Development on the Outer Banks: A Case of Public Perception

Conclusions

The research highlighted in this work shows that there are differences in the way local residents and visitors in a coastal context (the Outer Banks) view and rate development. The quantitative data showed that while local residents may feel that the Outer Banks as a whole is more developed than visitors think it to be, they (local residents) rated five out of the six towns which made up the study area, as less developed, perhaps due to opportunities for economic advancement. Likewise, visitors rated the Outer Banks, as a whole, as less developed and rated five out of the six towns making up the study area as more developed than the local residents thought them to be.

It was suggested that this could be due to the fact that since visitors vacation in the region, they perhaps consider it a rather rugged, isolated area, relative to where they are from, as most visitors are from the Washington, D.C. metro area as well as the Norfolk/Richmond region (Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, 2006). The qualitative analysis revealed that local residents and visitors view overdevelopment in the region differently, a likely explanation for which is that the two groups value different amenities and services differently, resulting in a different prioritization. This is also noted in Hao et al. (2010), in which it was suggested that permanent residents considered many more qualities to be important throughout the tourism development process than did second-home owners and visitors.

Both the quantitative data and the qualitative analysis prove useful in regards to bettering and guiding development policy in the region. The quantitative data is useful simply because it provides a baseline measure to local policymakers for characterizing a current place on the spectrum of development. Policymakers and planners can now know with some certainty that the Outer Banks, both as a whole and in the six towns individually is moderately to largely overdeveloped, as the average rating given by the entire sample size (n=218) was a 2.21 on a scale from -5 to +5, where -5 is extremely underdeveloped and +5 is extremely overdeveloped. Through this, policymakers and developers might gather that given the geologically sensitive nature of the Outer Banks, in conjunction with a moderately high development rating by visitors and permanent residents alike, steps to prevent or at least slow the pace of development should be taken in order to help sustain the Outer Banks for as long as Mother Nature allows.

The qualitative data is useful in redirecting development as well. Policymakers and planners can now be assured with some certainty that among the two main groups on the Outer Banks (visitors and local residents) exist different values for different development issues and amenities. Policymakers and planners must carefully consider the costs and benefits of catering to both interest groups in addition to prioritizing the physical environment within the development narrative.

While additional development may increase the capacity for tourists and increase economic opportunity, it might also push the Outer Banks further and further down a slippery slope of overdevelopment from which it may never recover. However, limiting development may decrease economic prosperity for the local citizenry, despite the objectives of observing and respecting the natural limits of the region. In sum, the question of how to proceed with development, especially in a dynamic coastal setting, is one which needs to be considered carefully and holistically. Although no definite answers were presented here, I think that the joining of both quantitative and qualitative methods of assessment is a crucial first step to determining the best possible future for the Outer Banks, the people that live there, and the people that wish they did.

---

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Temple University and the Diamond Research Scholars program for giving me the opportunity to pursue this research. Without their funding and support this would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Mason for his endless patience and continually guidance and support throughout this project. I also owe a great deal of thanks to Mr. Robert McClendon and Dr. Adam Gibson of the UNC Coastal Studies Institute in Manteo, North Carolina, who both provided useful local insight, guidance, support and accountability throughout this project. I also owe thanks to Dr. Fletcher Chmara-Huff, who provided countless edits and guidance in the development of the questionnaire. This research is dedicated to the Outer Banks of North Carolina and the people who live there, in hopes that it will in some way help preserve the true beauty of the Banks, which can be found nowhere else on earth.

---

References

Appleton, Jay.The Experience of Landscape. London: Wiley, 1975. Print.

Arthur, Louise. "Predicting the Scenic Beauty of Forest Environments: Some Empirical Tests."Forest Science23.2 (1977): 151-60. Web.

Banerjee, T. "Who Values What? Audience Reaction to Coastal Scenery."Landscape Architecture67 (n.d.): 240-43. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.

Campbell, Lisa M., and Zoë A. Meletis. "Agreement on Water and a Watered-down Agreement: The Political Ecology of Contested Coastal Development in Down East, North Carolina." Journal of Rural Studies 27.3 (2011): 308-21. Web.

Crawford, Thomas W., Daniel J. Marcucci, and Andrew Bennett. "Impacts of Residential Development on Vegetation Cover for a Remote Coastal Barrier in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, USA." Journal of Coastal Conservation 17.3 (2013): 431-43. Web.

Crawford, Thomas W. "Where Does the Coast Sprawl the Most? Trajectories of Residential Development and Sprawl in Coastal North Carolina, 1971–2000." Landscape and Urban Planning 83.4 (2007): 294-307. Web.

Frankenberg, Dirk.The Nature of the Outer Banks: Environmental Processes, Field Sites, and Development Issues, Corolla to Ocracoke. Chapel Hill, NC: U of North Carolina, 1995. Print

Fyhri, Aslak, Jens Jacobsen, and Hans Tommervik. "Tourists' Landscape Perception and Preferences in a Scandinavian Coastal Region."Landscape and Urban Planning91 (2009): 202-11. Web.

Green, Ray. Coastal Towns in Transition: Local Perceptions of Landscape Change. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010. Print.

Hao, Huili, Patrick Long, and Wilson Hoggard. "Comparing Property Owners' Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism in a Coastal Resort County." Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 6 (2013): 31-51. Web

Lay, Russ. "An Outer Banks Time Warp."Outerbanksvoice.com. The Outer Banks Voice, 6 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2014. .

Outer Banks Visitors Bureau: Wave 3 Report. Rep. no. 3. Nags Head, NC: Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, 2006. Print.

Pilkey, Orrin H.The North Carolina Shore and Its Barrier Islands: Restless Ribbons of Sand. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. Print.

Riggs, Stanley R.The Battle for North Carolina's Coast: Evolutionary History, Present Crisis, and Vision for the Future. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 2011. Print.

"SelectUSA."The Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Industry in the United States. Select USA, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2014. .

Smith, Michael D., and Richard S. Krannich. "“Culture Clash'' Revisited: Newcomer and Longer-Term Residents' Attitudes Toward Land Use, Development, and Environmental Issues in Rural Communities in the Rocky Mountain West*."Rural Sociology65.3 (2000): 396-421. Web.

"USDA ERS - County-level Data Sets: Poverty."USDA ERS - County-level Data Sets: Poverty. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2014. .

Uusitalo, Marja. "Differences in Tourists’ and Local Residents’ Perceptions of Tourism Landscapes: A Case Study from Ylläs, Finnish Lapland." Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10.3 (2010): 310-33. Web.

---

Appendix

This appendix contains a copy of the questionnaire used for gathering the data used in this study.