education. One established farmer 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  25 
 

stated: “Let’s cultivate the next generation of farmers and ranchers by transitioning land, 
capital, and knowledge through mentorship opportunities.” 
 
Cultural Capital 
Although cultural capital was the least commonly mentioned capital, it was also a point of 
disagreement for residents. For example, one resident stated emphatically that the strength of 
the community revolved around the recent shift in overall, progressive attitudes of community 
members. However, others contradicted that view by stating that there was a major lack of 
hope, motivation, and community pride. Therefore, the cultural capital was deemed a major 
weakness of the community by those residents. Said one individual: “This area has been driven 
into the ground by a ruling class. Zero attention has been given to investing in the future. Why 
are we surprised by what we look around and see today?” However, residents did not debate 
the strength of their churches in the community. They were quick to point out the strong 
working relationship of the ministerial team of preachers at each church in their counties, 
especially as it relates to their synergy for attending to specific community needs, like serving at 
the local foodbank. Residents admitted to wanting to provide a better quality of life and vision 
for their communities. One resident stated: “I feel a lot of people have lost pride in [these small 
towns]. If we can get the community back together, I think that would be a great start.” 
 
Political Capital 
Like cultural capital, political capital was infrequently mentioned by residents. Residents 
identified the safety of their communities as its greatest strength relative to political capital. 
Some, however, hinted that a lack of highly educated, progressive leaders working in city and 
county governance was their greatest weakness. One resident posed the question: “Do we 
need [more] forward-thinking council members?” Another responded rhetorically: “Are we 
willing to move into uncharted territory?” These questions seemed to be met with unresolved 
silence. However, residents agreed their communities lacked effective representation at the 
state level. The enforcement of current, and implementation of new, city regulations were 
identified as opportunities for the communities. One resident said, “Policy changes that impact 
the overall aesthetics of the community, such as required lawn care, leash laws, and a 
maximum number of household pets would benefit our community.” Another opportunity 
identified was to create different regulations for rural places as compared to urban sectors. 
“Having more laxed [sic] regulations may be something to bring businesses to our rural 
community,” stated one resident. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
It was clear that residents from both counties recognized numerous assets present in their 
communities. Interestingly, residents noted an equal number of strengths and weaknesses 
present in their counties. Of the 440 statements that emerged through the data, 35% were 
deemed strengths and 36% were deemed weaknesses. Of those, residents listed built capital 
most frequently. These two focus counties suffer from severely dilapidated infrastructure that 
is in major need of revitalization. Opportunities (f = 61) received the fewest statements, 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  26 
 

followed by threats (f = 68), accounting for 14% and 16% of the total statements submitted, 
respectively. Built capital received the most statements of the four. Unfortunately, the built 
capital has deteriorated to a point that it is prohibitively expensive to repair. Specifically, many 
of the buildings and storefronts include walls and ceilings that have crumbled and fallen. All 
that remains is a frontage facade. Yet, due to cost, ownership issues, and environmental 
regulations, residents cannot repair or deconstruct the remains, leaving them to face the ghosts 
of their past as they drive through their town. In addition to built capital, residents were also 
highly concerned with the financial capital in their counties. This conclusion is congruent with 
former research related to built and financial capital being the lowest among those measured in 
the CCF (Borron et al., 2020).     
 
Human capital was the second most frequently mentioned theme. It was concluded that 
residents believe the best part of living in their rural counties is their neighbors. They frequently 
mentioned people as the greatest asset to their communities. Their biggest concerns are losing 
youth once they leave for college and having adequate health care facilities. They are proud of 
their school systems, teachers, and administration. The school system plays a central role in 
keeping these community alive, functioning, and hopeful for a better future. 
 
Residents realized farming is the staple of the economy in their counties. However, farming 
practices have contributed to an unsafe supply of drinking water due to high nitrate 
concentrations and occasionally a poor quality of air from ginning cotton and tilling the soil. It is 
possible these practices might contribute to the demise of the overall community capital 
(Crowe, 2006; Renkow, 2003) and lead to an overall lower quality of life (Rodríguez-Pose & 
Hardy, 2015) in these two counties. If so, it is incumbent on the local leadership to identify or 
develop other, more positive contributors to community capital and the overall wellbeing of its 
residents. We recommend community leaders create a strategic vision for their communities 
that empowers all residents (Aigner et al., 2001; Flora et al., 2005) by focusing on their 
communities’ inherent strengths rather than their deficiencies (Bertin et al., 2014; Rivera & 
Alex, 2007). Leaders in the two target communities should rally their residents around the 
needs identified in this study and create a plan for empowering them to plan out and serve on 
committees to address the weaknesses and threats identified. In addition, leaders should 
engage the youth in their communities in civic engagement and leadership training and 
empower them to help make decisions related to improving the long-term hope and viability of 
their towns, especially since these communities are concerned about their youth leaving. With 
strong local leadership (Lamm et al., 2017), perhaps human and cultural capital can be used in 
tandem to solve many of the existing problems voiced during the open forums. We also 
recommend additional research and development in these two communities to close the gap 
on the weaker capitals in the community, such as built and financial capitals (Emery & Flora, 
2006). Finally, we recommend replicating this study in other rural, farming-dependent counties 
in Oklahoma and across the U.S. to determine if the strengths and deficiencies recognized here 
are congruent with other, similar communities. If so, coalitions should be formed with local 
communities and land-grant universities to help address these pressing needs. 
 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  27 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
A. E. H. King – formal analysis, writing-original draft; J. S. Robinson – formal analysis, 
investigation, writing-original draft; T. E. Ochsner – investigation, writing-review and editing; P. 
Weckler – investigation; M. Woodring – investigation 
 
Funding for this project was provided by RRI, one of the Tier 1 research initiatives supported by 
the Office of the Vice President for Research at Oklahoma State University. We also wish to 
thank the citizens living in the two target counties who participated in this study, and the 
County Extension educators who work there. 
 

References 
 
Aigner, S. M., Flora, C. B., & Hernandez, J. M. (2001). The premise and promise of citizenship 

and civil society for renewing democracies and empowering sustainable communities. 
Sociological Inquiry, 71(4), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
682X.2001.tb01129.x  

 
Argent, N. (2020). The little island that did: Related variety, branding and place-based 

development in South Australia. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 15(4), 
175–197. https://journals.brandonu.ca/jrcd/article/view/1851/435  

 
Beach, S. S., & Kulcsár, L. J. (2015). It often takes two income earners to raise a farm: On-farm 

and off-farm employment in Kansas. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 
10(4), 54–74. https://journals.brandonu.ca/jrcd/article/view/1139/288   

 
Bertin, T., Zacharie, T., Ann, D., Ebenezar, A., & Alain, T. (2014). Scaling-up sustainable land 

management practices through the concept of the rural resource centre: Reconciling 
farmers’ interests with research agendas. The Journal of Agricultural Education and 
Extension, 20(5), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.913984  

 
Borron, A., Lamm, K. W., & Atkins, K. (2020). The development and validation of a personal 

agency scale based in the community capitals framework. Journal of International 
Agricultural and Extension Education, 27(3), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.4148/2831-
5960.1096  

 
Chambers, R. (1981). Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire. Public Administration and 

Development, 1, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230010202  
 
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st 

century. Institute of Development Studies (UK). 
https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/sustainable-rural-livelihoods-practical-concepts-for-
the-21st-century/ 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  28 
 

 
Crawford, I. M. (1997). Marketing research and information systems. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations.  https://www.fao.org/3/w3241e/w3241e00.htm 
 
Crowe, J. A. (2006). Community economic development strategies in rural Washington: Toward 

a synthesis of natural and social capital. Rural Sociology, 71(4), 573–596. 
https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106781262043   

 
Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with 

community capitals framework. Community Development, 37(1), 19–35. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330609490152 

 
Flora, C. B., Emery, M., Fey, S., & Bregendahl, C. (2005). Community capitals: A tool for 

evaluating strategic interventions and projects.  North Central Regional Center for Rural 
Development. http://winnemuccafutures.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/7-
capitalshandout.pdf 

 
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 

12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843  
 
Gutierrez-Montes, I., Emery, M., & Fernandez-Baca, E. (2009). The sustainable livelihoods 

approach and the community capitals framework: The importance of system-level 
approaches to community change efforts. Community Development, 40(2), 106–113.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330903011785   

 
Johnson, K. M. (2012). Rural demographic change in the new century: Slower growth, increased 

diversity. Carsey Institute, (44), 1-12. https://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/159  
 
Lamm, K. W., Carter, H. S., Lamm, A. J., & Lindsey, A. B. (2017). Community leadership: A 

theory-based model. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(3), 118–133. 
https://journalofleadershiped.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/16_3_Lamm.pdf  

 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. 
 
Pigg, K., Gasteyer, S. P., Martin, K. E., Keating, K., & Apaliyah, G. P. (2013). The community 

capital framework: An empirical examination of internal relationships. Community 
Development, 44(4), 492–502.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2013.814698 

 
 
Renkow, M. (2003). Employment growth, worker mobility, and rural economic development. 

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 503–513. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00137  

 



King et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.241  29 
 

Rivera, W. M., & Alex, G. (2007). Extension system reform and the challenges ahead. The 
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 10(1), 23–36. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240485300051  

 
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Hardy, D. (2015). Addressing poverty and inequality in the rural economy 

from a global perspective. Applied Geography, 61, 11–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.02.005  

 
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Institute of 

Development Studies (UK). 
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/3390  

 
Tisenkopfs, T., Kunda, I., Šūmane, S., Brunori, G., Klerkx, L., & Moschitz, H. (2015). Learning and 

innovation in agriculture and rural development: The use of the concepts of boundary 
work and boundary objects. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(1), 
13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.991115  

 
U.S. Census. (2016). Geography area series: County business patterns by employment size class 

and legal form organization: 2016. Annual Economic Surveys. 
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html  

 
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2017). 2015 county 

typology codes: Documentation. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-
typology-codes/ 

   
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2021). USDA Economic 

Research Service: State fact sheets.  
https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?StateFIPS=40&StateName=Oklahoma&ID=17854 

 
 
 
© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 
 


