Interest group perceptions of development issues in tidewater Virginia

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal zone 11123
Information
Center
Virginia Water Resources Research Center Bulletin 101

Interest Group Perceptions
Of Development Issues
in Tidewater Virginia

Kenard E. Smith
Larry M. Springer
wn-P,671
V) John D. Stephens

TD
201
V57
000-
00'

no. 101

Bulletin 101
March 1977
OCT
20

Interest Group Perceptions
Development Issues
in Tidewater Virginia
COASTAL ZONE
Kenard E. Smith INFORMATION CENTER
Larry M. Springer
John D. Stephens

Department of Geography
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

The work upon which this report is based was supported
by funds provided by the United States Department of the Interio)
Office of Water Research and Technology, as authorized by
the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (P. L. 88379).

OWRT Project A-060-VA
VPI-VWRRC-BULL 101

Property Of CSC Library

A publication of
Virginia Water Resources Research Center
virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

US - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

J@ "A @ 7/ !"7"' -@
,P,M5 S
PREFA7-
This report describes OWRT Project A-060-VA, sponsored by the United
States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research,
Virginia Water Resources Research Center, and the Department of Geo-
graphy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

The research reported herein describes an approach for analyzing the
manner in which interest groups perceive critical issues affecting residen-
tial growth in acoastal area of Virginia. TheMiddlesex County study area
is ecologically fragile and subject to water pollution problems if residen-;-
tial growth is unregulated. One specific problem concernsthe inability of
much of the region's soils to accommodate wastes from septic tank
systems.

Thesanitation issuecan be remedied by buildingeentral sewagetreatment
systems. Yet, this could open up an area for rapid and uncontrolled
growth. This study is an analysis of one community's perception of its
situation. A Delphi panel (see chapter entitled "A Tool for Grass Roots
P,articipation") was selected and given four questionnaires which asked
the following five basic questions: (1) Is growth desirable? (2) Should
growth be regulated, and if so, how? (3) What factors are retarding
growth? (4) What role does inadequate waste treatment play in the de-
velopment of the region? and (5) Is new technology in the form of cen-
tral sewage systems the optimum solution in lieu of the area's distinct
economic, social, and political characteristics?

Several individuals from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-
sity and Middlesex County, Virginia deserve special recognition for their
time and contributions to this research. We are indebted to Charles M.
Good and Robert W. Morrill of the Department of Geography for com-
ments and suggestions in the field and during the course of this study.
The administrative support generously given to us by the Virginia Water
Resources Research Center, directed by William R. Walker, has been
a great aid to our work. Special thanks also go to the Middle Peninsula
District Planning District Commission, especially Dale Burton and Neal
Barber who generously provided information and personal insights dur-
ing the course of this study. Frank H. Thomas, Staff Specialist for the
United States Water Resources Council, and Arnold R. Alanen, Depart-
ment of Landscape Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Madison, also
were invaluable for their critical evaluations of the manuscript.

iii

We also acknowledge the conscientious support of student research assis-
tants who helped in many ways, especially with the coding of data and
preparation of maps. Dennis R. Aaron has been invaluable for his assis-
tance with computer applications and graphics. Blanche B. Balzer and
Arthur M. Noll have provided a variety of services while serving as re-
search assistants during the summer of 1975. Also, we wish to acknowl-
edge the services of Vera G. Good as cartographer. Finally, we are gratefu I
for the secretarial assistance provided by Reta Faris and Elaine Miller.

K.E.S.
L.M.S.
J. D. S.
March, 1977

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ................................................ iii

Abstract ................................................ 1

Perspectives to a Regional Dilemma:
Lessons from Fairfax County
And Prospects for Middlesex County, Virginia ................... 3

1. A Northern Virginia Scenario ........................... 3
11. Central Goals and Questions of this Study ................. 7

Regional Growth Potential of Tidewater Virginia ............ 9

1. Population Distribution in Tidewater, Virginia .............. 9

A. The Urban Crescent ....... 9
B. The Peninsular Tidewater Region .................... 10

11. Urban and Rural Composition and Development ........... 10
111. Population Characteristics and Growth in Coastal Counties . ..13

A. The Coastal Counties .............................. 13
B. The Middle Peninsula ............................. 15

IV. Prospects for Future Growth in Middlesex County .......... 20
V. A Physical Constraint on Growth ....................... 22

A Tool for Grass Roots Participation
The Delphi Method: Its Scope and Application .................. 25

Findings of the Questionnaire Surveys ........................ 35

1. Round One ........................................ 35
11. Round Two ........................................ 38
III. Round Three ....................................... 44
IV. Round Four ............................ w ........... 47
V. Middlesex High School Questionnaire .................... 49
V 1. Summary .......................................... 53
Continued

Prospects for a Coastal Region
Recommendations and Conclusions .......................... 57

References Cited ......................................... 63

Tables ................................................. 69

Appendix
Computer Program Documentation .......................... 95

LIST OF TABLES

1. Percentage Change in Tidewater Population
from Preceding Census ................................. 11

2. Population Totals and Growth Rates for Six Coastal Counties .. .12

3. The Peninsular Tidewater Population Classified
by Urban and Rural Residence, 1970 ...................... 14

4. Net Migration Rates for Six Coastal Counties ................ 16

5. Selected Employment Characteristics
for Middle Peninsula Counties, 1970 ....................... 17

6. Age Characteristics for Selected Counties
in the Peninsular Tidewater, 1970 ......................... 18

7. Interests Represented by Delphi Panel ..................... 33

8. Most Significant Issues Affecting Development
of Middlesex County: Round One ......................... 39

9. Types of Development Desired for Middlesex County,
Perceptions of Delphi Panel-Round Two ................... 40

10. Institutions Considered by Delphi Panel to be Most Effective
in Regulating Growth in Region-Round Two ................ 41

11. Most Significant Issues Affecting Development
of Middlesex County (1975)-Round Two .................. 42

12. Most Significant Issues Affecting Development
of Middlesex County (1975)-Round Three ................. 44

13. Delphi Panel's Preferences for Regulating Future Growth
in Middlesex County (1975)-Round Three ................. 46

14. Correspondence Between Student Attitudes Toward Growth
Regulations and Attitudes Toward New Industry ............. 50

15. Most Critical Community Problems
Rated by High School Seniors ............................ 52

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Middlesex County, Virginia .............................. 70

2. Ratesof Population Change for Tidewater Virginia, 1930-1970 ... 71

3. Gloucester County Total Population Pyramids, 1960and 1970 ... 72

4. Mathews County Total Population Pyramids, 1960and 1970 ..... 74

5. Middlesex CountyTotal Population Pyramids, 1960and 1970 .... 76

6. Gloucester County White Population Pyramid, 1970 .......... 78

7. Mathews County White Population Pyramid, 1970 ............ 79

8. Middlesex County White Population Pyramid, 1970 ........... 80

9. Gloucester County Black Population Pyramid, 1970 ........... 81

10. Mathews County Black Population Pyramid, 1970 ............ 82

11. Middlesex County Black Population Pyramid, 1970 ........... 83

vii

12. Accessibility to Tidewater Virginia from Middlesex County ..... 89

13. Middlesex County Elevation Map ......................... 90

14. Middlesex County Soil Characteristics ...................... 91

15. Areas Preferred for Residential Development
in Middlesex County ................................... 92

16. Areas Preferred for Industrial Development in Middlesex County. .93

17. Middlesex County Residential Locations.
of All Survey Respondents .............................. 94

18. Middlesex County Areas of Perceived Pollution .............. 95

19. Middlesex County Areas Favored for Recreation ............. 96

20. Middlesex County Areas Favored by Blacks for Recreation. . . .. .97

21. Middlesex County Areas Favored by Whites for Recreation ..... 98

viii

ABSTRACT

Rural areas of coastal Virginia face increased exurban development as
the appeal of "country" living, lower taxes, and better accessibility lead
to rapid growth beyond the urban fringe. This study examined the poten-
tial social and environmental consequences of this trend in Middlesex
County, Virginia. Since many portions of this county have high water
tables and inefficient soils for wastewater treatment using conventional
septic tank systems, future growth will create water pollution problems
affecting not only the shellfishing industry but also human health. An
alternative waste disposal method, such as centralized sewage systems,
would likely lead to rapid population growth. A Delphi procedure is used
to analyze interest group perceptions of local problems and prospects.
Results indicate that most county representatives: (1) want regulated
growth to preserve existing land uses; (2) show a wide range of under-
standing of wastewater treatment and its effects on future growth; and
(3) prefer to postpone any plans for central sewage facilities until local
authorities have instituted growth-control ordinances.

Key words: Coastal Zone Management, Middlesex County, Virginia,
Tidewater Virginia, Chesapeake Bay, perceptions, Delphi techniques,
exurbanization, interest groups, constraints to growth, waste-disposal
problems, septic tanks, water pollution, demography, leadership assess-
ment techniques, local perceptions of growth potential, community
perceptions of environmental hazards.

PERSPECTIVES TO A REGIONAL DILEMMA:
Lessons From Fairfax County
And Prospects For Middlesex County, Virginia

1. A Northern Virginia Scenario

Many communities throughout the United States are beginning to ques-
tion the notion that "growth is good" [Bosselman etal., 1973; Emanual,
1974; Hill, 1974; Scott et al., 1975; Southard, 1973; Warner, 1974;
Wiener, 1973]. This is a radical change in American attitudes since the
growth ethic has been a central theme in our value system. The growth
ethic is found in our religious values and is central to our notions of
economic progress. Nevertheless, citizens are beginning to recognize the
costs of growth in terms of its unintended outcomes. Unpleasant side
effects are reflected in the nation's rising divorce and crime rates, de-
clining environmental quality, increasing visual blight, and the anxieties
associated with a fast-paced and rapidly changing urban society [Boulding,
et al., 1973; Packard, 1969; Tof ler, 1971

Nowhere are growth pressures more evident than in the rapidly suburban-
izing and exurbanizing areas of the United States. Although little more
than a modest four percent of the nation's land may be urbanized by
2000, most of the leapfrogging and visible sprawl is likely to occur in
existing built-up areas. Thus, one might share the evaluation that urban
encroachment will have a greater psychological than physical impact
[Hart, 1976; p. 15-171. The process of "growth mania" is well docu-
mented in an excellent case study of Fairfax County,Virginia [Stansbury,
19721. It relates the rapid residential growth in that county to improved
radial highways, federal home loan programs, real estate speculation, and
especially the developmentand expansion of the county's central sewage
systems.

Residential growth in Fairfax Countyhasbeen remarkable. Between 1950
and 1970, Fairfax County's population skyrocketed from 98,557 to
476,991 residents, a four-fold increase in 20 years. More than one-half
of this influx were new residents, most being young couples with children
seeking single-family homes.

This surge in population has strongly affected the quality of life in the
area. For example, rapid residential growth occurs long before the com-

munity can provide sufficient services. New subdivisions have led to
drastically over-crowded schools, shopping centers, and public parks, and
have increased the demand for fire and police protection. To finance
these services during the 1960's, Fairfax County property taxes jumped
137 percent while thecostof living rose a modest 28 percent [Stansbury,
1972; p. 251. Thissituation is characteristic of otherAmerican metropoli-
tan areas [Downie, 1974; Smith and Hiltner, 19751.

The negative consequences of suburbanization are difficult to prevent.
Although it may seem expensive for taxpayers, suburbanizatio'n is-very
profitable for those who are actively involved with development. Urban
sprawl begins when land specu lat6rs go into the, agricu Itural countryside
near the urban fringe and offer farmers prices for their land based upon
market rather than land usevalues. Many farmers are willing to sell their
land at these prices since most farmland is valued much lower on the
normal real estate market. The speculator then proceeds to have the land
rezoned so that it can be used for housing, appartments, and shopping
centers.

Land rezoning, however, is not always done in the best interest of the
entire communtiy. Special interests such as large landowners and specu-
lators, public utility executives, and bankers often exert tremendous in-
fluence upon local government and planning commissions. These bene-
ficiaries attain power by being appointed or elected to decisionmaking
agencies.such as the Board of Supervisors, or by making large campaign
contributions and cash offers to public officials [Downie, 1974; Stans-
'bury, 19741. Even without this type of influence, local planning agencies
willingly make zoning changes, thinking that increased land values (from
rezoning) will create larger tax revenues and increased spending power
for local government.

When rezoning has been accomplished, the speculator generally sells a
large tract of land to a developer, who does the actual building. The
builder is usually required to install access roads but is seldom required
to provide any additional public services. The builder makes substantial
profits in passing the true costs of the development to the home buyers
and other residents in the administrative district.

Bankers and money lenders also realize huge profits from suburban
sprawl. Savings and loan associations, the biggest lenders, earn most of
their interest income from mortgages on new homes. Therefore, it seems

inevitable that urban expansion will continue because it is indeed profit-
able to farmers, speculators, planners, developers, bankers, and even
homeowners whose propertyvalues soon increase [Downie, 1974; p. 84-
1041.

Residential development in Fairfax County also is influenced by decisions
of the Fairfax County Division of Sanitary Engineering (DSE). Without
previous installation of public sewage systems, growth would have been
prevented by state health authorities because such alternative forms of
waste treatment as septic tanks are not suited to the physical environment
in the county. Inadequate soils, high water tables, and low-lying land all
contribute to septictank failures at suburban densities. Forthese reasons,
the DSE is catalytic to any growth that occurs in the county. Indeed,
the cooperative alliance between the Board of Supervisors and the DSE
in the 1960's cemented the future directions of Fairfax County.

This alliance is certainly not unusual or surprising, since profitsand prog-
ress are commonly believed to be the result of residential development.
In addition, the alliance is shaped by the structure of Fairfax County's
government. Unfortunately, the decisions of this alliance are difficult if
not impossible to monitor at the grass roots level. Each agency perceives
that it is functioning in accordance with American values and meeting
its legal responsibilities.

One reason DSE decisions are difficult to regulate is that once a trunk
sewer line is installed, subsequent branch lines are necessary to pay for
previous construction. Stansbury describes the process very well:

Since the sewerage system is financed through a bond issue, and
since the bond issue is repaid through user charges, the Super-
visors wield every land-use weapon they can to assure that the
necessary residential developments and sewer hook-ups will take
place as rapidly as possible.

By this engineering-economic-political process, then, population
projections become at least partially self-fulfilling. But the pro-
cess does not stop there. The typical sewer bond issue is paid off
well before the new trunk line is filled to capacity. Undaunted,
the Supervisors still seekto guarantee thepreclicted tap-ins. Why?
To gain surplus revenues. What for? Among other things, to ex-
pand the sewerage system. [Stansbury, 1974; p. 14]

In practice, however, the process operates far I esssuccessfu I I y than stated
above. For example, in the mid-1950's, Fairfax County sold bonds to
finance a $20 million integrated sewage system. These bonds were to be
retired by payments from users of the system. However, new hookups
to the system were insufficient to meet the existing bond debts. Rather
than raise property taxes to offset sewer bond deficits, the county was
forced to sell additional bondsto enlarge the system further and thereby
generate new user revenues. The additional revenues were then used to
retire portions of the original $20 million bond debt. This situation is
analogous to the organizational adage that, once established, an organi-
zation's primary reason for existence is self-perpetuation.

Through this brief introduction, we have tried to demonstrate that sub-
urbanization is related to the provision of sanitation services and that
an understanding of both is central to the regulation of residential de-
velopment. Many areas are on the verge of a similar kind of experience.
Most would agree that the northern Virginia predicament isto be avoided.
We must ask, therefore, is growth desirable? If so, how can the negative
consequences of growth be minimized? Indeed, many of the rural areas
facing the prospects of growth have even fewer regulatory mechanisms
at their disposal than did Fairfax County in the 1950's and 1960's. How
can local governments anticipate the need forgrowth-control regulations
before expansion becomes unmanageable?

Developing growth-control legislation is very difficult without strong
grass roots cooperation, since most local residents fail to recognize and
do something about significant environmental problems until a crisis
takes place. In one of the earliest studies concerning human adjustments
to floods, White [1945; p. 241 demonstrated that "national catastrophes
have led to insistent demands for national action, and the timing of the
legislative process has been set by the tempo of destructive floods." The
wave of new national policies concerning coastal hazards protection has
been stimulated by a series of hurricane disasters on the Easter Seaboard
[Burton and Kates, 1964a].

Although the pulse of human affairs changes quickly during and imme-
diately after a crisis, it has also been demonstrated that hazard zone
occupants, even after suffering severe losses, resist new governmental
protection and regulations. In fact, they often return to their original
locations as quickly as possible [Burton and Kates, 1964b; Burton et al.,
1968; Burton, 1972; and Moline, 19741. Similarly, while population

growth offers the prospect of a different type of crisis, some persons
living in coastal areas facing imminent development demonstrate little
appreciation of the factors triggering growth and the impacts it wi I I have
upon their communities [Mitchell, 19761 . As a consequence, it may be
difficult to get public support for measures that will prevent the more
adverse impacts of development.

11. Central Goals and Questions of this Study

In Fairfax County, no significant resistance to growth occurred until
property taxes reached alarmingly high levels, thus awakening commun-
ity opposition to new sewer lines and development [Stansbury, 19741.
Middlesex County, a Tidewater area in Virginia's Middle Peninsula, was
selected as a case study to analyze interest group perceptions of critical
issues affecting exurban growth in a coastal region. The recognition of
problems contributing to and associated with rapid population growth
would seem to be much less evident in Middlesex County because the
residents have experienced little, if any, large scale development. For
example, one could hardly expect local residents to recognize the effects
of a countywide central sewage system, since perception of a problem
often requires past experience. Because of its rural quality, which is
characterized by low population density, open spaces, primary economic
activities, small settlements, low mobility and high social stability, county
residents are largely isolated from the issues of northern Virginia. Thus,
while their attitudes might appear provincial, they reflect a viewpoint
that has been conditioned by limited experiences in a county that has
changed little in recent years. In addition, the deeply rooted and cohesive
nature of thiscommunity are the ingredients which may stimulate greater
environmental consciousness and governmental action [Mitchel, 19761.

Therefore, we recognize the need for a research methodology that will
help us better understand a community, while also assisting local interest
groups to assess their environmental problems, anticipate the outcomes
of future developments, and mobilize community support to prevent
careless development and its repercussions.

The report documents one community's perception of its situation.
Spokesmen for interest groups in Middlesex County were asked the fol-
lowing basic questions:

1. Is growth desirable?
2. Should growth be regulated and if so, how?
3. What factors are retarding growth?
4. What impacts would result from a change in waste treatment
methods?
5. Is it socially desirable to solve the county's waste treatment prob-
lems and thereby open up the area for impending growth?

We hope thatthisstudy has alerted its participants to present and poten-
tial developmental issues. Through such awareness, we feel that this
community, which is on theverge of rapid development, might be spared
many of the inevitable problems that are encountered whenever growth
is allowed in an unplanned and chaotic fashion. A discussion of regional
demographic trends and growth potentials will set the stage for an analysis
of Middlesex County's strengths, weaknesses, and future prospects, as
seen primarily from the vantage point of its citizens.

REGIONAL GROWTH POTENTIAL OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA

The focus of this section isan assessmentof the potential for growth and
development in a portion of Tidewater Virginia. In common usage, Tide-
water can have several different geographic meanings. In this report,
Tidewater Virginia comprises the coastal lowlands lying between Chesa-
peake Bay and the Piedmont. The fall-line, or transition zone between
the coastal lowlands and the Piedmont, thus becomes the western limit
for the region.

1. Population Distribution in Tidewater, Virginia

The distribution of the present-day population in Tidewater Virginia is
the product of a complex assemblage of forces, past and present, oper-
ating both locally and from well beyond its territorial limits. The basic
form of this distributional pattern can be described quite succinctly in
terms of three regions: (1) a densely populated crescent of urban centers
stretching from Washinton, D.C. to Norfolk; (2) a largely agricultural
region to the southwest dotted with several urban centers and a pro-
nounced small-town population; and (3) a second agricultural region to
the east of the urban crescent having a widely dispersed rural popula-
tion with several small towns clustered along the coast and estuaries of
the Chesapeake Bay. Although adjacent to one another, the first and
third regions provide the sharpest contrast in population growth and
concentration.

A. The Urban Crescent

Along the fall-line lies a chain of cities whose development dates back
to colonial America. What was once a highly discontinuous array of
towns has developed into a crescent of urban centers. In Virginia, the
crescent beginsjust south of the Washington metropolitan area,continues
southward through Richmond, arcstoward the southeast near Hopewell,
and terminates in the Norfolk and Virginia Beach Metropolitan areas.

In Virginia, a coalescence of many of these urban areas had occurred by
the 1940's. Norfolk, for example, began to merge with such nearby
centers as Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, and
Williamsburg. At the same time, the interstitial rural territory, even when
still ostensibly agricultural, had been profoundly transformed in residen-
tial, social, and economic terms. Since 1950, the process of growth and

accretion of cities along the crescent has been rapid and spatially exten-
sive. By 1970, it was estimated that well over 1.75 million Virginians
reside within this nearly continuous zone of urban influence.

B.The Peninsular Tidewater Region

In direct contrast to these trends is the land area lying to the east of the
urban crescent. This third region of Tidewater Virginia encompasses the
three peninsulas. The upper peninsula is bounded by the Potomac River
to the north, while the lower peninsula is bounded by the James River
on the south. Unlike the chain of urban centers that partially surround
it, the region is decidely rural in character. Fewer than five settlements
had populations greater than 2,500 in 1970. These and smaller agglomer-
ations, usually located along rivers and estuaries, owe their existence to
favorable transportation or recreational situations.

While urban places to the west and south have made impressive gains in
population, the three Tidewater peninsulas, for the most part, have ex-
perienced little or no growth in population over the past 25 years. In
fact, the annual rate of population growth for the aggregate of counties
within the region is below the 1970 rateof natural increase forthe nation
which was 9.8 percent.

11. Urban and Rural Composition and Development

The date when city dwellers first outnumbered rural residents seems to
have been 1918 for the United States and 1926 for Tidewater Virginia.
The vagaries of Census definitions of urban and rural residence in recent
decades tend to obscure the actual situation. If the official definition
sets the percentage of Tidewater Virginians who were urban in 1970 at
63.7 while the national value is 73.5, then the Virginia statistic actually
reflects the inadequacy of the current urban definition. Less than one
Tidewater Virginian in every 80 now resideson a farm; and a goodly frac-
tion of the 29.8 percent reported as "rural nonfarrh" are, in fact, sub-
urban and exurban persons genuinely urban in economic and social out-
look. If it were feasible to redefine the population on a functional basis
rather than by the physical location of dwellings, then it is probable that
well in excess of 70 percentof Tidewater Virginians would be considered
u rban.

TABLE 1
Percentage Change in Tidewater Population from Preceding Census

U rban Rural
Current 1970 +4.2 +4.9
Urban Definition
1960 +8.4 +4.1

Previous 1960 +6.4 +11.2
Urban Definition
1950 +6.2 +7.0

1940 +1.8 +6.8

1930 +9.5 +1.3

1920 +14.7 +4.3

Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1965; and, 1970 Census of Population, General Characteristics
for Virginia, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970.

Tidewater Virginia has shared with the rest of the Commonwealth and
country a decline in its once predominantly agricultural population.
When the rural farm population was first distinguished from other cat-
egories by the 1920 Census, it had already shrunk to 29.7 and 26.2 per-
cent of the aggregate population in the United States and Tidewater
Virqinia, respectively. By 1970, the corresponding values were 4.1 and
1.3percent. Rather paradoxically, however, the size of Tidewater's "rural"
population has grown without letup from the first Census to the most
recent enumeration (i.e., if we adopt the current urban definition from
1950 onward). The apparent paradox is that of a steadily increasing
lirural" population in a region where the tradional rural occupations
have dwindled. In part, we are confronted with the problem of outmoded
definitions. But more interestingly, it is possible that we are confronted
with newer modes of urbanization and exurbanization, or perhaps with
an emergent mode of settlement for which there is no proper term as yet.

In any event, both gross categories of population-the "urban" and
"rural"-have grown in absolute size, but in rather erratic fashion, during

TABILE2
Population Totals and Growth Rates for Six Coastal Counties
(Figures within parentheses indicate the relative rate of population growth
as compared with the preceding census totals.)

County 1930 1940 % 1950 % 1960 % 1970 %
Gloucester 11,019 9,548 (-13.3) 10,343 ( 8.3) 11,919 (15.2) 14,059 (18.0)

Lancaster 8,896 8,786 -1.2) 8,640 (-1.7) 9,174 ( 6.2) 9,126 (-0.5)

Mathews 7,884 7,149 -9.3) 7,148 (-0.0) 7,121 (-0.4) 7,168 (-6.4)

Middlesex 7,273 6,673 -8.2) 6,715 ( 0.6) 6,319 (-5.9) 6,295 (-0.4)
Northumberland 11,081 10,463 -5.6) 10,012 (-4.3) 10,185 ( 1.7) 9,239 (-9.3)

York 7,615 8,857 16.3) 11,750 (32.7) 21,583 (83.7) 33,203 (53.8)

Source: Census of Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Characteristics. Final ReportPC(l) C-48,
Virginia, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972.

recent decades, as indicated in Table 1. Whatever measure maybe applied,
the dominant trend in Tidewater Virgin i a is for urban popu I ati onto grow
at a faster rate than the rural. Tkus, the urban population has increased
from 39.6 to63.7 percent during the period 1940to 1970 while the rural
percentage has declined correspondingly. Much of this growth has oc-
curred in or near the larger urban centers.

I 11. Population Characteristics and Growth in Coastal Counties

The research focuses on Middlesex County, one of six coastal counties
in the Peninsular Tidewater (Figure 1). Before examining Middlesex
County in particular, we look at population growth and development in
the context of the six-county area.

A. The Coastal Counties

Population totals and rates of change for the six coastal counties are
given in Table 2. The data, spanning half a century, clearly show that
the majority of counties have experienced sizeable losses in population.
The most significant decrease occurred during the period 1930-1940,
which corresponds to the time when nearby urban centers were adding
large numbersto their populations. The countiesof York and Gloucester,
however, deviate from this general trend. Growth in both counties has
been on the rise since 1940.

It is difficult to uncover any patterns of population change given only
the data in Table 2. When disaggregating the data to minor civil divisions
(or magisterial districts) and presenting them in map form (Figure 2),
regional trends in population growth become more evident.

Spatial patterns of population change are more easily identified than
temporal ones. Population growth rates decrease as one moves northward
across the tier of counties. With few exceptions, this regularity has be-
come more evident in recent decades. Thus, the closer a minor civil divi-
sion is to the u rban centers to the south, the more substantial is its popu-
lation growth. Witness, for example, the large increments over time in
tot al population for York County, and, to a lesser extent, in Gloucester
County. Located on the lower peninsula, York County is immediately
adjacent to the Newport News and Hampton metropolitan areas. Need-
less to say, the county has absorbed much of their population growth
over the past two decades. Even though suburban and exurban growth

TABLE3
The Peninsular Tidewater Population Classified by Urban and Rural Residence, 1970

Total Rural Rural Farm Population
Population Urban % Nonfarm % Farm % Change 1960-1970
G I ou ceste r 14,059 - (0.0) 13,469 (95.8) 590 (4.2) -46.3
Lancaster 9,126 - (0.0) 8,645 (94.7) 481 (5.3) -56.9

Mathews 7,168 - (0.0) 6,882 (96.0) 286 (4.0) -25.9
Middlesex 6,295 - (0.0) 5,852 (93.0) 443 (7.0) -58.2

Northumberland 9,239 - (0.0) 8,103 (87.7) 1,136 (12.3) -39.9

York 33,203 7,770 (23.4) 25,175 (75.8) 262 (0.8) -37.8

Source: Census of Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Characteristics. Final Report PC(1) C-48,
Virginia, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972.

in the counties has been substantial, no popu I ation in Gloucester County
is classified as "urban" and only 23.4 percent of York County's popula-
tion is considered as such (Table 3). Once again, the Census definitions
of urban and rural are inadequate. The statistics in Table3do notconvey
the realities of the situation in spite of large decreases in the farm pop-
ulation over the past decade (Table 3), tracts of agricultural land being
converted to housing subdivisions, and a dense and growing nonfarm
population.

A second interesting trend can be observed for minor civil divisions that
have the largestamountof shoreline along the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2).
With few exceptions, these areal units have experienced higher rates of
urban growth than inland districts. The trend is due, in part, to growth
in recreation. Both year-round and vacation homes have been increasing
in these coastal areas. The vacation and recreational trade has also made
an impacton the retail sector which, in turn, has spurred additional pop-
ulation growth.

Looking only at the map of relative increase or decrease in population
size of minor civil divisions, we cannot obtain a complete picture of the
dynamics of population change in the Peninsular Tidewater. Migration
plays a significant role in the changing demographic characteristics of
the region. Table4 gives the net migration rates for the six coastal coun-
ties (Figure 2). We find that, in general, population growth due to net
migration decreaseswhile moving northward. Throughout recent history,
the northern counties have attained a negative net migrational balance.
Middlesex County, Which lies midway in the north-south tierof counties,
records a net migration rate of -1.3. The rate suggests that the number
of immigrants entering the county is slightly less than the number of
emigrants between 1960 and 1970. According to recent estimates of
the population of Virginia counties as of July 1, 1974 [Gilliam and
Serow, 19751, Middlesex County has attained a net migrational balance
of 4.1 between 1970 and 1974. Once again, the counties of Gloucester
and York, being considerably closer to major urban concentrations,
experience the highest rates of growth due to net migration.

B. The Middle Peninsula

The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of emigrants leaving
the easternmost counties of the Middle Peninsula differ from the char-
acteristics of those coming in. Proportionally, more blacks than whites

TABLE 4
Net Migration Rates for Six Coastal Counties

1950 1960 1970

Gloucester 2.5 2.7 11.3

Lancaster -8.4 -6.0 -5.4

Mathews -4.6 -2.8 5.0

Middlesex -9.8 -13.3 -1.3

Northumberland -11.2 -7.0 -13.0

York 36.1 54.5 37.4

Net Migration Bal-
ance of the Region 0.4 3.0 5.6

Source: City and County Data Book, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972.

leave the area, as evidenced by negative growth rates of -6.8, -5.3,
and -10.8 for the black populations of Gloucester, Mathews, and
Middlesex counties, respectively. In addition, outward migration is part-
icularly selective of the youngand few differentials by sex or educational
level can be detected. As the population pryamids for the counties show
(Figures 3-5), noticeable losses in population within the 20-39 year age
interval have occurred for at least two decades. Only in GloucesterCoun-
ty is the trend beginning to reverse (Figure 5).

The losses in population can be attributed to a local economy in which
fewer and fewer job opportunities are available to retain the young,
skilled, and educated segments of the population. Since so many among
the working population continue to leave the counties and seek jobs else-
where, unemployment rates are not critically high (Table 5). But, for
those who choose to remain, many have had to find employment out-
side their county of residence.

Few ins ights into the characteristics of the migrant populations can be
gained from net migration rates alone. And, given the relative paucity of
migration data in the Census, researchers must resort to more indirect

TABLE5
Selected Employment Characteristics
for Middle Peninsula Counties, 1970

Percent Percent Employed Outside
Cou n Unemployed County of Residence
Gloucester 3.0 45.6
Mathews 5.8 31.1
Middlesex 2.9 24.6

Source: City and County Data Book, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972.

methods. Therefore, in this report we use population pyramids for sum-
marizing age and sex characteristics of the resident populations in the
three county area.

Population pyramids provide a graphic summary of the number of males
and femalesthat fall into eachof 18 five-yearage groups. Figures3 through
5 depict the age-sex structure of the county populations for 1960 and
1970. As noted earlier, the counties have lost many of their young adults
in recent decades. The decreasing population among the younger ranks
means that the number of individualsaged 20-24 years is nearly equal to
the number within the 70-74 year age group.

In recent decades, the rural coastal plain counties have added large num-
bers of people aged 45 years and olderto their population. Middlesex and
Mathews counties, in particular, have much older populations than, for
example, the more suburban York County to the south (Table 6). More-
over, the indices of median age and percent of population over 65 years
for magisterial districts in the Middle Peninsula suggest that the oldest
populations are situated in the low-lying districts along Chesapeake Bay.
These are also the areas in which recreational activities and the construc-
tion of vacation homes have been gaining momentum in recent years.

TABLE 6
Age Characteristics for Selected Counties
in the Peninsular Tidewater, 1970.

Percent Population
Median Percent Popula- Receiving Social
Age tion Over 65 yrs. Security Benefits
Gloucester 31.0 11.6 % 18.0%
*Abingdon 28.9 9.7
Petsworth 33.0 14.2
Ware 34.7 14.5

Mathews 40.5 20.5 39.9
*Chesapeake 43.7 23.6
*Piankitank 41.7 19.0
*Westville 38.3 17.9

Middlesex 37.7 17.5 33.5

Jamaica 30.8 15.3
*Pine Top 43.2 20.3
Saluda 35.3 15.7
York 24.4 4.3 9.2

Bethel 22.2 2.7
Bruton 24.4 3.5
*Grafton 26.9 5.4
Nelson 28.8 3.9
*Poquoson 27.6 7.9
*Indicates magisterial districts immediately adjacent to the Chesapeake
Bay.

Source: Census of Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Char-
acteristics, Final Report PC(1) C48, Virginia, U.S. Bureau of the Cen-
sus, 1972.

The population pyramids for the black population of the three counties
tell a quite different story from the pyramids for total population (Fig-
ures 6-8). Blacks constitute a much younger subgroup of the population
with proportionally larger numbersof blacksthan whitesaged 0-19years.
Similar to its effect on the white population, the process of migration is
particularly selective of blacks aged 20-39 years. Unlike the white pop-
ulation, however, there are considerably fewer blacks at or beyond re-
tirement age.

The age and sex composition of the white residents, as portrayed in Fig-
ures 9 through 11, provide a sharp contrast to the black population
pyramids (Figures 6-8). One in every fourwhite residents is over65 years
of age. Alternatively, less than one in every four white residents has yet
to reach 20 years of age.

The population pyramids supply the evidence for indirect conclusions
regarding the characteristics of migration in the Middle Peninsula. Unlike
the demographic characteristics of those leaving the area, the bulk of the
incomers fall within the age group 45 years and over. The result of this
age selectivity in migration is most noticeable in the white population
pyramids of Middlesex and Mathews counties for 1970 (Figures 7 and 8)
where substantial growth of the retirement age population has occurred
since 1950.

The question of where the migrants originated remains to be answered.
Fortunately, the Census has published information summarizing inter-
state and intrastate migration rates for the population 5 years and older
in each of the states for the periods 1955-1960 and 1965-1970 [U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1967 and 1972]. The data are derived from re-
sponses to questions about place of residence five years earlier and are
administered by the Censusto a largesample population. Both the origins
and destinations of migration streams between State Economic Areas
(SEA's) can be read-ily obtained. For each time period, the data indicate
how many of those living in each SEA in the country at the beginning
or end of the five-year period had been residing in each of the others
during the other year. Less fortunately, no breakdown by age, sex, or
any other characteristics for these migration streams exist.

According to the Census reports of migration between SEA's, the loca-
tions supplying the majority of migrants are in close proximity to the
three coastal counties. Previous residents of urban centers such as Rich-

mond, Newport News, Hampton, and Norfolk make up a disproportion-
ate share of those migrating to the area during 1955-60 and 1965-70. In
general, the previous places of residence for the vast majority of immi-
grants to Gloucester, Mathews, and Middlesex counties include locations
within Tidewater Virginia.

Based upon a preceding description of changes in the age composition
of these counties, we have reason to believethatthe majority of migrants
entering in recent years are white and over45 yearsof age. Alternatively,
migrants leaving the Middle Peninsula are less than 35 years of age, dis-
proportionately black, and in search of employment in the crescent of
urban centers to the south and west. The bulk of migration to and from
the Middle Peninsula occurs over relatively shortdistances. Furthermore,
the pattern is one in which young emigrants from the counties are re-
placed by older working-age and retired populations, the latter group
being substantially larger in absolute size.

IV. Prospects for Future Growth in Middlesex County

Middlesex County actually has been declining in population size since
1950, despite large influxes through migration. Perhaps the primary
force affecting this decline is a local rural economy unable to support
a growing population. The livelihood of the local economy depends
upon commercial agriculture, dairying, and the shellfishing, lumbering,
boatbuilding and recreational industries. However, the potential for
growth within many of these industries is severely limited. Lumbering,
commercial agriculture, and dairying activities find it impractical to
achieve internal scale economies through expansion due to an already
heavy tax burden. The shellfishing industry, central to the economic
health of the county, has been adversely affected by the pollution of
coastal estuaries. Moreover, small shellfishing enterprises in the county
cannot realize sufficient scale economies in order to compete effectively
with other large-scale shellfishing industriesalong the Chesapeake. These
and other economic ills place the county on the verge of economic stag-
nation.

One bright prospect in an otherwise dismal economic outlook is the
growth potential in recreation-related activities. Boat-building and rec-
reational service industries, in particular, have experienced considerable
growth in recent years. A growing housing demand hasspurred increased
activity within the construction industry.The abundance of water-related

recreational opportunities make the county a desirable location for vaca-
tion homesites. In addition, the strategic location of Middlesex County
with respect to the chain of urban centers to the south and west (Figure
12) make it highly desirable for permanent, year-round residential
locations.

At this juncture, it should be reemphasized that 25 percent of the eco-
nomically active population commute to work places outside the county.
Thus, an additional demand for housing has been generated by residents
of the Richmond and Newport News metropolitan areas who have de-
cided to relocate their residences to the more rural environment of the
county while, nevertheless, retaining their employment in these metro-
politan areas. And as Figure 14 shows, the commuting time to many
of these urban areas is not unreasonable. In fact, suburban employment
locations are less than one hour's drive from the geographical center of
Middlesex County.

Added to the demand forvacation and permanent homesites for resident
and nonresident workers are two additional categories of housing demand.
The first category pertains to the demand for permanent retirement
homesites. The population figures presented earlier clearly support this
observation. As previously indicated in Table 6, 17.5 percent of the
county's population in 1970 was over 65 years of age, and the Pine Top
District attained an even more impressive figure of 20.3 percent. The
figures, and the even higher one for adjacent Mathews County, are con-
siderably higher than the state-wide figure of 7.9 percent. These trends,
coupled with the prevailing migration patterns, indicate that migrants
choose a more rural environment in which to reside upon retirement
from jobs in nearby urban centers. And the location of Middlesex County
on the fringe of several metropolitan areas affords one with accessibility
to urban opportunities when the need arises.

Although only slight corroborating evidence from field interviews exists,
there is some reason to believe that many of the retirees establishing
residency in Middlesex County are, in fact, return migrants. Thus, many
of the incoming retirees are either native to or former residents of the
county. Those who once were drawn away from the county, perhaps as
young adults, find their home area sufficiently appealing to return later
in life. Although this is an interesting supposition, the migration of re-
tirees to the county is by no means limited to former residents.

A final category of housing demand is that of long-term residents-those
who have lived in the county for many years and require larger or better
quality homes. The category also includes young couples establishing
their first households. However, given the continued emigration of young
adults due to a lack of job opportunities, the housing demand of young
couples is a declining factor.

The following indicators of potential growth presently exist, and these
trends are unlikely to be reversed. First, further immigration of retirees
is expected to continue as people seekthe amenities of this rural setting.
Second, families are relocating in Middlesex County from nearby urban
centers where they continue to hold employment. (That urbanization is
encroaching upon this region was officially recognized in April 1973,
when Gloucester County was designated as an addition to the Newport
News Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.) Third, until new employ-
ment opportunities become available, Middlesex County will continue
to lose its skilled and educated young adults. However, as firms continue
to suburbanize as they have in York and Gloucester counties, Middlesex
County will be in a slightly better position to retain its younger popu-
lation as a labor source for these outside opportunities.

Therefore, as we have maintained, immediate and significant pressures
for residential development do exist in Middlesex County. Piankatank
Shores, for example, is a planned residential communtity under con-
struction in the southcentral portion of the county. In addition, the
Tranquility Development Corporation applied for a building permit to
construct a sizeable condominium complex [The Southside Sentinel,
19761. Here, then, are two among many examples of housing projects
in the area. Furthermore, as highway accessibliity is improved, this de-
mand for housing can only intensify (Figure 12).

V. A Physical, Constraint on Growth

A major constraint to the impending urban growth of the Middle Penin-
sula, and Middlesex County in particular, is the inherent problem of
wastewater treatment and disposal. Conventional low-density household
and commercial treatment systems consisting of septic tanks and drain-
fields are frequently unsuited to particular soil conditionsand high water
tables. In theory, the waste water is treated and filtered through septic
tank and drainfield systems. Yet, when the water table is too close to

the surface or when the soil is saturated from heavy rains, septic tanks
back up, raw sewage oozes into drainage ditches and eventually empties
into the region's waterways.

Much of Middlesex County's coastal area is characterized by swampy,
poorly-drained soils with high clay content. The county is also charact-
erized by a preponderance of low-lying land (Figure 13). Since these
conditions contribute to poor drainage, septic tanks cannot function ef-
fectively on a consistent basis in many areas where soils are either too
porous or impermeable. Thus, the only areas normally suitable for sep-
tic tanks under current regulations include the loamy, gravelly and the
deep, well-drained soils which lie in the higher, central portions of the
county (Figure 14). The runoff of poorly treated sewage has contributed
to the pollution of offshore shellfishing beds. One policy resulting from
these conditions is a "tough" stance by the Virginia Bureau of Environ-
mental Health, whereby a homesite's percolation and soil chemistry
must be tested and approved before the issuance of a building permit.
The result has been a substantial reduction in new residential develop-
ment in areas that do not "perk" and a general anxiety among residents
of restricted areas as they await technological solutions to the problem.

The simple, but costly, technological answer for these conditions is the
construction of ce 'ntral sewage treatment facilities. Aside from the initial
costs for these facilities-which such a rural area would be unable to
bear-other social, political and economic consequences would follow
the "green light" to development resulting from central sewage facilities.
Perhaps many of the problems associated with rapid growth in northern
Virginia would occur in Middlesex County. Therefore, we question the
extent to which the wastewater treatment issue is recognized as one of
Middlesex County's regional problems, and to what extent it is under-
stood as a deterent to development b kesmen for interest
,y various spo
groups in the County.

A TOOL FOR GRASS ROOTS PARTICIPATION
The Delphi Method: Its Scope and Application

It is apparent from the previous discussion that the primary theme of
this report is as much methodological as it is conceptual. Related to the
principal conceptual questions are a set of important methodological
questions. These are:

1. How can environmental scientists and planners help a com-
munity address critical environmental problems before they be-
come detrimental to the quality of life in that community? and,

2. How can these analysts help a community to reach agreement
among themselves concerning adaptive or preventive responses
to critical environmental problems?

Certainly, an educational component is inherent in both of these ques-
tions. What is needed, therefore, isa methodology which will help citizens
to identify and understand environmental problems so that they can play
an active role in the decisionmaking process and positively influence the
future of their communities. We believe that the Delphi Method has an
educational component and fulfills these needs. Other practitioners have
demonstrated that group interaction and the Nominal Group Technique
are also useful for factfinding and decisionmaking problems [Delbecq et
al., 1975; p. 31-35].

Delphi is a technique used to summarize the opinions of a group of ex-
perts concerning a specific issue. Pill defines Delphi as,

a method of combining the knowledge and abilities of a diverse
group of experts to the task of quantifying variables which are
either intangible or shrouded in uncertainty [Pill, 1971; p. 581.

Delphi achieves its goal through a series of questionnaires interspersed
with feedback opinion. The items in the questionaire

are designed to bring out the respondent's reasoning that went
into his reply to the primary question, the factors he considers
relevant to the problem, his own estimate of these factors, and
information as to the kind of data that he feels would enable
him to arrive at a better appraisal of these factors and, thereby,

at a more confident answer to the primary question [Dalkey
and Helmer, 1963; p. 4581.

The Delphi Method was developed at the Rand Corporation in the early
1950's for use in military forecasting. As a consequence, information
about the technique was not made available until the early 1960's for
security reasons. Since that time, Delphi has been used in a wide variety
of contexts to elicit expert opinion concerning forecasting, and planning
issues for the future. In geography, the technique has been used only
recently and quite sparingly [Smil, 1975, 19721. An excellent critique
and bibliography of Delphi are given by Pill 1971.

To make a Delphi forecast, the investigator must first assemble a "panel"
of experts who will agree to participate in the procedure. The investigator
then sends each panel member an open-ended questionnaire concerning
the topic being considered. The purpose of this first questionnaire is to
define the topic and establish a common frame of reference in which to
respond. In this way, the panel isolates the primary dimensions of the
topic for the investigator. Upon receiving the completed questionnaires
from the panel, the investigator synthesizes the results and returns them
to the panel members together with a second questionnaire. Providing
the panel with results gives them feedback about the opinions expressed
by other panel members, and the second questionnaire gives them an op-
portunity to comment on these other opinions and/or change their own
opinion. The process of questionnaire followed by feedback and another
questionnaire is repeated until the panel has achieved some type of con-
census or made a decision or forecast.

In its basic form, the Delphi Method has many of the advantagesof a com-
mittee interacting in a face-to-face setting, without many of the disad-
vantages of such a situation [Martino, 1972] . For example, the sum of
the information available to a group is at least as great as the information
available to each of its members. In fact, it is conceivable thatthe group's
information pool may be greater since information may be created during
or throu,gh the interaction process. Similarly, the number of relevant
factors which can be considered by a group is at least as large or larger
than the number which can be considered by any group member. Third,
it is experimentally true that groups tend to be more willing to take risks
(particularly in forecasting) than do individuals. This is, because the

groups find it easier to share the risk (or responsibi I ity) of wrong projec-
tions rather than to have to shoulder the responsibility of an error as an
individual.

Unfortunately, there are several disadvantages associated with group inter-
action in committees. First, while the sum of the information available
to a group is greater than that which is available to each individual, the
sum of the misinformation available is also greater. Hopefully, misinfor-
mation presented to the group will be challenged and refuted, but there
is no guarantee that this will happen. Furthermore, groups exert social
pressure on their membership. Occasionally, the majority opinion in a
group exerts pressure onthe minority opinion toconform. If this happens,
the minority view, which may have considerable merit, is lost, thereby
decreasing the overall quality of the conclusions or forecast. In addition
to the social pressure of the group, dominant individuals may also wield
undue influence on the activities of the group. Again, in an effort to pro-
duce concensus and conformity, the dominant individual may cause val-
uable opinions and comments to be suppressed or ignored. Finally,

experiments with small groups have shown that frequently it is
not the validity but the number of comments and arguments for
or against a proposed position which carries the day. Thus a strong
vocal minority may overwhelm the remainder of the group by
pushing its views vigorously, even though the arguments present-
ed, taken objectively, may have little merit. [Martino, 1972; p.
19] .

The advantage of the Delphi method is that it incorporates the advantages
of committee without many of the disadvantages. The Delphi procedure
offers three main characteristics: (1) anonymity, (2) controlled feedback,
and (3) statistical group response. Because Delphi is involved with a panel
of experts, who theoretically have access to the best information avail-
able, it maximizes the informational advantages of a group. Furthermore,
since it offers each member systematic feedback concerning the opinions
of others, information is shared, synthesized and created. In this way,
Delphi allows each panel member to evaluate other points of view, con-
sider new opinions, and reconsider his own stated position. Because of
this information exchange procedure, Delphi achieves the benefits of
group interaction. However, because Delphi has the characteristic of
anonymity, it avoidsthe disadvantagesof social interaction. These include
the inordinate influence of dominant individuals, and the tendency for

minority or non-conformist opinions to be suppressed due to social pres-
sures. I n fact, because of the statistical group response characteristic, each
and every opinion that is expressed is reflected in the final product of the
Delphi sequence.

From what little information has been gathered, it appears that Delphi is
a successful method for collecting "hard to get" data. A 1950-era Rand
Corporation study, for example, showed that Delphi produced at least as
good predictions as a group round table discussion, but did not have to
depend on the skills of a discussion leader to keep the group on the sub-
ject at hand [Pill,1971; p.591 . Pill [ 1971, p.581 indicates, "Delphi is a
rapid and efficient way to cream the top off the heads of knowledgeable
people." Furthermore, he goes on to say that, "The output of this pro-
cedure represents new information which (can) be used to help in some
decision-making process." [p.601.

Thus, Delphi would seem to be a logical technique to use in cases where
the answers are vague, and subject to many interpretations, and where
education is an important objective of the investigative experience. This
is, in fact, thecase in our Middlesex County study, and in any community
and regional planning situation. In the community planning case, public
education and communication are important goals of the whole planning
and policymaking process. In such cases, the various dimensions of the
problem are not alwaysclear, and are subject to many interpretations and
points of view. Therefore, Delphi would seem to be invaluable as an ad-
vocacy research technique to help a community recognize local pro-
blems and agree upon appropriate community responses to these pro-
blems. Molnar and Kammerud [ 19751 have successfully used Delphi tech-
niques in their research on priorities for improving the urban social en-
vironment. For these reasons, we decided to employ Delphi techniques
in our analysis of man-environment conflicts in Middlesex County.

One of the more difficult aspects of using the Delphi Method is to as-
semble a panel of experts. People considered to be experts on the topic
of the Delphi research are sought because they can be expected to have
access to the best information and current thinking about the subject.
Yet the question remains, "How does one go about selecting a Delphi
panel?" Unfortunately, the Delphi literature does not offer much help in
answering this question. I n fact, Pill's [ 197 1; p.601 comment that "the
term expert could really be defined to include anyone who can contri-
bute relevant inputs" illustrates the looseness of the definition. The de-

fin itional problem makes the selection of panel members d if ficu It at best.
In community planning uses of Delphi, however, the problem of assemb-
ling a panel of experts may not be quite as serious.

It would seem that those people who might be considered "experts" on
community planning matters are the formal and informal leaders of a
community. Those peoplewho can be identified as "community leaders"
have the bulk of information, and influence most of the decisions affect-
ing the quality of life in a community. Presthus [19671, for example,
estimates that no more than one percent of the population (of most
American communities) is involved in local decisionmaking. Sociologists
have developed methodsand proceduresfor identifying these community
leaders.

For the most part, community leaders are those people who have power
and make decisions affecting community life [Sanders, 19661. Sociolo-
gists [ Nix, 1969; Sanders, 1966, 1960; Payne, 19 63; Long, 19581 suggest
that there are three basic approaches to the problem of identifying peo-
ple who wield power: the reputational approach, positional approach,
and decisional approach. Others [Danzer, 1964; Freeman et al., 1963]
mention a fourth method, the activist approach, for identifying this
group.

In using the reputational approach, the researcher asks citizens of a com-
munity to compile a list of names of those persons in the local area who
are the most influential or powerful in local decisionmaking. By selecting
those names that appear most often on these lists, it is possible to com-
pile a group of persons perceived or reputed to be the most powerful and
influential in the community. This approach is satisfactory, but critics
maintain its major shortcoming is that it does not measure power or
leadership per se, but rather the reputation for leadership and power. It
is often the case that perceived leaders merely obscure from view the
powers-that-be. [Bonjean and Olson, 19641.

In utilizing the positional approach, one assumes that those persons who
occupy important official positions in the institutionalized economic,
political, social, and civic structures of a community are by definition
powerful and influential. An investigator would, therefore, make a list of
such people as the mayor, industry president, P.T.A. leader, Elk's Club
president, and local political party chairman, and assume that such

people make the majority of the decisions affecting the community.
Again, critics suggest that these people might well be figureheads, and
that there are others who are the prime movers.

The third method of identifying community leadership is the decisional
approach. In this case,the list of leaders is the product of lengthy partici-
pant observation on the part of the investigator. He compiles his list of
community influentials by observing how community issues are settled,
and who makes important decisions. While the leadership list resulting
from this approach may be the mostvalid, it is extremely time consuming
to complete. In addition, this approach requires considerable skill on
the part of the investigator who must develop sufficient rapport within
the community so that he can witness the decisionmaking process.

The activist approach is the last of the more often cited methods of id-
entifying community leaders. Thisapproach assumes that spokesmen for
issue-specific groups are also important actors in local decisionmaking.
Proponents of this method recommend, therefore, that leaders of special
interest groups, such asthe committee to prevent the use of certain texts
in local classrooms, or the group fighting expansion of the local airport
might be valuable additions to the community leadership list.

To avoid the pitfalls of each of these methods and to assemble a list of
names that best reflects those who occupy positions of leadership in a
community, Sanders [19661 recommends that all of these approaches
be employed simultaneously to identify community influentials. A com-
bination of the above mentioned methods wasused in Middlesex County
to identify community leaders, who we then asked to serve as experts
on our panel.

The decisional approach was undoubtedly the most difficult method of
leader identification to use in Middlesex County, and consequently
was the least successful. Working at full-time jobs about 250 miles from
the study area did not allow us to become fully seasoned or accepted
11 participant observers." We did, however, make monthly trips to the
county lasting two to three days per visit. During these visits nearly 50
pre-arranged interviews were conducted with a variety of community
residents. In addition, we talked casually about community events with
local residents during these visits. These contacts enabled us to be-
come quite familiar with the community, its citizens, their values and

attitudes, and local problems from many points of view. We addressed
public meetings such as the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce,
Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors, but did not become
part of the community to the extent that we followed an issue com-
pletely through the decisionmaking process. In this sense, the project
failed in itsattemptto use the decisional approach to the identification of
leadership. Our involvement in the community did, however, give us
confidence that we correctly identified influentials through our use of
the other three methods.

During our visits, county residents were asked to suggest names of the
most influential people in Middlesex County. From these various lists, a
reputational list was compiled which included all those persons who
were mentioned by at least three residents. Using this procedure, we
arrived at a reputed leadership list of about 60 people. It soon became
apparent that the first 15 or 20 names on this list were being mentioned
by almost every one of our interviewees. The people on the reputational
list were predominately white men, but included a few women, a few
black men and women, and nobody under the age of 30 years old.

This reputational list was augmented with inputs from the positional
and activist methods of leadership identification. We considered per-
sons occupying offices in local government, industry, civic and social or-
ganizations in the county. Many of these office holders were also present
on the reputational list of leaders. We scanned local telephone directories
to insure that we were aware of all the prominent groups and organiza-
tions in the area, and that they were well represented on our list of in-
fluentials. Also, we read local newspapers regularly to note the names
and spokesmen of the active local special interest groups. For example,
in Middlesex County, one such group was concerned about the possible
expansion and upgrading of the county airport. It felt such a move
would unnecessarily increase air traffic, noise pollution, and accidents.

By using thiscombination of leadership identification methods, we com-
piled a list of approximately 70 persons from Middlesex County whom
we considered locally powerful and knowledgeable about community
problems and clecisionmaking. We then sent each of these persons.
whom we had not met a letter introducing ourselves and describing
the nature of our research project in Middlesex County. After they had
received the letters, we telephoned each person and asked if he would be
willing to serve on the Delphi panel (i.e., to complete the several rounds

of questionnaires). Nearly all of these people agreed to be panel members
and they were sent the first round of questionnaires. About 43 residents
completed two or more of the subsequent four questionnaires in the
Delphi sequence, and these persons are henceforth referred to as our
Delphi panel.

I nterestingly, 20 of the panel members (most often mentioned as being
influential) were at the top of the reputational list. In this regard, our
panel is very representative of at least the local perceptions of who has
power. The restof thepanel iscomprised of peoplewho occupy positions
of authority in formal organizations and special interest groups. The fol-
lowing table presents a breakdown of some of the more important char-
acteristics of our Delphi panel. In examining this table, it should be noted
that most people wear several "hats" as they carry out their leadership
roles in Middlesex County. For example, one individual is at the same
time a large county landowner, an active promoter of the recreational in-
dustry, and a member of the Board of Supervisors. Another panel mem-
ber is a "retiree," a small businesswoman, an activist in the Chamber of
Commerce, and President of the Woman's Club. This type of complexity
is an essential part of community power structures, and has been ably
documented in the classic study by Long [ 19581.

The composition of the Delphi panel does not adequately reflect certain
interest groups in the county, i.e., blacks, young people, and lower in-
come persons. Community influentials tend to come from the middle-
aged, white, affluent segments of our society and not from these above-
mentioned groups. Youth, blacks, and the poor have consistently been
denied access to.the information and institutions through which critical
policy decisions are made. In addition, young people generally lack the
necessary experience and maturity to be considered expert on matters
of community interest. We recognized, however, that these groups have
valuable opinions and points of view which should be described and in-
cluded in the regional planning process.

To collect these alternative viewpoints, all seniors were given a question-
naire in their governmentclass at Middlesex High School. Youth, blacks,
and the poorareall well represented in this class. The single questionnaire
dealt with their attitudes about the county, its problems, and their plans
for the future. These responses are used throughout this document to
augment the information obtained from the Delphi panel "experts."

TABLE7
Interests Represented by Delphi Panel

Government
A State Board of Health officer
Commonwealth's Attorney for the county
Three members of the county Board of Supervisors
Three local planning commission members, one of whom is a full-time
planner of the state regional agency
The county sheriff
The county agricultural agent

Industry, Business
The county's major seafood buyer and packer
Two timber industry representatives, including the vice president of
a national pulp and paper firm located in the region
Six representatives of the agricultural industry, including one of the
nation's leading commercial duck producers, several farmers, and
agri-businessmen
Ten local businessmen, including the president of the local Chamber
of Commerce
Two local bankers
Two marina owners and the areas's largest recreational boat builder
Owner of the county's largest campground
Six of the area's largest landowners
A local general building contractor and landowner

Civic
President of the Lion's Club
Past-president of the NAACP Chapter
President of the local Women's Club
Past-president of theWomen'sClub and member of the county histor-
ical association

Education and Health
Three school board members
High school principal
Headmaster of local private high school
Three doctors
Two dentists

continued

TABLE 7, continued

Other
Five women
Four blacks
Three retirees (newcomers to the area)

Source: Authors' survey, 1975.

(The major findings of the Middlesex High School Questionnaire will be
discussed under a separate heading in Chapter 3.)

Samples of the Delphi panel and Middlesex High School questionnaires
are not reproduced in this report due to space and format limitations.
However, the authors would be happy to provide, on request, Xerox
copies of these materials to those who wish to see them.

FINDINGS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS

1. Round One

In Round One, we were interested in each Delphi panel member's overall
philosophy toward the regulation of growth in Middlesex County and the
Middle Peninsula region. These attitudes were expected to range from a
"hands off," or laissez faire policy to tight land use controls. The overall
posture of the forty-three participants toward regulation, new industry,
and population growth was recognized as basic to further specific ques-
tions regardingthe wastewater disposal issue. Thus, we asked them to re-
spond to the following statement and question, modified from a pre-
vious national survey [Watts and Free, 19741 :

Speaking now of the Middle Peninsula area where you I ive, some
people say that population and industrial growth should be re-
stricted in order to preserve the community just as it is. Others,
feeling that job opportunities and quality of life are essential,
favor regulated growth to provide orderly and harmonious econo-
mic development. Still other residents feel that unregulated
growth provides the best vehicle for rapid and much needed ec-
onomic development. How do you personally feel about popula-
tion and industrial growth for this region?

The great majority indicated a preference for regulated growth in the
Middle Peninsula. They suggested that growth is vital to prevent eco-
nomic stagnation, especially to provide the jobs for the area's youth and
unemployed low income groups. Yet, they also felt, almost without ex-
ception, that land use and growth regulation are vital to preserve the
rural character of the area, and to ensure the survival of already estab-
lished industries: shellfishing, farming, recreation, and timber. Repre-
sentative of the comments by the Panel are the following:

"We need well-planned and regulated light industry located in
the area in order to assure jobs for our people."

"We need their [young people's] potential here to improve the
county."

"Welfare's financial load on the counties would I essen were diverse
industries (keyed to the older age group) sought and placed in
this Peninsula."

"Any community were stagnation is allowed will perish."

"I favor regulated growth with proper zoning which would pro-
vide a more orderly economic development in the Middle Penin-
sula than a wild unregulated growth."

"it is unwise to try to preserve the community as it is because
this would be slipping backward."

"I feel thatjob opportunititesand quality of life are essential and
favor regulated growth to provide orderly and harmonious eco-
nomic development."

"Planning can accomplish orderly, well thought development of
an area if done before accelerated growth takes place. In my way
of thinking, growth is something that happens-it isn't planned.
Controlling and organizing growth is another matter-the de-
sired method once an area begins to grow."

"There are some areasof the Middle Peninsula that need regulated
industrial growth to provide the tax base for public services and
provide employment.... Regulated industrial growth will not
necessarily mean a destruction of the rural character of the area."

"... if we could get the right kind [of industrial growth], it would
greatly help our young population, as many of them have to
leave today."

"Apparently nothing will come of this [regulated growth] be-
cause of the lack of a county master plan by the Board of Super-
visors. Middlesex has great potential but is stymied by an attitude
of complacency."

There were several minority opinions which expressed a somewhat dif-
ferent point of view. Some suggested to their peersthatthe region should
be carefully developed as a "bedroom" commuter region. Others felt
that the area's scenic attractions are its greatest advantage; hence, the

area should specialize exclusively in recreational and retirement services.
A few expressed the notion that the county is already over-regulated by
certain interests and that economic development is vital to lower income
groups. Representative of the minority opinions are the following:

"I feel that this area is poor for industrial development in the
usual sense. In fact, our greatest assets naturally would be de-
stroyed by industrialization.... We should develop businesses
to live by serving and improving the area as a playground, retire-
ment village, and bedroom for nearby population centers."

"I feel that this county is overly regulated by a few of the resi-
dents who do so with their personal interest in mind. I also feel
industrial growth isclefinitely needed here to provide a large per-
centage of our population, who remain on the lower socio-eco-
nomic level, a means toward opportunities for a better life."

"To industrialize or greatly increase the population here would
destroy a way of life here that is foreign to any growth neighbor-
hood or urban expansion area. This area can support only so
many-to bring in jobs would bring in people and rapid growth
would be bad. . . . I sincerely hope that the quaintness so many
seek is not destroyed by the rush to find it."

"I feel that population growth in the county is inevitable regard-
less of the fact that the most sought after property has already
basically been ruined with uncontrolled development along the
waterfronts and highways."

Thus, it is our opinion that most of the Delphi panel want regulated
growth to stimulate a stagnant and seasonal economy, but not at the
expense of added urban problems or the loss of the region's distinctive
11 peace and tranquility." We assume that these goals are not mutually
exclusive.

In Round One we also asked the Delphi panel to rate local issues on a
scale of 1 (least important) to 6 (most important). The items were rated
according to howcritical each was recognized to be in the region. (Table 8
consists of a listing of highest ranked issues.) These problems were suggest-

ed to us in field interviews with local citizens and residents and by senior
stude 'nts who completed a pilot questionnaire at nearby Gloucester High
School on May 2, 1975. It is important to note that we did not initially
direct their attention to the problem of inadequate sewage treatment
and disposal, but rather, asked them to identify the major problems fac-
ing their community. As a critical issue, the Panel rated inadequate sew-
age treatment and disposal thirteenth among the most critical issues
(Table 8). Note that many of the most "critical" problems are related
to water quality. The pollution of shellfish areas, shoreline erosion, ex-
cessive federal and state land and water regulations, the lack of public
recreational facilities, and the destruction of primary industries by com-
peting land uses are all major water-related concerns that indicate at
least the panel's awareness of the importance of water quality.

Other issues that ranked highly include the political questions of
zoning, land use taxations, and dissatisfaction with the structure and
activities of local government. Panel members also added other problems
to the list such as inadequate public health and educational facilities,
periodic shortages of suitable drinking water, and the lack of arts and
entertainment. These items were added to the list of community issues
to be reevaluated in Round Two. Environmental hazards such as hurri-
canes and flooding were not suggested by the panel despite the serious-
ness of these problem in coastal zones.

11. Round Two

In Round Two, each panel member was given the opportunity to re-
evaluate his or her position concerning the basic questions of growth
and regulation in the Middle Peninsula. In the materials we mailed out,
we summarized the overall viewpoint of Round One and asked the panel
to respond to our summary. Nearly everyone agreed that our evalua-
tion of the majority and minority opinions was correct. They agreed
that growth was necessary, but that it should be held in check by regula-
tions, and thatthe rural character of thearea, economically dependentup-
on shellfishing, farming, recreation, and lumbering, should be preserved.
Several restated their opinions concerning the need to establish better
recreational facilities and to promote the region as a "bedroom" com-
munity for nearby recreational areas. A few reacted to the "minority"
position of Round One by stating that the region was not over-regu lated,
that -a "bedroom community" would create a tax burden far greater

TABLE 8
Most Significant Issues Affecting Development
of Middlesex County: Round One
Group mean scores (1.0 [least important] to 6.0 [most important]
are based upon an issue's critical nature (N=43).

Critical Nature I ssu es
5.05 Pollution of shellfish areas
4.74 Shoreline erosion
4.67 Lack of adequate zoning regulation
4.56 Lack of year-round job opportunities
4.56 Crime
4.23 Excessive federal, state land and water regulations
4.23 Major decisionmaking not representative of com-
munity interest
4.21 Political, economic influence in the hands of a few
4.07 Lack of public recreational facilities
3.98 Destruction of seafood, agricultural, and forest
areas by competing land uses
31.93 Land taxed on the basis of its potential use rather
than its current use
3.91 Anti-growth attitudes
3.65 Inadequate sewage treatment and disposal

Source: Authors' Delphi survey, 1975.

than that imposed by industry, and that recreation in the region, specif-
ically in Middlesex County, has already reached the capacity of the
resource base.

We also asked the panel to rank the types of development they perceived
to be the most desirable for the Middle Peninsula region. Their over-
.whelming choice was residential growth followed by commercial activi-
ties, public services and recreation. Industrial growth and private recre-
ation were perceived to be the least desirable (Table 9).

TABLE 9
Types of Development Desired for Middlesex County:
Perceptions of Delphi Panel-Round Two
1.0 indicates most desirable, while 6.0 indicates least desirable
of six options (N = 32).

Mean Ranking
(1.0-6.0) Kinds of Development

1.68 Residential
3.08 Commercial
3.28 Public Services (Roads, Utilities, Sanitation
Systems, etc.)
3.59 Public Parks and Recreation
3.86 Industrial
4.32 Private Parks and Recreation

Source: Authors' Delphi survey, 1975.

Since there was such a gap in the panel's preference for residential over
industrial development, we asked them to shade in areas of a map of
Middlesex County where residential and where industrial developments
are thought to be most desirable (Figures 15 and 16). The areas most
often selected for residential development are in the low-lying coastal
areas along the Rappahannock and Piankatank Rivers and in the Delta-
ville or Flattop district at the eastern tip of Middlesex County. These
areas are already densely developed with seasonal and permanent homes
and would seem to offer the least potential for further expansion.
Furthermore, the soils, especially in the coastal margins of the county,
periodically experience high water tables and exhibit poor conditions
for septic systems (Figure 14). Thus, these areas are least likely to be
approved by health authorities for septic tanks and building permits,
since further development would aggravate existing waste treatment
problems.

Areas selected by the Delphi panel as favorable for industrial develop-
ment are oriented to the Route 17 corridor and western end of Middlesex
County. Apparently, the respondents do not see much possibility for

TABLE 10
Institutions Considered by Delphi Panel to be Most Effective
in Regulating Growth in Region-Round Two
The number of responses in each column does not equal 32
since several respondents selected more than one factor.

Number of Times Selected by Delphi Panel
Currently Ideally I nstitutions
12 13 Regulatory codes, permits
and inspections
2 21 Zoning regulations
9 11 Decisions regulating utili-
ties and public services
10 8 Development loans from
regional banks
7 6 Regional property taxes
1 1 Waterfront regulations*
1 1 Subdivision ordinances*
1 - Virginia Health Depart-
ment regulations*
*Suggested by panel members.

Source: Author's Delphi survey, 1975.

compatibility between these distinct land uses. It seems necessary that
land use zoning would have to be instituted in the future to guarantee
these choices.

Round Two continued with a question concerning the factors which
currently and ideally should regulate growth in the area (Table 10). Note
that while regulatory codes, permits, and inspections are currently per-
ceived to be the most effective in regulating development, zoning ordi-
nances ranked as the most ideal regulatory mechanism. Thus, zoning is
perceived to be the policy mechanism which preserves the region's
rural character while encouraging the right kind of growth in the best
locations.

TABLE 11
Most Significant Issues Affecting Development
of Middlesex County (1975)-Round Two
Group mean scores (1.0 [least important] to 6.0 [most important])
are based upon an issue's likelihood to retard development (N = 32).

Likelihood to
retard development I ssu es
5.1 Pollution of shellfish areas
5.1 Lack of adequate zoning regulations
4.4 Lack of year-round job opportunities
4.3 Excessive federal and state land and water
regu lations
4.2 Inadequate sewage treatment and disposal
4.2 Shoreline erosion
4.0 Destruction of seafood, agricultural, and forest
areas by competing land uses
4.0 Anti-growth attitudes
4.0 Major decisionmaking not representative of
community interests
4.0 Lack of full-service shopping facilities
3.7 Political and economic influence in the hands
of a few

Source: Authors' Delphi survey, 1975.

1 n Round Two, we asked the panel members to again evaluate the signif-
icance of the area's problems, this time in terms of a problem's likeli-
hood to retard or hold up development (Table 11). Obviously, this is a
slightly different perspective than the initial rankings of issues in Round
One. Note that the water-related issues scored very high on this round, 4-
and that inadequate sewage treatment and disposal rose to fifth place.
Except for the job shortages issue, the preponderance of water-oriented
problems is again evident in the panel's evaluation. Hence, they recognize
at least in part that their future growth depends on maintaining a level
of water quality and meeting federal and state regulations.

The final section of Round Two was a drastic departure from general
issues, since it involved a shift of focus to the specific problem of in-
adequate waste treatment. It is at this point that our advocacy role be-
comes clear to the panel. We addressed this question in three parts. First,
we asked the panel why there was such a wide range of opinion in Round
One concerning the importance of sewage treatment and disposal. We
related to them the fact that other coastal areas in the eastern United
States have found it to be the critical problem hindering any type of
growth and development. Several panel members suggested that the wide
variety of responses reveals that an awareness of the waste treatment
issue is related to one's experience with the problem (e.g., the threatened
seafood industry is very aware of this issue). In addition, those living in
a low-lying coastal area which is rapidly developing are more likely to
have experienced some difficulty with septic tanks. On the other hand,
those living in higher areas, where septic tanks function adequately, are
less likely to perceive sewage treatment as a problem. Thus, if your sep-
tic tank "perks" and you are not dependent upon a water-based industry,
the problem might not seem as serious.

Second, we asked the panel whether or not the sewage treatment issue
has the potential effect of reducing the rate of growth in the area. Five
of the 32 respondents indicated that sewage treatment regulations,
if enforced, could reduce the rate of growth in the area. Among the
reasons for the consensus are: the costs of required sewage treatment
and stringency of regulations in critical low-lying areas; the inability of
land and water resources to accomodate the demand for both new in-
dustrial and residential development; and the financial difficulties of in-
stalling central treatment facilities in communities where septic tanks
already exist or in less populated portions of the region. Those who
thought that sewage treatment would not stop growth are confident
that these services would be provided if the county is zoned soon enough
and if people are willing to pay for these benefits.

Third, we queried the panel concerning the adequacy of fresh water
supplies to accommodate the demands of future developments. Many
panel members thought that they lacked sufficient information about
this topic. Others, however, suggested that potential shortages of fresh
water may also complicate waste treatment problems. Although fourteen
panel members believe that there isenough fresh waterforfuture regional
development, a few indicated that local artesian wells are producing less,

TABLE 12
Most Significant Issues Affecting Development
of Middlesex County (1975)-Round Three
Group mean scores (1.0 [least important] to 6.0 [most important]
are based upon an issue's alterability (N = 32).

Alterability I ssu es
4.9 Lack of adequate zoning regulations
4.1 Inadequate sewage treatment and disposal
4.1 Major decisionmaking not representative of com-
munity interests
4.0 Pollution of shellfish areas
3.8 Destruction of seafood, agricultural, and forest
areas by competing land uses
3.8 Lack of full-service shopping facilities
3.8 Shoreline erosion
3.6 Political and economic influence in the hands of
a few
3.0 Excessive federal and state land and water regu-
lations
2.9 Anti-growth attitudes
2.5 Lack of year-round job opportunities

Source: Author's Delphi survey, 1975.

and that water quality was declining. Still others assume that large in-
dustry provides the greatest threat to ground water supplies. In any case,
this issue was perceived to become more important as the area grows.

Ill. Round Three

I n Round Three, we again summarized the panel's consensus for controll- t
ed regional growth. We also presented them with a synopsis of the find-
ings of Round Two (as presented above). After each synopsis, we also -4-
asked them to state whether or not they agreed that the views presented
adequately represented all points of view. At most, out of 32 who com-

pleted Round Three, only four respondents said they disagreed with the
paragraphs that attempted to express and summarize the range of view-
points disclosed during Round Two.

In addition, we asked panel members to reevaluate selected regional
problems a final time. This time we asked them to rate each problem
according to its alterability, given present regulations and governmental
institutions. In other words, we were interested in which problems have
solutions which could be practically implemented at this time (Table 12).
Note that the zoning question was perceived to be the most easily solved
or altered. Interestingly, the problems of zoning, nonrepresentative
decisionmaking, inadequate sewage treatment, and shellfish area pollu-
tion were similar to major points of discussion at Middlesex County
Public Meeting held in in September 1975, and attended by one of the
researchers [Burton, 19751. We were somewhat surprised that the panel
also selected the sanitation and shellfish problems among those that have
high alterability. Perhaps this relates to the popular notion that tech-
nological "solutions" are usually available for such seemingly "simple"
problems. Yet, such solutions must be weighed in the context of a
region's environmental setting, both social and physical. The problems
identified indicate once again the panel's priorities and expectations
concerning change in the Middlesex County and the Middle Peninsula.

We once again probed the panel concerning the waste treatment issue
by asking the following question:

Inasmuch as this issue (inadequate sewage treatment) is foremost
in retarding development in many coastal areas and isconsidered
by the majority of the respondents to stop growth in the Middle
Peninsula, is it socially desirable to apply a new technology to
solve the waste water disposal problem and thereby open up a
host of subsequent growth-related issues? (Option One) Or, is
the desirable option simply living with existing environmental
and governmental restraints until local planning and/or zoning
ordinances can control developments? (Option Two)

The results were almost equally divided between Options One and Two.
After evaluating the panel's comments, we decided to rewrite the question
and include it again in an unexpected Round Four (to be discussed below).

TABLE 13
Delphi Panel's Preferences for Regulating Future Growth
in Middlesex County (1975)-Round Three

Mean Ranking(s)* Procedure or Policy (j)
1.42 Growth regulated by preplanned and/or con-
structed road and utility systems
2.16 Growth denied by restrictions on septic tanks,
sewers and services (schools, roads, or other
utilities)
2.28 Growth only where developers pay the costs of
services
2.94 Growth curtailed by moratoria on services (roads,
schools, power lines, central sewers)
*Items were ranked 1 to 4 by Delphi panel. Each mean ranking is the
sum of the individual rankings for each item (j) divided by the number
of responses (i) for each item (j), i.e.:

n S-
s n where i 1, 2, 32;
n j 1, 2, 4;
N 32.

Source: Author's Delphi survey, 1975.

In Round Three, we also asked the panel to evaluate their preferences
of procedures for regulating growth in Middlesex County (Table 13). As
Table 13 indicates, the panel primarily seeks a type of growth resulting
from preplanned services. They are less inclined to regulate development
according to restrictions or moratoria on services. We believe, however,
that the listing in Table 13 by no means exhausts the methods of regu-
lating development. In fact, some of the regulation procedures might
have been unclear to the less informed members of the panel, and the
preferences in Table 13 are not mutually exclusive. The lack of oppor-
tunity for verbal, person-to-person clarification of questions is therefore
one of the problems of this technique since Delphi participants do not
interact directly with one another [Delbecq et al., 1975; p. 35). Never-
theless, it is most interesting that the experience of northern Virginia

(i.e., moratoria of sewers and no-growth policies) is ranked the least de-
sirable policy for regulating growth in Middlesex County.

We concluded Round Three by presenting each panel member with
copies of the residential and industrial preferences maps compiled from
their responses in Round Two. The maps indicated that most respondents
selected the low-lying shorelines as most favorable for residential devel-
opment (Figure 15). In light of such choices, we then asked the Panel if
residential locations in these areas would increase the risk of serious
water pollution problems. Out of 32 responses, 18 selected "yes," six
selected "no," and eight did not answer the question. The panel's pref-
erences suggest that certain groups are willing to trade off the potential
water quality problems associated with living in low-lying areas for
amenities on or near the shoreline. Others are ignorant of the water pol-
lution problems or simply are apathetic to these issues.

IV. Round Four

Round four was a final summary of the panel's responses in Round
Three; but it also provided us with the opportunity to restate one of
the central questions of this study. The question was presented in the
following context:

There are numerous communities in the United States (e.g.,
Fairfax County and Virginia Beach, Va.) where rapid and un-
controlled growth has caused financial and esthetic prob-
lems to the community. This tragedy has occurred because the
communities did not have regulatory mechanisms such as com-
prehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and suitable building codes
prior to the onrush of rapid growth. Presently, Middlesex County
has a sewage treatment and disposal problem, which according
to survey responses, has the potential to severely retard growth
in the county. Were it not for this sanitation problem, rapid and
uncontrolled growth could occurbecause regulatory mechanisms
are not presently in force (although they are in the planning
stages). If a new (and successful) method of sewage disposal
could beavailable tomorrow, do you think it would be betterto:

Option One-Preventthe useof thisnew waste treatment method
until regulatory mechanisms can be put into effect and thereby
prevent the possibility of rapid and uncontrolled growth?

Or
Option Two-Go ahead and use the new waste treatment method
rather than retard any possibility of future growth? If rapid and
unregulated growth occurs (with its unpleasant side-effects), it
will just have to be tolerated as part of the costs of growth.

We felt that this further elaboration of the issue clarified many of the
uncertainties of the question that were detected in Round Three. Of
the 28 responding, 80 percent chose Option One. Some of those select-
ing Option Two, despite past discussions in previous rounds, could not
conceive of the fact that sewage treatment problems and regulations
could, or were in fact, retarding development. The remainder favored
the use of available technology rather than hold up potential growth
any longer.

These options are especially timely because the Virginia State Water
Control Board presented to the county the long-awaited Water Quality
Management Plan in September 1975. The plan calls for the construction
of two sewage treatment facilities, one of which will cost at least $2.2
million. One of the local planners astutely recognized the immediate
and potential consequences of central sewage disposal for Middlesex
County:

Such an example of sewer-mania indicates total disregard for
soil and water table conditions in the area; potential ground
water supply problems; local planning prerogatives; importance
of agriculture in the area; and ability of the county government
to provide other public services for the population growth which
would be stimulated by the proposed sewer lines.[The South-
side Sentinel, 19751 .

The Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission promptly rejected
the proposal, which, in line with the above Option Two, advocates a
new waste treatment method for Middlesex County. We were most en-
couraged to witness the decisionmakers' awareness of the possible im-
pacts of a central sewage system and hope our questions stimulated the
panel's thinking about issues that are certain to become critical in the
fu tu re.

V. Middlesex High School Questionnaire

On October 3, 1975, a questionnaire was administered to all high school
seniors at Middlesex County High School. These students represent nearly
all residential areas in the county (Figure 17). The reasons for this sup-
plementary survey are at least fourfold. First, most of the Delphi panel
represented the white, middle-aged, and leadership components of the
community. Although we contacted approximately one dozen recog-
nized black leaders, only four cooperated throughout the Delphi survey.
Second, a survey of Middle Peninsula college students who attend Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University documented that the
vast majority would prefer to return to the Middle Peninsula following
graduation. They indicated, however, that the jobs they wanted were
not available in the area. Hence, we assumed that high school students,
who likely were about to leave the area, would provide a similarly inter-
esting perspective on the advantages and disadvantages of their home
territory. Third, we expected these responses would substantiate the
findings of the Delphi survey. Finally, similar methods used with high
school students in West Virginia have proven to be an effective means
of opinion survey in past studies [Smith and Alanen, 1976; Alanen and
Smith, 1977].

Seventy-eight senior class members completed the questionnaire. Of
this number 47.4 percent were black, reflecting the approximate racial
balance in Middlesex County. We asked the group several questions con-
cerning the impact of new permanent residents, tourists, and additional
industry in their county. They reacted favorably to each issue with 67.9
percent supporting new permanent residents, 75.6 in agreement that ad-
ditional tourists would help the county, and 80.8 percent in favor of new
industry.

Although 61.0 percent prefer living in the country or in a small town,
only 51.0 percent of the students felt that living in Middlesex County
after graduation was desirable. One explanation for this might be the fact
that 53.8 percent want white-collar occupations. Only 3.8 percent seek
farming as a future occupation while blue-collar jobs are attractive to
26.9 percent. Of the variety of jobs that students desire, only 34.6 per-
cent thought that they can find their preferred occupation in Middlesex
Cou nty.

TABLE 14
Correspondence Between Student Attitudes Toward Growth Regulations
and Attitudes Toward New Industry

In Favor
of New Industry In Favor of Regulation
Yes No Total
_n % n % n %
Yes 37 63.8 21 36.2 58 100.0

No 15 100.0 0 0.0 15 100.0

Total 52 71.2 21 28.8 73 100.0

Chi Square = 5.96 with 1 DF. Significance= .01.

Source: Middlesex High School Questionnaire, 1975.

These findings confirmed many of the conclusions of the Delphi ques-
tionnaires. For example, the students favor additional permanent resi-
dents, tourists, and industry which could provide a boost to the local
economy. Furthermore, they realize that their goal to remain in their
home setting is largely precluded by the lack of jobs which would en-
courage them to stay. Nevertheless, they have ageneral understandingof
the idea that population and industrial growth, despite their obvious ad-
vantages, must be regulated to prevent additional pollution and improve
the quality of life. We noted that the students largely agree with the
Delphi panel concerning regulating future development as 71.2 percent
prefersomeform of regulation (as compared to approximately 75percent
of the Delphi panel.)

In an effort to understand more clearly the sentiments toward growth
amongMiddlesex HighSchool students, we cross-tabulated their attitudes
toward additional industry against their attitudes toward regulation of
future population and industrial growth (Table 14). As expected, the
majority prefer both new industry and effective growth controls. Of
those students who are not in favor of new industry, all are in favor of
regulation. Thus, the minority recognizes the need for land use regula-
tions while this same group unanimously opposes new industry. These

students echo the panel's earlier evaluation that zoning or other land use
controls are necessary, but are to be used to promote and regulate the
existing primary industry and recreational facilities in the area.

A major section of the high school questionnaire concerns the respon-
dent's evaluation of selected issues suggested to the authors in the field
and in the Delphi survey. Each item is rated accordingtoa six-pointscale,
and the prominent problems perceived by the students are listed in Table
15. The young people's concern for the shortage of jobs and entertain-
ment are top priorities. Other problems widely recognized include the
potential destruction of basic industries, the lack of sufficient public
school facilities, the concern over political representation, and the water-
related problems of shellfish contamination, inadequate waste treatment,
and shoreline erosion. They also thought that the area may be losing its
rural character while it continues to face shortages of public services and
lower income housing. These responses suggested to us that the area's
youth are waiting to be heard, and indeed may be another means of
mobilizing community support for controlled land development in the
future.

We also asked students to shade in areas of a map of Middlesex County
which they felt were most polluted (Figure 18). It is evident to us that
most clearly recognize the problem of water pollution, especially along
the Rappahannock River. The largest number of students believed that
the shoreline from Urbanna to the Rappahannock River toll bridge at
Grey's Point is polluted.

Items that students considered tobe less important in thecounty included
the lack of zoning, crime, traffic congestion, and overcrowded tourist
facilities. Their failure to recogni'ze the importance of zoning can perhaps
be understood in terms of their lack of knowledge concerning this land
use regulation. Nevertheless, the Delphi panel's recognition of water pol-
lution was greatly reinforced when water issues were also identified by the
students as the most serious hazards in the area. Finially, we discovered
that the high school seniors, like some of their parents and others who
served on the Delphi panel, were largely in favor of holding up any de-
velopments of central sewage systems or advanced waste treatment tech-
nology until governmental institutions are able to better regulate the
growth that would inevitably follow. Thisagain supports the contention
that the citizens of Middlesex County are looking carefully toward the

TABLE 15
Most Critical Community Problems Rated by High School Seniors
1.0 indicates least important, 6.0 indicates most important.

Group Mean Scores
1.0-6.0 Problems
5.00 Lack of year-round job opportunities
4.96 Lack of arts and entertainment
4.93 Destruction of seafood, agricultural, and forest
areas by competing land uses
4.88 Lack of adequate public educational facilities
4.73 Political and economic influence in the hands of
a few
4.71 Pollution of shellfish areas
4.60 Inadequate sewage treatment and disposal
4.58 Lack of public water recreational opportunities
4.41 Area losing its rural character
4.37 Inability of public services (fire, police, sanitation,
health and welfare) to keep pace with growth
4.30 Lack of full service shpping facilities
4.27 Excessive federal and state land and water regu-
lations
4.25 Increasing visual blight (billboards, litter, etc.)
4.14 Lack of adequate housing for lower incomegroups
4.04 Shoreline erosion

Source: Middlesex High School Questionnaire given to all seniors on
October 3, 1975 (N = 78).

future and hoping that land use regulation will check the trends that are
evident, particularly in the neighboring counties.

A final conclusion of this survey concerns the areas that students favor
for recreation (Figure 19). Many of the same areas that were perceived
to be polluted (Figure 18) are primary recreation areas for the area's

youth. Yet, we also discovered a significant difference between the
favored recreation areas of the blacks (Figure 20) versus those favored
by the whites (Figure 21). These preferences perhaps are symptomatic
of differences in recreational opportunity between these two groups
and trust that future recreational planning is oriented to the distinct
needs and desires of all social groups of the county.

We conclude that the high school seniors share the viewpoint of the
Delphi panel concerning the county's benefits, prospects, and problems.
Furthermore, the questionnaire has at least partially presented opinions
of minority groups that were not represented to the extent we wanted
in the Delphi survey. Finally, we were encouraged by their sensitivities
to regional issues and hope that their opinions will be considered in
future policies for Middlesex County.

V1. Summary

Based on four rounds of Middlesex County Delphi questionnnaires and
the survey of high school seniors,- we offer the following general
conclusions:

1. The large majority of both the Delphi panel and the high school
seniors indicated that growth is necessary to prevent economic stagna-
tion and to reduce the out-migration of the area's youth who must seek
employment elsewhere. Residential development was selected as the
most desirable type of growth for the region.

2. Regulation of future development was recognized as being critical if
the area's distinctive rural qualities are to be preserved. Land use zoning
was selected to be the first step toward regulating future change.

3. Factors cited as the most significant in retarding future development
include: pollution of shellfish areas, lack of year-round job opportunities,
excessive land and water regulations, inadequate sewage treatment and
disposal, and shoreline erosion. The lack of jobs relates to the out-migra-
tion of the area's youth and the local shortage of jobs, while the other
prominent issues relate directly to water quality-the common denomina-
tor of most of most of the area's strengths and weaknesses.

4. Although the Delphi panel demonstrated a wide range of opinions
concerning the adequacy of the region's sewage treatment and disposal,

all but five respondents felt that inadequate sewage treatment has the
potential to reduce the rate of growth. An interesting dimension to the
Middlesex County wastewater treatment problem is the fact that over
50 percent of respondents selected low-lying coastal areas, where soil is
less suited for septic tanks, as the areas most favorable for residential
development (Figure 15).

5. The vast majority of the respondents felt that even if a new waste
treatment method could be installed immediately to solve Middlesex
County's sanitation problems, it would be socially desirable to prevent
the installation of this new method until effective regulatory mechanisms
are available to prevent uncontrolled growth.

6. Finally, the use of the Delphi process perhaps raises more method-
ological questions than wecould hope toanswer, but several conclusions
are worth comment:

a. From a financial standpoint, Delphi methods were cheaper (but
not necessarily more effective) than a field survey. While periodic
visits were necessary during the project, a field survey would have
demanded that the investigators remain in the study area for more
extended periods of time, adding significantly to project expenses.
With Delphi procedures, the costs were limited to clerical assistance
and postage forpreparingand mailing four rounds of questionnaires.
For small planning agencies, these savings may be important.

b. The wide range of interests and abilities of panel members is re-
flected in their rate of response, which varied from 43 in Round One
to 23 in Round Four. Perhaps a personal telephone call by the in-
vestigator to each participant after the survey is fully in progress
might increasethe respondent's initiative and encourage participation.

c. One of the pitfalls of any Delphi process is its lack of opportunity
for verbal clarification, creating problems of communication and
interpretation between the investigator and the respondent. For ex-
ample, the misunderstanding about a key question in Round Three
necessitated a Fourth Round to clarify the investigators' purpose
and the respondent's choices. A pretest of each of the questionnaires
(whenever possible) may remedy some of these difficulties. Yet,
one of the major advantages of Delphi procedures is the elimination

of face-to-face contact which often leads to social intimidation,
competition, and the over-emphasis of viewpoints by dominant in-
dividuals. Personal contact is therefore to be avoided, particularly in
situations like Middlesex Countywhere important attitudes are often
held by less dominant, less articulate, and less influential people.
Tradeoffs, then, must be made between differing interpretations of
key questions and a respondent's freedom to express ideas openly.
In situations where panel composition is more homogenous and
members express ideas freely, group interaction methods, such as
the Nominal Group Technique, might be more appropriate than the
Delphi process [Delbecq et al., 1975; p. 31-351. A public meeting at
the conclusion of a study also is an appropriate way to clarify key
issues and insure that the findings are available to the attention of
the general public.

d. Based on the above conclusions, some would argue that an area's
youth and lower socioeconomic groups are seldom well-represented
in this kind of investigation. For this reason, we used the high school
questionnaire to evaluate the black viewpoint and understand the
attitudes of high school seniors, the potential leaders in the com-
munity. We found that while the seniors' opinions were similar to
the Delphi panel, the supplementary survey was a useful and educa-
tional experience.

e. Perhaps the greatest strength of Delphi methodology is its useful-
ness in advocacy research where the investigators are committed to
educating the public in addition to monitoring their opinions. We
are convinced that the panel's overall understanding of development
issues increased throughout the study.

PROSPECTS FOR A COASTAL REGION:
Recommendations and Conclusions

From several rounds of questionnaires, field interviews, and the general
impressions gained from Middlesex County and the Middle Peninsula
Region in 1975, we have come to appreciate the concern that a rural
community showsfor local problems. We offer the following recommen-
dations and conclusions in light of these experiences.

Our major conclusion is that no decision concerning wastewater treat-
ment should be made until the decisionmakers are very sure that the
local community recognizesthe potential consequencesof such decisions.
This investigation has shown that few people initially understand that
public sewer systems.are often the catalyst for rapid growth. Unfortun-
ately, neither technicians nor citizens usually understand the full con-
sequences of a central sewage system, especially the kind and magnitude
of growth it encourages. This is particularly true in cases where the
potential for residential growth already exists but is restricted by lack
of suitable sanitation facilities. Implementation of such facilities opens
the way for dramatic increases in residential population, as has been
demonstrated in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The social and psychological impact of exurban growth in Middlesex
County may have even greater importance than the actual physical im-
pact. Residents of the county have indicated that they find such devel-
opment intolerable. Therefore, it is imperative that they become aware
of the relationship between the construction of new sewer lines and the
urban sprawl that is likely to follow. Indeed, they have every right to
make choices concerning alternative futures for their own environment.
In Middlesex County, residents prefer the existing rural lifestyle, but
they also recognize the need for selected industries to prevent economic
stagnation and retain the area's youth. They have an increasing aware-
ness of the idea that rural quality and industrial growth are not necessarily
mutually exclusive, and recognize that trade-offs have to be made. In
Middlesex County, this will probably mean land use regulation at the
expense of certain individual land use rights. This is agreeable, since
land use regulation is a choice that citizens and communities can make
i6 for themselves. In fact, it is our contention that communities have every
right to make informed decisions which range along a continuum from
unrestricted growth through "limited" to "no growth" policies, as long
as certain socioeconomic gropus are not excluded from decisionmaking.

Therefore, it is essential that the communities be introduced to infor-
mation about environmental conditions and processes in order that in-
formed choices will result.

In light of this, we make the following specific recommendations which
are applicable not only to Middlesex County and the Middle Peninsula
Region but also to coastal areas along the Eastern Seaboard.

First, public education of local citizens regarding the nature of an area's
fragile environment relative to water quality should be promoted in a
variety of forms. In particular, people who live in coastal areas should
be informed that septic systems often function inefficiently at medium
densities and very unsatisfactorily at higher density suburban subdivi-
sions. Thus, Middlesex County should continue the practice of holding
periodic public meetings where environmental problems or constraints
can be fully explained, and thereby document the need for new ordi-
nances and controls. Furthermore, increases newspaper coverage of these
issues should be encouraged to inform the public. Finally, public officials
and planners should also be invited to speak about regional problems at
local high schools and civic organizations.

Second, no decision concerning the implementation of central sanitation
systems should be made until the public is better informed about all
potential impacts (including rapid population growth) of the proposed
waste treatment systems. In Middlesex County, no decisions should be
made until land use ordinances are legally binding. The county's existing
regulatory mechanisms would never be able to check the population
growth that has occurred in other coastal areas of Virginia. Most citizens
have indicated to us that they would rather forego immediate short-run
gains from development in order for cautious and more deliberate plan-
ning to prevent long term and irreversable damages. Thus, we reemphasize
that citizens participate as a collective decisionmaking body, particularly
on issues concerning sanitation and future development.

Third, county planners and supervisors should be encouraged to institute,
quickly but carefully, limited growth ordinances within a comprehensive
regional land use plan. It is importantto recognize, however, thatgrowth
controlling ordinances from other areas of the United States are being
contested in the courts. Two of the best known examples of local govern-
ments attempting to limit population size are Ramapo, New York and
Petaluma, California. Both cases are well known for their controversial

timing and sequenced control (TASC) ordinances [Scott et al., 1975;
p. 1-2101. Another interesting example, and one that indeed might apply
to Middlesex County, is Southern Burlington County NAACPvs Town
of Mount Laurel, in which the New Jersey State Supreme Courth has
ruled that large lot zoning and restrictive building requirements were
unlawfully excluding low and moderate income groups from the com-
munity [McCahill, 1975; p. 12-13; Scott, 1975; p. 1- 151.

In Middlesex County, the comprehensive plan is in its final stages, and
we enthusiastically urge the county's Board of Supervisors to critically
evaluate and adopt it if it insures community goals. Furthermore, to
prevent the diffusion of responsibility and promote greater efficiency in
county government, one alternative might be to expand the responsibil-
ities of the County Administrator. This is not to suggest that county
government is presently ineffective, but stems instead from a belief that
problems Middlesex County will face in the near future will be more
than the present government can handle without a larger staff.

Fourth, existing basic industries should be given the utmost community
support as they continue to face the problems of tight government regu-
lations, deteriorating water quality, urban encroachments, and rising
taxes. These older traditional enterprises (i.e.,forest products, agriculture,
and shellfishing) are indeed compatible with the growing recreational and
retirement industry. In fact, all such industries depend upon a quality
environment that includes clean water, an unpolluted atmosphere, and
scenic amenities. Loss of any of these industries would detract from the
distinctive rural advantages of the region. A few specific suggestions in-
cludeland use taxation based upon existing ratherthan potential use, care-
ful study and monitoring of point and non-point sources of water pollu-
tion and the provision of additional public waterfront recreational sites.
Specifically concerning recreational assets, the county is urged to pay
closer attention to quality of recreational land use because scenic land
is a critical but exhaustable resource. Better regulation of marinas,
campgrounds, and other public places, and restoration of old buildings
and landmarks, will enhance the recreational assets ot the area. This is
especially important due to the county's proximity to large metro' poli-
tan areas and nationally important historical sites and theme parks (e.g.
Williamsburg, Yorktown, Jamestown, Busch Gardens, King's Dominion.)

Fifth, while many Middlesex County residents want to attract new light
industry, we are not asconvinced of its desirability. Residents want such

industries to provide attractive jobs for the area's youth and lower income
wage earners. However, new industries attract young families who will re-
quire additional public services and facilities. It is difficult to add residen-
tial units to a community without significantly increasing the costs of
public education [Smith and Hiltner, 19751. A careful examination of
Middlesex County's fiscal structurewould providemuch needed informa-
tion about its ability to surmort the cost of education and other services
should the residential population begin to swell [Real Estate Research
Corporation, 19741 . The "bedroom" type of community and the attrac-
tion of light industries, desired by many residents, should be considered
only after careful examination of fiscal and environmental impacts.

Finally, an important contribution of this research is methodological.
Our objective was to help a community identify and define critical en-
vironmental problemsbefore they became detrimental to the local quality
of life. We employed a technique which assists community leaders to
reach consensus concern i ng adaptive or preventive responsesand strategies
to such problems.The use of the Delphi Method has been useful in helping
us to attain our objectives. This isan innovative use of the Delphi Method
to facilitate local inputs into the community planning process, and
we actively recommend it to community and regional planners for this
purpose. Citizens' input to decisions concerning environmental problems
are particularly difficult to incorporate because professionals are often
skeptical about involving the public in policyrnaking [Sewell, 19711.
Furthermore, such problems are frequently complex and technical, and
a measure of public education isusually required before this complexity
is fully appreciated. The Delphi Method is invaluable because it bridges
the gap between the professional and the citizen and has this strong edu-
cational component.

The Delphi Method assisted in identifying the environmental problems
that are perceived to exist in Middlesex County. The rather diverse list
of local problems that were suggested in Round One became a more re-
fined and commonly agreed upon list in Round Four. In addition, panel
members were able to agree on priorities for dealing with these issues
and a rank ordering of the problems in terms of their alterability. The
panel members also agreed that they wanted regulated and controlled
growth in the county and that zoning and land use regulations are the
best means of achieving this goal. This illustrates, therefore, that the
Delphi procedure is an excellent tool for acquiring grass roots participa-
tion and support in land use decisionmaking [Kaufman and Gustafson,

1973]. The panel's composite image of development in Middlesex County,
as well as its identification of conflicts , should assist local officials in
forecasting and managing futuregrowth in the Middle Peninsula Region.

Generating community interest to understand and to solve local prob-
lems, particularly those involving poorly perceived environmental haz-
zards ranging from hurricanes to contaminated waste water, is indeed a
difficult task.Whilewehad reservations about our ability to identify and
elicit opinions from all relevant interest groups in the county, we were
later encouraged by the complementary resu Its of the high school ques-
tionnaire. This survey documented that the findings of the Delphi pro-
cedure were representative of community attitudes. Asa result, secondary
surveys may notbe necessaryas long as every attempt is made to include
all segments of the population in the Delphi panel. As a device for gen-
erating consensus, it is an effective method to foster environmental
awareness while analyzing community attitudes about controversial
issues.

REFERENCESCITED

Alanen, Arnold R., and Smith, Kenard E., 1977."GrowthvsNo-Growth
Issues, With an American Appalachian Highlands Perspective." Tiidscrift
Voor Economishe en Social Geografle. Vol. 68, pp. 32-43.

Bonjean, Charles M., and Olson, David M., 1964. "Community Leader-
ship: Directions of Research." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9,
pp. 278-300.

Bosselman, F.; Callies, D.; and Banta,J., 1973. The Taking Issue. Council
of Environmental Quality. Washington, D. C.

Boulding, Kenneth E., 1964. The Meaning of the 20th Century. Harper
and Row, Inc.

Burton, D., 1975. "Results of Public Meetings," Middlesex Planning
Commission, Saluda, Virginia (Mimeographed).

Burton, Ian, 1972. "Cultural and Personality Variables in the Perception
of Natu ral Hazards." Environment and the Social Sciences: Perceptions
and Applications. Edited by J. F. Wohlwill and D. H. Carson. American
Psychological Association.

Burton, Ian and Kates, Robert W., 1964a. "The Flood Plain and the
Seashore: A Comparative Analysis of Hazard Zone Occupance." The
Geographical Review. Vol. 54, pp. 366-385.

- - - - -- 1964b. "The Perception of Natural Hazards in Resource Man-
agement." Natural Resource Journal. Vol. 3, pp. 412-441.

Burton, Ian; Kates, Robert W.; and White, Gilbert F., 1968. The Human
Ecology of Extreme Geophysical Events. Natural Hazard Research
Working Paper No. 1. Department of Geography, University of Toronto.

Dalkey, N., and Helmer, 0., 1963. "An Experimental Application of
the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts." Management Science, Vol. 9,
pp. 458-467.

Danzger, M. Herbert, 1964. "Community Power Structure: Problems
and Continuities." American Sociological Review. Vol. 29, pp. 707-717.

Delbeccl, Andre L.; Van cle Ven, Andrew H.; and Gustafson, David H.,
1975. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal
Group and Delphi Processes. Scott Foresman and Company.

Downie, Leonard, Jr., 1974. Mortgage in America: The Real Cost of
Real Estage Speculation. Praeger Publishers.

Emanuel, M., 1974. "Ramapo's Managed Growth Program." Planner's
Notebook, Vol. 4, pp. 1-8.

Freeman, Linton C.; Fararo, Thomas J.; Bloombert, Warner, Jr.; and
Sunshine, Morris H., 1963. "Locating Leaders in Local Communities:
A Comparison of Some Alternative Approaches." American Sociological
Review. Vol. 27, pp. 791-798.

Gilliam Sara K., and William J. Serow, 1975. Estimates of the Popula-
tion of Virginia Counties and Cities: July 1, 1973 and July 1, 1974.
Tayloe Murphy Institute, University of Virginia.

Hart, John Fraser, 1976. "Urban Encroachment on -Rural Areas." The
Geographical Review. Vol. 66, pp. 1- 17.

Hill, G., 1974. "Nation's Cities Fighting to Stem Growth." New York
Times. July 28, 1974, pp. 1, 30.

Kaufman, Jerome and Gustafson, David H., 1973. Multi-County Land
Use Policy Formation: A Delphi Analysis. Technical Report of the
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin.

Lewis, P.; Tuan, Y.; and Lowenthal, D., 1973. Visual Blight in America.
Commission on College Geography Research Paper No. 23. Association
of American Geoghaphers.

Long, Norton E., 1958. "The Local Community as an Ecology of
Games." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 64, pp. 251-26 1.

Martino, Joseph P., 1972. "Delphi." Technological Forecasting for De-
cisionmaking. American Elsevier Publishing Company. pp. 18-63.

McGranahan, David; Wilkening, E. A.; Hutchison, John; and Geisler,
Charles., 1975. The Use of Leader Ratings to Assess Community Ser-
vices and Characteristics in the Kickapoo Valley. Institute for Environ-
mental Studies, University of Wisconsin.

Mitchell, James K., 1976. "Adjustment to New Physical Environments
Beyond the Metropolitan Fringe." The Geographical Review. Vol. 66
pp. 18-31.

Moline, Norman T., 1974. "Perception Research and Local Planning:
Floods on the Rock River, Illinois." Natural Hazards: Local, National,
Global. Edited by G. F. White. Oxford University Press. pp. 52-59.

Molnar, Daniel, and Kammerud, Marshall, 1975. "Developing Priorities
for Improving the Urban Social Environment: A Use of Del-phi." Socio-
Economic Planning Science. Vol. 9, pp. 25-29.

Nix, Harold L., 1969. "Concepts of Community and Community Lead-
ership." Sociology andSocial Research. Vol. 53, pp. 500-510.

Packard, Vance, 1972. A Nation of Strangers. Pocket Books.

Payne, Raymond, 1963. "Leadership and Perceptions of Change in a
Village Confronted with Urbanism."Socia/ Forces. Vol. 41, pp. 264-269.

Pill, Juri, 1971. "The Delphi Method: Substance, Control, A Critique
and an Annotated Bibliography." Socio-Economic Planning Science,
Vol. 5, pp. 57-71.

Presthus, Robert, 1967. Men at the Top: A Study in Community Power.
Oxford University Press.

Real Estate Research Corporation, 1974. The Cost of Sprawl: Detailed
Cost Analysis. Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development and Environment Protection Agency.

Sanders, Irwin T., 1966. "Allocation of Power." The Community: An
Introduction to a Social System. Second edition. Ronald Press, pp. 440-
457.

1960. "The Community Social Profile." American Sociologi-
cal Review. Vol. 25, pp. 75-77.

Scott, R., 1975. "A View from the Mount: Laurels and Criticisms for a
Major Judicial Advance." Environmental Comment. July 23, 1975, pp.
1-15.

Scott, R.; Brower, D.; and Miner, D. (Editors), 1975. Management and
Control of Growth. Urban Land Institute. Vols. 1-3 . i

Sewell, W. R. Derrick, 1971. "Environmental Perceptions and Attitudes
of Engineers and Public Health Officials." Environment and Behavior.
Vol. 3, pp. 23-59.

Skutsch, Margaret, and Schofer, J. L., 1973. "Goals-Delphis for Urban
Planning: Concepts in the Design." Socio-Economic Planning Science.
Vol. 7, pp. 305-313.

Smil, Vaclav, 1972. "Energy and the Environment: A Long Range Fore-
casting Study." Ph. D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.

- - - - -- 1975. "A Delphi Study of Future Developments in Energy
Resources and their Environmental Impacts." Human Geography in a
Shrinking World. Edited by R. Abler, D. Janelle, A. Philbrick, and J.
Sommer. Duxbury Press, pp. 266-278.

Smith, Bruce W., and Hiltner, John, 1975. "The Fiscal Impact of Urban
Expansion." The Professional Geographer. Vol. 27, pp. 449-453.

Smith, Kenard E., and Alanen, Arnold R., 1976. "Social and Economic
Considerations in Appalachian Recreation Development: A West Virginia
Case Study." Planning Frontiers in Rural America. Edited by 0. Gade
and B. Purrington. Committee Print, U.S. Senate Committee on Agri-
culture and Forestry. pp. 85-95. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Southard, C. E., 1973. The Anti-Growth Syndrome in the Pacific North-
west Senior Seminar in Foreign Policy, Department of State.

Stansbury, Jeffrey, 1972. "Suburban Growth: A Case Study." The Pop-
ulation Bulletin. Vol. 28, pp. 1-30.

The Southside Sentinel, 1975. "Water Quality Plan Proposes Sewage
Service Area Plants in Deltaville, Urbanna-Saluda." October 2, 1975,
pp. 1-2.

The Southside Sentinel, 1976. "Council Tables Action on Sewer Line
Extension." January 15, 1976. p. 1.

Tofler, Alvin, 1971. Future Shock. Bantam Books.

Warner, S., 1974. "Turf and Environment." New Republic. Vol. 170,
p. 24.

Watts, W., and Free, L., 1974. State of the Nation. Potomac Associates.

White, Gilbert F., 1945. Human Adjustments to Floods. Department of
Geography Research Paper No. 29. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wiener, A., 1973. "The Future of Economic Activity, with Questions
and Answers." Annals, American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences. Vol. 408, pp. 50-51.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1961. 1960 Census of Population, Vol. 1,
Characteristics of the Population, Part 48, Virginia. U.S. Government
Printing Office.

- - - - -- 1967. U. S. Census of Population: 1960. Subject Reports.
Migration Between State Economic Areas, Final Report PC (2)-2E.
U.S. Government Printing Office.

- - - - -- 1972. Census of Population 1970. Subject Reports. Final
Report PC (2)-2E, Migration Between State Economic Areas. U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.

- - - - -- 1972. Census of Population: 1970. General Social and Eco-
nomic Characteristics, Final Report PC(1) C-48, Virginia. U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.

- - - - -- 1972. City and County Data Book, 1972. U.S. Government
Printing Office.

FIGURES

FIGURE 1
Middlesex County, Virginia

INSET OF VIRGINIA @4"%

04"

00C 414 r
"'S' ej? Ift WS

JAMAICA

17 INSET 01 PENINSULAR TIDEWATER VIRGINIA

URBANNA

SALUDA GREYS POINT
3
17

G@ DELTAVILLE STINGRA
CE." 33 POINT

0 3 5
SCALE IN MILES PIAIN@ITA@@
@
Rt4,D

4
'C4 s

r-
0

0
z
0
z --h
0 M
m
x 0

L
0 CD -n
Ile, L <.
m
(D

PERCENTAGE CHANGE

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1930
; '19
0 ot?
> 950
m 1960
L-@@E1960-1970
0
0 >
z

FIGURE 3
Nj
Population Pyramids for Gloucester County: Total Population, 1960

Pop. Male Age Female Pop.
28 0.46% 0.68% 40
75 1.25 80-84 0.95 56
116 1.93 75-59 2.34 138
176 2.92 4 3.12 184

..........
..........
256 4.25 65-69 4.61 272
..........
..........
.......... . ..........
250 4.15 60-64 X............ 4.39 259

........... .
266 4.42 .............. 55-59 5.04 297
50-54
346 5.74 5.67 334
................... ...
................ .
45-49
367 6.09 .................. :- 6.63 391
.................. ...
...................
................
-44
375 6.23 40 6.01 354
................... .....
.................... .....
393 6.52 35-39 ........ 6.31 372
...................

.................
370 6.14 30-34 5.89 347
324 5.38 25-29 5.99 353
300 4.98 20-24 ........... 5.16 304
................... . .....
484 8.03 15-19 ...... . 7.45 439
.....................
180-84

602 9.99 1***.,:*:*-:*:*:*.:*:,:,:*:"*"*".".""."*""*""*""."""".""'i:i 10-14 :j%% 9.25 545
.........................................
59
. ......... .....
634 10.52 -------------------- ......... 9.75 575

............... ....................... ....
662 10.99 10.77 635
0-4

150/0 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%

Males Females

FIGURE 3 continued
Total Population, 1970

Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
53 0.77% 85+ 0.99 71
79 1.14 80-84 1.51 108
136 1.96 75-59 2.86 204
171 2.47 ....... 70-74 3.43 245
233 3.37 ...... 320
65-69 ..... 4.48
321 4.64 60-64 ..... 4.61 329

..................
..........
..............
...............
396 5.72 55-59 ............... 5.51 393
....... ......
.................. ..........
...............
411 5.94 50-54 5.62 401
435 6.28 45-49 5.90 421
436 6.30 40-44 5.80 414
..............
...............
...............
............
373 5.39 ..... 5.65 403
-35-39

................
................ 30-34 :.*.*.* .... ...... 5.70 407
398 5.75 .................

..................... .....
435 6.28 9 6.54 467
444 6.41
..................... 6.42 458

...............
......... .....
654 9.45 ........ 15-19 7.80 557
............... .................. .....................................
..................... ....
726 10.49 ................ 10-14 10.13 723
3934
0
15 19
1 19
0- 4
9 ......
667 9.64 5-9 9.81 700
554 8.00 n A 7.23 516
15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%

1.4
CA) Males Females

FIGURE 4
Population Pyramids for Mathews County: Total Population, 1960
Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
32 0.92% 85+ 1.57% 57
76 2.18 80-84 2.22 81
118 3.39
75-59 ... 3.95 144
164 4.71 70-74 4.97 181
.. ........
189 5.43 65-69 5.77 210
...........
187 5.37 60-64 6.59 240
55-59 :... .....
244 7.01 6.56 239
..... .....

...................
212 6.09 50-54 6.67 243
......... .... .... .........

. ..........
247 7.10 45-49 5.77 210

....................
...................
193 5.55 40-44 6.73 245
.... .. 35-39 ............
182 5.23 5.41 197
.......... ...A
.............
...........
200 5.75 30-34 ............ 5.25 191
149 4.28 25-29 4.89 178
155 4.45 21-2@L ............. 4.45 162
.............
243 6.98 15-19 6.81 248
......... ...
..........
301 8.65 10-14 ... ... . 7.11 259
282 8.10 . ......... r'-q .... 7.42 270
..........
306 8.79
0-4 7.85 286

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%

Males Females
Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960 and 1970.

FIGURE 4, continued
Total Population, 1970

Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
45 1.31 85+ 2.25 84
71 2.07 RO-84 2.92 109
104 3.03 4.34 162
... 75-79
70-74
163 4.74 5.98 223
...................
...................
225 6.55 65-69 6.73 251
205 5.97 60-64 7.18 268

............................
.:.:. 55- .................... 245
253 7.36 59 ... ................ 6.56
...........:.............
..................... ....
.....................
202 5.88 50-54 ... 6.51 243

...................
...............
203 5.91 1:* * *.*.*.,.*.*.*.*"*,***"*'*.*'.*.'*.,*-:: 5.76 215
---------------- 45-49 ....
.....................
.....................
..... ...............
208 6.05 40-44 XX 5.84 218
.....................
........... .
............
35-39
..............
135 3.93 4.64 173

.............
150 4.37 .................. 30-34 4.69 175

...............
4.82 180
174 5.06 25-29
--------------
..............
.......... 20-24
201 5.85 4.58 171

..................
15-19 ... 6.40 239
261 7.60
................... ................"
................... ........
................... ....
........... ................... ... .....................
322 9.37 ............ 8.31 310
10-14
...........
..........
............. 9 X
..................
....... ...
290 8.44 ................... 7.26 271
..............
..........................
...................:
0-4
224 6.52 ...... . 5.23 195

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%

Males Females

FIGURE 5
Population Pyramids for Middlesex County: Total Population, 1960

Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
28 0.90 85+ 0.69 22
48 1.54 80-84 1.59 51

........ ...
100 3.21 75-79 2.93 94
70-74
............
106 3.41 4.52 145

.............
173 5.56 65-69 5.64 151

............
140 4.50 60-64 ... 4.68 150
.............
..............
.....................
200 6.43 5.58 179
................... 55-59
168 5.40 .................... 50-54 5.61 180

.....................
183 5.88 i:*@.,.,..'@.,.,.*..,.,..,.,.,.*.*.*.'.*.'.*@" dg;-,dQ 6.39 205
................
.............. ...

.................... ....
185 5.94 ............... :: 40-44 5.96 191

...................
................
..................
.................
176 5.66 ............... 35-39 5.18 166
..................
.................
......... ...
174 5.59 .................. 30-34 5.49 176
25-29
...............
152 4.88 5.05 162

............
123 3.95 20-24 3.96 127
............M
..........................
.........................
248 7.97 ------ 15-19 7.80 250
........................... .
...................
10-14
............................. ...
262 8.42 9.39 301
..............
..............
...................
317 10.19 -5-9 9.95 319
....................................
.................................... ...
329 10.57 ................ ............. .................. 9.60 308
0-4
..............

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%
Males Females

F I GU R E 5, continued
Total Population 1970

Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
33 1.06% 85+ 1.73% 55
47 1.50 80-84 2.05 65
75-791
118 3.78 1- ..... 3.94 125
............
.............
124 3.97 70-74 4.60 146

..................
178 5.70 65-69 6.59 209

..................
55-59
------ ----------
173 5.54 6.34 201
............
...........
208 6.66 50 6.78 2.15
................
.................
.......... ..... .
......... ........
182 5.83 .... 45-49 5.99 190

...................
...................
194 6. 2 1 40-44 5.52 175
.....................
.....................
.....................
...............
200 6.40 35-39 X, 5.99 190

...............
...............
135 4.32 30-34 ............... 5.20 165
-----------
.... ............
.............. .............
............. . ... ......
131 4.19 2 5 - 29 4.29 136
................ .......
................
149 4.77 20- 24 4.19 133
..... ........
................
.............. ..........
.............. ..........
145 4.64 15-19:*."***"*".................. 5.01 159
.................. ............................
.................... ........
..................
...........
296 9.48 10- 14 8.58 272
....................

................................... ...................
.............................. ...............................
325 10.41 ....... 5-9 9.55 303
................
.............................
.................. ...........
..................
................... ...................
272 8.71
..... .............. 7.60 241
213
......................
.....................
6.82 ....... 0-4 ........... 6.05 192

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%

Males Females

-@j FIGURE 6
00
Population Pyramid of the White Population in Gloucester County, 1970

Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
39 0.72% 85+ 1.03% 57
64 1.19 80-84 1.43 79
90 1.67 75-79 ... 2.79 154
134 2.48 7(Y74 3.41 188
..........
169 3.13 65-69 4.51 249
.............. -64
60
249 4.61 .............. 4.58 253
301 5.58 55-59 5.56 307
.................
312 5.78
50-54 .......... 5.71 315
.. ............
348 6.45 45-49 6.05 334

.. ......... ....
........... 40-44
362 6.70 ............ .................. 5.82 321
318 5.89 35-39
....... 5.96 329
-34
326 6.04 30 5.91 326

.........................X
375 6.95 25-29 7.08 391

............................
369 6.83 .... ......... ......... 20-2 ..... 6.52 360
...................
..........
.................... ...
............... ......
480 8.89 7.47 412
15-19

...... 1U-14
536 9.93 9.44 521
....... .....
..........
491 9.09 .......... 5-9 .... 9.40 519
7i-
-4
436 8.08 i: 0 7.32 404

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%
Males Females

FIGURE 7
Population Pyramid of the White Population in Mathews County, 1970
Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
40 1.51% 85+ 2.44% 70
.... .......
62 2.35 80-84 3.14 90
88 3.33 75-79 5.06 145
144 5.45 70-74 6.67 191
-------------
.................. ....
193 7.31 ;.i.i65-69 7.44 213
..........
...........
168 6.36 60-64 7.93 227
..... .....
..... ................
199 7.54 55-59 6.60 189
50-54
167 6.32 6.81 195
45-49
162 6.13 .................... 5.87 168
....... ... .......
4&44
166 6.29 5.69 163
96 3.63 35-39 4.54 130

...............
...............
115 4.35 in-34 4.02 115
................
25-29
133 5.04 .... ........ 4.79 137
........................
20-24
167 6.32 @"***"*""*"'****'*'**'***-*,*"*,* 4 4.40 126
................... .... .
......................* 15-19 @*i'
.....................
....................
177 6.70 1*.".,.,.*.*.,.*.*.,.*.*.,.*.,.,.*.*.*...,.,.***
6.25 179
............................ .........."
............................
206 7.80 i*@[email protected].*-@ 10-14 7.27 208
........................ ...........
........................ .....
........................
200 7.57 5- 5.87 168
158 5.98
0-4 5.20 149

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%

Males Females
Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1970.

CO
FIGURE 8
Population Pyramid of the White Population in Middlesex County, 1970

24 1.23% 1.90% 38
80-84
35 1.79 2.75 55
75-79
..............
79 4.04 4.01 80
....... ....
86 4.40 70-74 5.36 107
.........................
......................
.......................
..... ..........................
129 6.60 65-69 8.06 161
....................... .......................
....................... ......................
....................... .......................
...........................
-64
130 6.65 60 7.46 149
.......................
... ......................
...................
.......................
.......................
...................... 55-59 :............................
........................
133 6.80 .... - ---------- -------- 7.46 149
............... .... ...............
120 6.14 ....................
........................ 6.61 132
45-49
135 6.91 @i*'@-.@i*@@-.@:*-@i@j
. . . 5.61 112
.............
...................
...............
.............
40-44
127 6.50 6.41 128
..............
89 4.55 ............... 35-39 5.36 107
..........
..........
30 ......... 4.26 85
...............
88 4.50 -34 ..........
..... .............
100 5.12 .........
25
-29 i i i i i A.i. 4.41 88
................... ........... X-I
.... ........
85 4.35 20-24 ............. 5.31 106
...................... .... ..................

.......................
.......................
157 8.03 15-19 ................... 7.41 148
165 8.44 10-14 6.31 126
------------
........ .......
150 7.67 5-9 6.16 123
123 6.29 ............ 5.16 103

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%
Males Females

Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1970.

FIGURE 9
Population Pyramid of the Black Population in Gloucester County, 1970
Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
14 0.92% 85+ i@ij 0.87 14
15 0.99 80-84 1.80 29
46 3.04 75-79 3.11 50
37 2.44 70-74 ... 3.54 57
64 4.23 65-69 4.41 71
.................
72 4.76
60-64 4.66 75
55-59
.......... .....
95 6.27 5.34 86
98 6.47
50-54 5.34 86

.....................
85 5.61 45-49 5.41 87
..... ........
40-44
73 4.82 ... 5.78 93

...........
53 3.50 35-39 4.54 73
72 4.76
30-34 4.85 78
59 3.90 25-29 4.66 75
75 4.95 20-24 6.09 98
174 11.49 -19 9.01 145
15
..........................
190 112.55 .................... 10-14 12.49 201

...........
.......................... 5-9
175 11 . 56
........ 11.12 179
117 7.73 6.96 112

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%
Males Females

00
Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1970.

CO
FIGURE 10
Population Pyramid of the Black Population in Mathews County 1970
Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
5 0.63 85+ 13 1.61 14
Xiiiii
3
9 1.13 80-84 .....X%A 2.19 19
16 2.02 _25-79 1.96 17
19 2.40 70-74 3.68 32
32 4.04 I.X.X.X.:.:.x.x.x. 65-69 4.37 38
.. ..........
37 4.67 60-64 4.72 41
54 6.81 6.44 56
55-59
...... .......
50-54
34 4.29 5.52 48
41 5.17 .............. 45-49 5.41 47
... ..........
...... ..... ..........
42 5.30 40-44 6.33 55
39 4.92 35-39 4.95 43
. ...... .. ...
35 4.41 30-34 6.90 60
X
41 5.17 25-29 4.95 43
............
............
34 4.29 .............. 20-24 5.18 45
..X:
83 10.47 19
................
...............
15- 6.90 60
.................
...... .................
................................................
X.*XX.`.Y-*:* ............
............................. .....
.....................................
116 14.63 10-14 11.74 102

........ .....
....... 5-9 11.85 103
90 11.35
66 8.32 ....................... 0-4 5.29 46
1 - 1
15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%
Males Females

Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1970.

FIGURE 11
Population Pyramid of the Black Population in Middlesex County, 1970
Pop. Male Age Pop. Female
9 0.77 1.46 17
12 1.03 80-84
0.86 10
::: . . . . ..........
..........
38 3.26 75-79 3.86 45

..........
..........
38 3.26 70-74 ......... 3.26 38
49 4.21
65-69 4.03 47
43 3.69 60-64 4.46 52
.......................
74 6.36
55-59 5.57 65
62 5.33 50-54 4.88 57
..........
59 5.07 45-49 5.40 63
... ..... ........
-------------
............
73 6.27 40-44 5.31 62

...............
..............
46 3.95 35-39 4.97 58
43 3.69 4.28 50
30-34
............
48 4.12
-25-29 3.86 45
....... ..........
..............
2
60 5.15 0-24 4.54 53
............
........................... .
.......................
.......................
139 11.94 ...... 15-19 F: 10.54 123
..............
................................
........................................
160 13.75
.........................................
.......................................... 15.08 176
...... 10-14 "' ....... .........
...................

.........................
121 10.40 5-9 .......................... 10.11 118
Fz--t7O R74

90 7.73 7.54 88

15% 10 5 0 0 5 10 15%
Males Females
00
w
Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1970.

FIGURE 12
Accessibility to Tidewater Virginia from Middlesex County

90
80

60
TAPPAHANNOCK 0
50

0 ASH AND

URBANNA
\0 SALUDA
RICHMOND I `1-11-1@,@
90 80 70-- 60 50 40 @O 20 10 1 DELTAVILLE
WEST POINT

20
GLOUCESTER 0 MATHEWS

)-- 30
HOPEWELL 0 ILLIAMS URG 0 0
0 PETERSBURG AMES R ORKTOWN

0 50
80
90 60

TRAVEL TIMES MEASURED IN 0
MINUTES FROM THE I )
GEOGRAPHICAL CENTER OF NEWPORT NEWS 0 0 HAMPTON
70
MIDDLESEX COUNTY(A) 80 NORFOLK
ISOCHRONES GIVEN IN 90-
10 MINUTE INTERVALS.

scwo
0 5 lo PORTSMOUTH 0 CHESAPEAKE

FIGURE 13
Middlesex County Elevation Map

Feet Above
Sea Level
El 0-20
EJ 20-40
40-70
70-100
0100-130
0 10 MILES

00
C.n Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1973. Topographic Maps of Virginia.

FIGURE 14
Middlesex County Soil Characteristics

...... ...... I.......*.*

..........

. ... .... ..
El Loamy, gravelly soils; deep, well-
drained;
EJ Deep, excessively to moderately
w
-drained . . . . . . ..
ell
Loamy and gravelly soils; deep,
moderately to well-drained
Deep, poorly to moderately
well-drained

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,
Swampy, deep, very poorly-drained
organic soils; frequently flooded

0 10 MILES

Source: Middle Peninsula Planning-District Commission, 1974. "Soils Association
Map."

FIGURE 15
Areas Preferred for Residential Development in Middlesex County

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kni

;itii,

Percentage of
..............
:::.: . . . . . .... ...
Respondents
Favoring Areas

51-63%
39-50%
El 26-38%
El 0-25%
0 10 MILES

Source: Author's survey, 1975.

00
4

co FIGURE 16
co Areas Preferred for Industrial Development in Middlesex County

...... .......

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

........ ......
Area Favored by-

26,33% of Respondents
18-25% of Respondents
10-17% of Respondents
0- 9% of Respondents . . . . . . .
0 10 MILES . . . . . . . . . .

Source: Author's survey, 1975.

FIGURE 17
Middlesex County Residential Locations of All Survey Respondents

Number of Respondents
F] o

2
3
0 10 MILES

00 Source: Middlesex County High School Questionnaire, 1975.
CO

FIGURE 18
Middlesex County Areas of Perceived Pollution

Number of Respondents

2
03
04
0 10 MILES

Source: Middlesex High School Questionnaire, 1975.

FIGURE 19
Middlesex County Areas Favored for Recreation

Number of Respondents
El 0
El 1-3

4-9

10-12

13-15
0 10 MILES

(o Source: Middlesex High School Questionnaire, 1975.

(D
IQ FIGURE 20
Middlesex County Areas Favored by Blacks for Recreation

Number of Respondents

0
01-3
0 1.0 MILES

Source: Middlesex High School Questionnaire, 1975.

FIGURE 21
Middlesex County Areas Favored by Whites for Recreation

Number of Respondents
El 0
1-3

4.9

10-12

13-15
0 10 MILES

CD Source: Middlesex County High School Questionnaire, 1975.

APPENDIX

COMPUTER PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION

Title: PYRAMID

Ori-gin of. Program: John D. Stephens
Department of Geography
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University

Purpose and Application of PYRAMID is a general computer
Progra m: program designed to plot population
pyramids and compute basic demo-
graphic measures. The program was
written forthe purpose of graphical-
ly displaying the age and sex charac-
teristics of coastal county popula-
tions in Tidewater Virginia as well as
summarizing change in population
composition.

Computer System: The program was developed and im-
plemented on an I BM 370/158 com-
puter system.

Compiler: FORTRAN G

Reference: "PYRAMID: Program to Plot Pop-
ulation Pyramids and Compute Basic
Demographic Measures," Computer
Program Documentation 75- 1, De-
partment of Geography, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-
versity, Blacksburg, Virginia, June,
1975.

Abstract: The age-sex distribution of a population can be most clearly
represented in a graphical form known as a "population pyramid." PYR-
AM I D is a computer program that can be used to plot population pyr-
amids using the computer's high-speed line printer. Output from the
program (Figures 3-11) showpopulation pyramids for coastal counties in
Tidewater Virginia drawn on the basis of 1960 and 1970 age-sex distribu-

tions. It is apparent from the figures that ages are marked-off on the Y-
axiswith age 0 atthe origin. Male population totals forvarious age groups
are shown on the negative side and the corresponding female population
totals on the positive side of the Y-axis. Each population pyramid con-
sists of 18 horizontal bars on the male and female sides. The height of
each bar represents the age groups and the length shows the proportion
of population in that age group. Usually the population pyramids are
drawn by taking age data in 5-year age groups, but they can be plotted in
any other age interval or in single years of age. The program described
he'rein allows for a maximum of 20 age groups.

When comparing pyramids for two or more populations, it is essential to
use percentage distributions by age and sex. These percentages are calcu-
lated by expressing each age-sex category as a percentage of the total pop-
ulation. PYRAMID requires only that the user input the population tot-
als, i.e., total males and total females, for each age group. All raw data-to-
percentage computations are performed internally.

In addition to plotting age-sex distributions, PYRAMID will compute
several basic demographic measures such as sex, child-woman, and de-
pendency ratios. All computations use the same data necessary to con-
struct the population pyramids.

The following input is necessary in order to obtain the output described
above:

(1) Job title card
(2) Age group labels card (2)
(3) Subtitle and Control Card
(4) Data format card (optional)
(5) Data card(s) for male population
(6) Data card(s) for female population
(7) Any number of repetitions of cards 3-6

Title: GRID

Origin of Program: David Sinton and Carl Steinitz
Laboratory for Computer Graphics
and Spatial Analysis
Graduate School of Design
Harvard University

Purpose and Application G R I D is a general computer program
of Program: which provides an efficient means
for graphic display of map informa-
tion collected on the basis of a rec-
tangular coordinate grid. The pro-
gram has been used to generate map
displays of data compiled from
questionnaires, field surveys, and
map sources.

Computer System The program was modified to oper-
ate on an IBM 370/158 computer
system.

Compiler: FORTRAN G

Reference: GRID Manual, Version 3, Labora-
tory for Computer Graphics and
Spatial Analysis, Harvard University,
October, 1971.

Abstract: GRID efficiently displays large quantities of information col-
lected at regular grid intervals. In the case of the Middlesex County study
area, the grid interval is 2,000 feet. Thus, a rectangu lar grid net (48 x 67),
where each grid cell represents 2,000 feet square, adequately covers the
study area.

GRI D accepts a matrix of data values as input and assigns each, value to
a grid cell, based on the sequence in which the values are read and on
the user-specified dimensions of the data matrix. Each data value is
assigned to a specific value range and each range is assigned a unique
graphic symbol. Output from GRIDconsists of the symbolic representa-
tion of the data values.

The user can specify the characteristics of the data and the intervals
used. In addition, one must specify the symbols used in printing the
map and can include legends and text for the map. Although GRID is
designed for rectangular areas, provision has been made for describing
irregularly shaped outlines such as Middlesex County. The size of the
input matrix is not limited to any maximum size, since each line of in-

put is immediately converted into a I ine of output. Input values may be
manipulated, however, by other routines which then pass on modified
values to GR I D prior to the creation of the output map. The size of the
output map is a function of the size of the data matrix and the size of
the output cells.

To obtain a map, one must provide three sets of instructions and the
fourth set is optional. The instructions are prepared in the following
packages: Data Package, Map Package, Irregular Outlines Package (opt-
tional), and Subroutine FLEXIN.

(1) The Data Package contains the data or numerical information which
generates the graphic display. A multiple data set option permits the
user to handle unlimited numbers of data cells.

,:2) The Map Packag permits the user to specify the precise form of the
rnap output in terms of various electives.

,@3) The Irregular Outline Oaj@22 allows the user to specify the bounclar-
es of the study area if one isclealingwith a grid which is not rectangularly
bounded.

(4) Subroutine FLEXIN is a FORTRAN subroutine which allows the
user to specify the format of the data.

DATE DUE

GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRI.'.TED 114 U S A

3 6668 14106 4016