Well-Being Assessment of Communities in the Klamath Region

Prepared for the United States Forest Service, Klamath National Forest
under contract 43-91W8-6-7077

Direct all correspondence to Jonathan Kusel at
Forest Community Research, P.O. Box 11, Taylorsville, California 95983
Phone: 916-284-1022; Fax: 916-284-1023

Executive summary

This social assessment examines the current state of well-being of communities in the Klamath region through an analysis of socioeconomic status and community capacity. The study region includes the Klamath physiographic province as well as the broad area of influence of the Klamath National Forest. Included in the study area are the communities of Josephine, Jackson and Klamath Counties in southwestern Oregon, and Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou, Trinity, Shasta, and Modoc Counties in northern California. To facilitate analysis and discussion, six distinct social and economic subregions were delineated within the study area.

Both socioeconomic status and community capacity were assessed at the community level using aggregations of census block groups as the primary unit of analysis. A total of 130 aggregations were developed for the Klamath region. Four separate urban areas dominate the Klamath region. Thirty-eight percent of the total regional population of 622,626 is located in the four largest aggregations of Redding, Medford, Eureka and Klamath Falls. Still, 82 percent of the 130 aggregations have populations of less than 5,000 people.

Relative socioeconomic status among the aggregations was assessed using a scale of socioeconomic factors developed from 1990 Census of Population and Housing data. The design of the socioeconomic status scale assumes that higher levels of home ownership, education and employment indicate higher levels of socioeconomic well-being, and higher levels of poverty and higher percentages of children in homes receiving pubic assistance income indicate lower levels of socioeconomic well-being. Socioeconomic scores are reported on a seven-point scale with a one indicating very low socioeconomic status and a seven indicating very high socioeconomic status.

Community capacity is defined as the collective ability of residents in a community to respond to external and internal stresses; to create and take advantage of opportunities; and to meet the needs of residents, diversely defined. Physical capital, human capital and social capital are the primary components of community capacity. Community capacity was assessed for each aggregation based on local expert knowledge developed through a series of ten local workshops held in each of the nine counties in the Klamath region. Capacity ratings for aggregations are reported on a five-point scale with a one indicating low and very low capacity and a five indicating high to very high capacity.

Due to the overwhelming size of a few large cities within the Klamath region, the majority of the populace on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale resides in a relatively small number of aggregations. Nonetheless, a number of small community aggregations have considerably higher percentages of persons in poverty, individuals with low education, and children in households receiving public assistance income. From a community perspective, these higher population percentages lead to reduced socioeconomic status and contribute to lower overall well-being for the entire community.

Socioeconomic status and community capacity are both important components of well-being, yet they measure different aspects of it. There is a positive but weak relationship between these two measures for the study area. That is, aggregations with higher socioeconomic status tend to have higher capacity, but they often do not.

Socioeconomic status and capacity are also related, to a limited degree, to other measures such as population density, population size, and geographic isolation. Both socioeconomic status and capacity in the Klamath region tend to decrease as the relative isolation--as measured by several spatial factors such as distance from major highways and cities and density of public land--of aggregation population increases, although these relationships vary at a subregional level. Also, community capacity has a tendency to be higher in aggregations with higher total population and higher population density.

Communities with lower capacity and lower socioeconomic status are viewed as having lower overall well-being. Well-being increases as either capacity or socioeconomic status increases, and aggregations with high socioeconomic status and high capacity have the highest levels of well-being. Nineteen percent of the aggregations in the Klamath region have low levels of well-being, 32 percent have moderate levels of well-being, 40 percent have moderately high levels of well-being, and nine percent have high levels of well-being. Since well-being is expressed at a community level, the combination of high capacity and high socioeconomic status does not mean that all residents of an aggregation enjoy a high level of well-being. Communities with high well-being may include ethnic, occupational, or other social groups with considerably lower collective well-being.

This report is accompanied by a comprehensive set of data that adds a dynamic component to the social well-being assessment. The information and data presented provide a framework and tools for both completing additional assessment updates, and initiating more detailed community level assessments that directly include the interests and objectives of local residents.

The synthesis of expert knowledge captured in the community capacity workshops and detailed analysis of socioeconomic data highlight several points about factors of community well-being and the integral role of communities and ecosystem management.

• Numerous reports of clashes between new and old residents in rural communities may, in many instances, be more accurately described as a clashes between interests rather than masked as newcomer vs. old-timer conflict.
• Local volunteer fire departments and schools are the institutions around which almost every community meets. Local involvement with these institutions speaks volumes about community capacity and well-being.
• There are a number of aggregations in which older and lower value housing is accompanied by a lower percentage of owner-occupied housing.
• A high level of home ownership does not guarantee that residents will necessarily interact with one another and create a "community." Residents of bedroom communities, for example, do not necessarily collaborate on community issues.
• Retirees are moving into numerous areas with lower housing values and somewhat depressed economies.
• The demands of retirees within a community are often at odds with the needs of young families who want good schools and other services.
• Socioeconomic status tends to decrease as aggregation isolation increases, but this relationship is variable.
• Community capacity tends to be higher as aggregation population density and population increase.
• While individualism and self sufficiency may be particularly important for the well-being of individuals in isolated areas, these attributes may have a negative effect on capacity as residents with these characteristics are also less likely to work collectively to create local opportunities within a community.
• Lower socioeconomic status does not by itself mean low well-being. In some communities with low socioeconomic status residents appear to have made deliberate choices of both lifestyle and location.
• Growth per se is not necessary to maintain or improve well-being. For residents of many aggregations, well-being means retaining rural character and lifestyles, that include maintaining a scale of living that ensures face-to-face interactions and knowing one's neighbors.
• A number of formerly agriculturally-oriented communities are in transition to bedroom communities, some of which are "communities" in name only. While socioeconomic measures may rise in these areas, community capacity may be negatively affected.
• The politics of blame surrounding the decline of the forest products industry in the region have, in some areas, been divisive and hindered job creation and local recovery. Initial successes have been achieved in some areas that have collaborated to develop new opportunities within existing industries and diversify into other economic activities.
• The most successful economic diversification strategies "fit" with community needs and interests, build on local strengths, and develop family-wage jobs.
• Recent community level projects that have focused on increasing local capacity and building social capital appear to have led to short-term improvement in well-being.
• Aggregations with low capacity may be the most difficult in which to improve well-being because these are the ones with the least ability to effectively address or take advantage of local needs and opportunities.
• Efforts to improve well-being should be directed first to ensure that local capacity does not decline and second, to rebuild capacity so that communities can be actively engaged and successful in the process of improving their own well-being.
• The long term success of ecosystem management hinges on the successful integration of human and natural communities

Find your watershed

You are here:
Inforain.org » Research » Well-Being Assessment of Communities in the Klamath Region