Urban Areas Drive Ecomonic Growth in the West (study)

I don't find anything particularly useful, informative, or even accurate about that article in regards to my state. And attempting to debate which comes first here — rural or urban development — is like debating which came first, the chicken or the egg.

For the last two decades, economic development in Wyoming has been largely fueled by energy development — which is decidedly rural in nature. The locations of oil and gas fields, coal mines, and even wind farms are not determined by proximity to metropolitan areas, pre-existing population centers, transportation hubs, or transportation routes. Those locations are determined largely by ease of access to fossil fuels often many miles or dozens of miles from a town or city.

It's too easy to think of rural versus urban in terms of farming, but when mineral exploration is included, Wyoming and areas of other Western states don't fit the article's mold of preconceived notions. Vast areas of the West have never been farming oriented.

So it is no surprise that the large cattle ranches of the West have been less densely populated than the small family farms of East or South. Neither is it surprising that when minerals are discovered on that ranchland, the workers who work those mineral fields will reside in towns and cities, at a commuting distance from their work. Hence, the West is said to be more "urbanized" than other regions of the country.

But what does "urban" or "metropolitan" even mean in terms of a sparsely-populated state such as Wyoming? Gillette, Wyoming is practically the epitome of economic growth in this state. But most residents, long-time or more recent, would laugh at any characterization of Gillette as "metropolitan."

While the article claims the growth has largely occurred in "metropolitan counties," I'd challenge the author to identify and clarify how any county in this state is truly "metropolitan" in nature. Wyoming always has been a collection of rural counties consisting of large tracts of rural land surrounding small towns as county seats.

In some counties now, energy development is apparent in those rural areas, but the towns remain small. And the resulting population growth has largely occurred in housing developments or small acreages outside city limits.

Some of that population expansion might be called suburban, but rural housing developments are not uncommon. In Campbell county, where Gillette is the county seat, housing developments have been located over a dozen miles from any urban or suburban population center. Calling that population growth "metropolitan" is flirting with absurdity.

Considering the credentials of the author and staff at Headwaters Economics, the lack of any research article for clarification is puzzling at best and rather negligent at worst. Where are the terms defined? Where are the methods detailed? Where in fact is the "research" the article is supposedly founded upon? Are the rural areas of Wyoming and other Western states the chicken or the egg?

And what is the point? In consideration of future conservation measures needed, the article seems to miss that point entirely. Do those folks think the status of sage grouse or pronghorn migration routes is at risk from urban concentration? The topics of conservation that are making national news from this state are hardly controversies of urban sprawl so much as rural energy or housing development. But that seems to have entirely escaped the author's notice.

Okay, so it's tough to speak of metropolitan Los Angeles, Seattle, or Denver in terms of Wyoming's Powder River or Green River Basins. But that again marks the deficiencies of the article. The West is not a homogeneous entity that can be treated so brusquely by a hasty article with no research cited for substance.