Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
DOI 10.1007/s11111-013-0195-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
What was the Dust Bowl? Assessing contemporary
popular knowledge
Jess C. Porter
Published online: 26 September 2013
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract This article reports on an assessment of contemporary popular knowledge and perceptions of the American Dust Bowl of the 1930s. In a region prone to
recurrent drought and evolving resource issues such as the depletion of the Ogallala
Aquifer, it follows that knowledge of the Dust Bowl can contribute to understanding
and dealing with contemporary and future challenges to the human–environment
dynamic of the region. An age-stratified sample of residents from 93 Great Plains
counties provided their understandings of the three Dust Bowl concepts (era, event,
and region) via questionnaire. When compared with the academic record on the
subject, significant variation between respondent age groups was identified. Successively, older generations of the historic Dust Bowl region maintain higher
degrees of knowledge than their younger counterparts, regarding this exceptional
chapter of American environmental history. This record of knowledge erosion not
only speaks to the necessity of enhancing Dust Bowl educational resources, but can
be utilized to underscore the salience of studying and documenting adaptive strategies to drought on the American Great Plains.
Keywords
Dust Bowl Great Plains Environmental perception Drought
Introduction
What was the Dust Bowl? The Dust Bowl was a period of severe drought
accompanied by high winds and high temperatures; the impacts of which were
exacerbated by the rapid expansion of agriculture on the American Great Plains in
the 1920s and early 1930s. This resulted in recurrent, severe dust storms, economic
J. C. Porter (&)
Department of History, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 S. University Avenue, Little
Rock, AR 72204-1099, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
392
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
ruin, and great human hardship. This convergence of geophysical and anthropogenic
factors conspired to create what is arguably the most severe long-term human
ecological crisis the USA has seen.
The term ‘‘Dust Bowl,’’ as described above, is inherently ambiguous in that it
refers to a phenomenon that can be considered discretely as an event, era, or region.
More often, some amalgamation of historic and geographic analysis yields a multiconceptual construction of the Dust Bowl. As one explores the historiography of the
Dust Bowl, it is apparent that the narrative of these concepts has evolved through
time, presenting a shifting picture of this extraordinary chapter in America’s
environmental history. This article first reviews the ways the Dust Bowl story has
been told in order to provide contextual and comparative basis for the second part of
the article, an assessment of the perceptions and knowledge of the general public
today.
Seeing how the public’s ideas parallel and/or diverge from the historical record
speaks to an evolving understanding of the human–environment relationship on the
Great Plains. The value of gaining insight into this relationship through the study of
perception and knowledge is amplified by the realities of recurrent, and for that
matter, contemporary drought in the Great Plains region coupled with changing
Great Plains demographics (Bonnifield 1979; Hurt 1981; Worster 1979; Malin and
Swierenga 1984). Increasingly, the cultural identity of residents of the Great Plains
may not contain knowledge, let alone first-hand experience of the environmental
hazards inherent to the region.
The Dust Bowl to date: academic and popular sources
The Dust Bowl event: what was the Dust Bowl?
Academics, popular writers, and artists have contributed perspectives on this unique
chapter of American history. Each source can exhibit significant variation in its
objectives, its component emphasis, and, for that matter, its agenda. McDean’s
(1986) Dust Bowl Historiography outlines the Dust Bowl’s ‘‘schizophrenic history’’
as he highlights the differences between the seminal works of Bonnifield (1979),
Hurt (1981), and Worster (1979) among other lesser-known texts. McDean’s work
conveys an exceptional range in topical material, writer approaches, and conclusions in regard to the Dust Bowl.
Cronon’s (1992) discussion of opposing Dust Bowl narratives with a focus on
Bonnifield (1979) and Worster (1979) deftly explains the variation that McDean
(1986) identifies in terms of causal explanation. Cronon provides unparalleled
insight into how multiple sources working with essentially the same data can
produce dramatically different narratives of the Dust Bowl and its causes. Upward
sweeping narratives, like Bonnifield (1979), present the Dust Bowl as a natural
disaster that is overcome by the perseverance of individuals and communities alike.
Human ingenuity, through the development of new technology, is the primary tool
that helps people conquer the natural challenges of the Great Plains environment
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
393
(Webb 1931). This story of improvement and accomplishment, referred to as the
triumph narrative by Cronon (1992), is progressive in nature.
On the other hand, the story Cronon (1992) calls the tragedy narrative is
embraced by authors such as Worster (1979). With their genesis in the New Deal
account of what transpired in the Great Plains in the 1930s, these declensionist
stories of the Dust Bowl emphasize the human failure to adapt to the constraints of
nature. Imported eastern farming techniques were ill-suited to the wide-open spaces
of the Plains and fail miserably when drought inevitably returns. The removal of
native grasses, with their soil-stabilizing root systems, to make way for wheat
further sets the stage for disaster in this narrative. Many New Deal era authors
suggested that the notion of humans triumphing over nature was not only false, but
this hubris was the underlying cause of the Dust Bowl disaster. Both variants of the
Dust Bowl story, as Cronon (1992, 1348) points out, are ‘‘inextricably bound to
[their] conclusion, and the historical analysis derives much of its force from the
upward or downward sweep of the plot.’’
For the texts that attempt to provide some holistic picture of the Dust Bowl event
(those selected for this study) rather than more specialized work regarding
individual facets of the phenomenon (e.g., drought, migration), one can imagine a
Dust Bowl causation spectrum with an emphasis on human explanation on one side
and climatological explanation (drought) on the other. Many of the ‘‘big picture’’
narratives exude a bias toward one explanatory pole or the other, while integrative
narratives that critically consider both the contributory role of ‘‘natural’’ environmental factors and human agency represent a minority of these works.
Hurt (1981) and Cunfer (2005) are noteworthy for their particularly lucid, evenhanded accounts of the event. The drought’s severity is detailed by Hurt, but not
without first enlightening the reader to the commonplace nature of such events on
the Great Plains. Unlike many of the texts that seemingly seek to assign blame to
either farmers (characterized as ignorant), government bureaucrats (characterized as
unsympathetic and detached actors), or an (unforgiving and unpredictable) Mother
Nature, Hurt weaves together the contributory agents and circumstances to produce
a holistic causal matrix. The reader is left with the impression that the Dust Bowl
would not have happened if not for a unique and extraordinary intersection of
diverse time and space elements.
Cunfer’s (2005) geographic information system (GIS)-based methodology
evaluates land use and climatological components of the Dust Bowl within the
more objective analytical environment of GIS. The analysis suggests that drought
and high temperatures played a greater role in creating the Dust Bowl than many
authors have reported and explain the location of dust storms better than the landuse patterns of the day. Further analysis shows that land-use patterns have remained
remarkably stable for the past century, thereby challenging both the stories of
ecological disaster and agricultural triumph (Cunfer 2005).
Worster’s (1979) text may be the most commonly cited source on the Dust Bowl.
It falls to the more anthropogenic side of the causation spectrum. Worster describes
the Dust Bowl as ‘‘The most severe environmental catastrophe in the entire history
of the white man on this continent’’ as a result of capitalism’s impact on the soil of
the Great Plains. It ‘‘was the inevitable outcome of a culture that deliberately, self-
123
394
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
consciously, set itself to the task of dominating and exploiting the land for all it was
worth’’ (1979, 4).
Heaven’s Tableland (Johnson 1947) was the first comprehensive academic text
dealing with the Dust Bowl and is representative of the first wave of Dust Bowl
research. Johnson’s discussion relies heavily on the federal government’s document
The Future of the Great Plains (Great Plains Committee 1936), which pointed to too
much land being plowed up, cash crop farming, and wrong agricultural methods as
the causes of the Dust Bowl. Johnson added unwise homesteading policies of the
federal government, the costs of increased mechanization, land speculation, and the
‘‘mass attitude of the mind’’ that ‘‘men could conquer nature’’ as other contributory
factors (Johnson 1947). Falling in the declensionist narrative camp, Johnson speaks
of ‘‘the steps to rescue the Plains’’ that were taking form in 1937 via the federal
government. To Johnson and others who have endorsed this perspective (e.g.,
Durbin 2002; Egan 2006; Lauber 1958; Heinrichs 2005), the Dust Bowl was a
people problem to be solved wholly by the people. Although the influence of the
New Deal narrative of human folly waned somewhat in subsequent decades as
understanding of the drought increased, it continues to contribute heavily to
contemporary works. Egan’s The Worst Hard Time (2006), a National Book Award
winner, draws the conclusion that the government saved the Plains from total ruin.
More recently, Ken Burns’ 2012 documentary The Dust Bowl aired on the Public
Broadcasting System. This film was decidedly declensionist in its narrative of the
event. The mood is set in the opening minutes of the film when the narrator
describes the Dust Bowl as ‘‘the worst man-made ecological disaster in American
history,’’ resulting from ‘‘the needless actions of thousands of farmers’’ (Burns
2012). The same spirit was evoked in Black Blizzard, a 2008 documentary broadcast
on the History Channel (Bucher and Burke 2008). Both films drew heavily from The
Worst Hard Time (2006). By contrast, however, The Weather Channel’s 2008
production of When Weather Changed History: Dust Bowl dedicated a significant
portion of its content to explaining the air–sea dynamics embodied in the El NiñoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO), a phenomenon that can contribute to and/or intensify
drought in the historic Dust Bowl region (Tyrrell 2008).
Climatological evaluations of the Dust Bowl era (e.g., Broennimann et al. 2009;
Burnette et al. 2010; Captondi and Alexander 2010; Cook et al. 2008, 2010;
McCrary and Randall 2010; Nigram et al. 2011), particularly the impact of ENSO
on the event, have become more common in recent years than ‘‘big picture’’
academic narratives (e.g., Bonnifield 1979; Worster 1979; Hurt 1981). While these
more recent offerings have not overtly sought to tackle the anthropogenicclimatologic causation question and were not the focus of the literature reviewed
here, they have contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the nature and
severity of the Dust Bowl drought. Contemporary research is providing us with a
much better understanding of climatological conditions in which to frame any future
narrative of the Dust Bowl. With arguments such as the drought was ‘‘distinct from
other droughts’’ (Broenniman et al. 2009) as a result of a unique combination of sea
surface temperatures in both the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, it will be difficult
to discount climatological factors in any consideration of the ‘‘cause’’ of the Dust
Bowl.
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
395
Beyond causation, the Dust Bowl migration is a central theme to most expansive
Dust Bowl accounts. Not unlike the dueling narratives that Cronon (1992) identifies,
the treatment of migration often exhibits an incongruent tone as well. Many Dust
Bowl texts embrace either a story of abandonment or a story of sticking it out. There
is considerable correlation between the abandonment and tragedy narratives as well
as the sticking it out and triumph narratives. A flaw that is found in numerous texts,
particularly juvenile literature, is to overgeneralize the numerous migratory flows
that occurred across the central and southern USA in the 1930s as a result of drought
and/or economic depression as ‘‘the Dust Bowl migration.’’
Perhaps the most well-known story regarding the Dust Bowl migration is told by
Steinbeck (1939). However, as many authors have definitively illustrated (Clements
1938; Larson 1940; Skaggs 1978; Baltensperger et al. 1979; Bonnifield 1979; Hurt
1981; Pursell 1981; Worster 1979; Gregory 1991; Riney-Kehrberg 1991, 1994;
Rathge and Highman 1998; Colin 2003; Rathge 2003; Egan 2006), the story of Dust
Bowl era migration was a complex issue that had many more manifestations than
the stereotypical trope of the Joad family following Route 66 to California.
Many families persevered in their homes or stayed in the immediate region by
migrating into nearby cities. As Riney-Kehrberg (1994) explains, much less has
been told of the ways in which individuals and families adapted to the challenges of
the 1930s without fleeing. The non-migration story may not be as romantic to some
readers and certainly has not been as popular a theme in the body of Dust Bowlrelated literature. However, the treatment of this component of the Dust Bowl can
have a powerful influence on one’s perception of the Dust Bowl event (Gregory
1991).
Though the academic books and articles on the Dust Bowl are legion, one can
only speculate about their influence on knowledge and perception of the general
public. Meanwhile, the books that have been written for juvenile readers and stock
the shelves of school libraries may provide a more realistic reflection of the
information that has been transmitted to the public at large via textual materials.
These books have often been penned by authors who are not experts on the subject
and must tell the Dust Bowl story in less complex, more concise terms. The juvenile
literature mirrors the academic texts in that a wide range of explanations along the
causation spectrum are explored. Despite this range being present, there is a decided
lean toward the New Deal narrative. Authors such as Lauber (1958) and DeAngelis
and DeAngelis (2002) describe the Dust Bowl as an unparalleled event in American,
and by Durbin’s (2002) account, global history, with humans squarely at fault.
The Dust Bowl era: when was the Dust Bowl?
As for the notion of a Dust Bowl era, it is difficult to attach definitive start and end
years to such a complex phenomenon. While drought has been utilized as the
primary temporal key (Bonnifield 1979; Stanley 1992; Cunfer 2005), it is important
to remember that the Dust Bowl drought varied by location. Its inception, intensity,
and duration were not uniform across the Plains. Therefore, depending upon the
writer’s perspective and emphasis, there can be numerous ‘‘right’’ answers to the
question of defining an appropriate temporal frame for the Dust Bowl. For example,
123
396
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
some writers have focused on the Great Depression and the associated economic
hardships as essential elements of the Dust Bowl era (Johnson 1947; King 1997;
DeAngelis and DeAngelis 2002) while others have emphasized the changes in and
applications of agricultural technologies (Floyd 1950; Meltzer 2000; Connell 2004;
Cooper 2004) or the success or failure of crops (Raven and Essley 1997; Henderson
2001; Heinrichs 2005).
Two examples tied to the success of crops include Low, who laments ‘‘1927 was
the last of the good years in southeastern North Dakota’’ (1984, 1) while the
protagonist of Hesse’s novel states, ‘‘We haven’t had a good crop in 3 years, not
since the bounty of 31’’ (1999, 37). The frequency of dust storms has also been a
factor in framing the Dust Bowl era. For example, Raven and Essley (1997) provide
annual figures for dust storms in Guymon, Oklahoma, between 1933 and 1937 and
virtually every text references April 14, 1935, also known as Black Sunday. On this
day, the most notorious dust storm of the era swept across the Dust Bowl region and
into surrounding states. The date is etched in survivors’ memories to the point that
people in that region still recall exactly where they were and what they were doing
when this symbol of the era occurred (Stallings 2001).
Questions of when the Depression started, when the farmers transitioned from
horse power to machine power, and when the rains ceased have numerous and
nuanced answers that cannot be arbitrarily assigned to a single year. Even in the
case of drought, one can define meteorological, hydrological, and agricultural
variations. Furthermore, all of these elements can exhibit significant spatial
variation. For example, the drought moved around from year to year and the
hardships of the Great Depression actually arrived in the Dust Bowl region much
later than the majority of the USA (Riney-Kehrberg 1994).
The Dust Bowl region: where was the Dust Bowl?
Despite McDean (1986) describing the geographic boundaries as the most basic
characteristic of the Dust Bowl, varied regional representations have been utilized.
Additionally, many accounts have not provided a map or merely described the
region in vague terms. In academic literature that does offer a distinct regional
definition, the most common representations are wholly or largely derived from
wind erosion maps found in the National Archives (removed for review). These
maps were the basis for Worster’s (1979) seminal map (Fig. 1).
The difficulty of locating the Dust Bowl precisely on a map has been
acknowledged explicitly by a minority of Dust Bowl authors (Bonnifield 1979;
Worster 1979; Cooper 2004; Hansen and Libecap 2004), and detailed discussion of
how one takes a complex phenomenon such as the Dust Bowl and neatly places it in
a clearly defined geographic space is nearly absent. Worster (1979, 29) is a rare
exception as he relates the transient and convoluted nature of the Dust Bowl region
through statistics and anecdotes alike, before concluding that ‘‘wherever there were
dust storms and soil erosion there was a Dust Bowl, and by that test, most of the
Great Plains was ‘‘in it’’ during a part of the 1930s.’’ These tangible elements of soil
erosion and dust storms can be joined by others such as migration and agricultural
productivity to represent mappable elements of the event. Therefore, the Dust Bowl
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
397
Fig. 1 Previously defined Dust Bowl regions
is like other geographic regions, a complicated and fluid real world space that must
be analyzed and simplified to be delineated.
Have variables beyond erosion been included in the formulation of varying Dust
Bowl regions? Variation is evident, but justification for regional boundaries is
conspicuously absent in nearly every case. Exceptions include the works of
Bonnifield (1979), Hurt (1981), and Worster (1979) and most notably, that of
Cunfer (2005). Cunfer’s unparalleled geographic analysis of the Dust Bowl utilized
geographic information systems to evaluate the role of key variables affecting 280
study counties in the greater Dust Bowl region. Soil type, percent cropland, percent
difference from average rainfall, 5 year average rainfall, average March temperatures by year, and difference from average temperature by year are causal factors
studied and mapped by Cunfer in his study. Considered alone, all of these variables
portray slightly different Dust Bowl regions (Cunfer 2005).
Fifty sources including academic texts, juvenile texts, Internet sites, and literature
with a Dust Bowl focus were reviewed for their portrayal of the Dust Bowl region.
Sources that were peripheral to the Dust Bowl were not included in the review.
Twenty-eight of these sources included some form of map portraying the boundaries
of the Dust Bowl. These maps varied widely in terms of thematic content, purpose,
123
398
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
Dust Bowl terminology, sources cited, map projection employed, image resolution,
and cartographic merit. The most readily apparent commonality is the high number
of regions that exhibit nearly exact boundaries in the vicinity of the Texas and
Oklahoma panhandles, southeastern Colorado, and western Kansas. These regions
are those that have been based on the Worster/National Archive maps of the Dust
Bowl (removed for review). Beyond this grouping of regions, another similarity can
be noted. The western sides of the regions display more correlation than the eastern
sides. The mean region size is 547,544 km2 with the largest region provided by
Katzin’s (2002) area damaged by dust storms at 1,882,231 km2. For comparison,
the area of the state of Oklahoma is 181,035 km2.
Writers have placed the Dust Bowl in general agreement with the Great Plains, in
states outside the Plains, or anywhere dust blew in the 1930s. This last association
occurs when writers correlate all 1930s drought with the Dust Bowl (e.g., Katzin
2002). McDean claims that a major problem in locating the Dust Bowl has been this
tendency of historians to fail to distinguish the Dust Bowl from other areas of
drought (1986). These larger regions can also be explained by associating the Dust
Bowl region with larger physiographic features such as the Great Plains or High
Plains. In some cases, particular locations disproportionately influence the portrayal
of the Dust Bowl region. For example, some associate Oklahoma with the Dust
Bowl because of Steinbeck’s famous novel, The Grapes of Wrath. In that novel, the
Joad family hails from Sallisaw, Oklahoma, and travels west along Route 66 to
California. Geographically appropriate or not, these two features, a city and a road,
permanently entered the Dust Bowl regional lexicon.
Public understanding of the Dust Bowl
Methodology
To assess the Dust Bowl knowledge base of regional residents, a questionnaire that
incorporated a series of evaluative Likert questions, open-ended questions, and a
user-defined map of the Dust Bowl was administered to 372 citizens in the historic
Dust Bowl region (as defined by Worster’s map). Respondents, required to be a
current resident of the county, were obtained principally via opportunity sampling at
the respective county courthouses. Additional sites such as municipal offices, public
libraries, churches, parks, retail establishments, and nursing homes were utilized.
The county courthouse was chosen as a starting point because it is usually located in
the most populous community in the county. This is an important consideration in
study area counties such as Kiowa County, Colorado (population 1,433), Greeley
County, Kansas (population 1,258), and Harding County, New Mexico (population
704). Additionally, the courthouse is a gathering place for a wide cross-section of
the community as they tend to a variety of administrative and civic responsibilities.
In this case, stratified purposive sampling ensured that one respondent from each of
four age groups (20–39, 40–59, 60–79, 80 and older) in each study county
completed the questionnaire.
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
399
Although the stratified purposive sampling for age was the guiding factor for
respondent selection, demographic data collected from respondents illustrated that
the sample contained a higher percentage of white and female respondents, was
potentially more affluent, and was somewhat more educated than the study area
averages. However, the sample was slanted toward the older inhabitants of the study
area due to its age requirements. No one under the age of twenty was included, and
half of respondents were over the age of fifty-nine. The older cohorts of the region
are whiter just as the younger cohorts have the highest percentages of Hispanic
persons. In other words, the race/ethnicity discrepancy suggested by Table 1 is not
as noteworthy as it may appear at first glance. As for the gender discrepancy, this
unequal proportion is partially explained by the combination of women being
generally more receptive to participating as well as the disproportionately high
number of females employed in county courthouses. A number of respondents chose
not to respond to the household income question and several others expressed
Table 1 Sample and study area
demographics
Sample
Study area
Population (n)
20–39
93
40–59
93
60–79
93
80?
93
Total
372
1,195,677
White
88.7
70.5
Hispanic
7.8
22.8
African American
0.5
3.8
Asian
0.5
1
Race/ethnicity (%)
Native American
1.6
0.8
Other
0.5
1.1
Educational attainment (%)
Less than high school
7
18
High school
29
28
Some college
44.9
29
Bachelors
14.5
16
Masters
3
7
PhD
1.6
2
100
100
Household income ($)
Mean
Income group mode
43,782
40,000–59,000
Gender (%)
Male
40
49
Female
60
51
123
400
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
confusion as to what household income represents upon completion of the
questionnaire. As a result, the household income figures of Table 1 should be
viewed with some skepticism. It is difficult to compare the study area’s household
mean income to the sample. Nonetheless, the mode ($40,000–$59,000) of the
sample is a range that includes the mean household income value ($43,782) for the
study area. A number of respondents chose not to respond to the education question
as well. In general, the two younger cohorts had higher levels of education than the
two older cohorts. This proved interesting in light of the results discussed below.
Hindsight provides the opportunity to comment on several methodological
shortcomings of the research presented here. The aforementioned discrepancies
between the sample and the study area demographics could be considered a
shortcoming by some. A more consequential methodological shortcoming lies in the
decision not to include ‘‘don’t know’’ along with ‘‘neither agree nor disagree’’ as a
response choice to Likert statements. Some respondents reported that they ‘‘did not
know’’ rather than not having an opinion. On the other hand, some respondents
would discuss a Likert statement and determine they had ambiguous feelings or
knowledge and respond with ‘‘neither agree nor disagree.’’ It would have been better
if these two types of responses were calculated separately. And finally, several of
the Likert statements could have been split into individual components. This was
recognized as a potential issue when developing the questionnaire. However, in the
interest of limited paper space, keeping the questionnaire length reasonable, and
utilizing Cunfer’s (2004) statements verbatim, the decision was made to proceed
with the questionnaire as designed. The problem was most prevalent with item C-10
(Item 1 on Fig. 3), ‘‘The Dust Bowl was defined by a combination of extended
severe drought and unusually high temperatures.’’ Respondents commented that
they were certain there was a drought, but not sure about the high temperatures. In
these cases, some respondents marked ‘‘agree’’ instead of ‘‘strongly agree’’ or
marked ‘‘neither agree nor disagree’’ because of the one part of the statement about
which they were unsure.
The Dust Bowl event: what was the Dust Bowl?
The first Likert statements regarding the event address the basic causal dichotomy of
the Dust Bowl (Fig. 2; Table 2). Why did the Dust Bowl happen? Was it the
agricultural practices and/or the weather/climate that was responsible for the event?
Summary and individual results illustrate that the two causal statements were not
considered mutually exclusive by survey respondents. Beginning with summary
Likert scores, all four age groups produced mean scores that fell between agreement
and a neutral response to the statement ‘‘The Dust Bowl was a result of land
mismanagement by farmers.’’ These results are interesting in light of two factors.
First, agriculture remains a prominent component of livelihood in the study area.
Despite the ever-present trend toward greater farm efficiency and subsequently
decreased demand for farm labor, many if not most people in the study area have a
direct or indirect connection to farmers, the group of people being assigned
‘‘blame’’ by the statement. In fact, 191 of 372 respondents (51.34 %) reported that
they worked or had worked in the agricultural sector of the economy at one point
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
401
Fig. 2 Dust Bowl causality Likert scores
Table 2 Dust Bowl causality statistics
Age group
n
x
r
r2
r
The Dust Bowl was a result of land mismanagement by farmers
20–39
80
2.812
1.032
1.065
40–59
90
2.711
1.008
1.017
60–79
93
2.695
0.980
0.961
80?
93
2.606
0.941
0.885
356
2.702
0.987
0.974
Sample
0.066
The Dust Bowl was a result of severe drought
20–39
80
1.813
0.597
0.357
40–59
90
1.811
0.559
0.312
60–79
93
1.782
0.531
0.282
80?
93
1.702
0.525
0.276
356
1.775
0.552
0.304
Sample
-0.154
during their lives. Second, this simple statement largely captures the spirit of the
New Deal narrative of the Dust Bowl that has manifest in numerous historical and
contemporary sources as discussed above. Perhaps this tepid support for a statement
most historians would agree captures one part of the Dust Bowl causal matrix
suggests rejection of an anthropogenic-based cause for the Dust Bowl and/or a
reluctance to assign responsibility to the actions of one’s ancestors and fellow
agriculturalists.
Stronger agreement to the statement ‘‘The Dust Bowl was a result of severe
drought’’ was documented. The sample mean score of 1.775 for this questionnaire
item represented the highest level of agreement (lowest value) of any of the Likert
items. Standard deviations were much lower for the drought item in all age
subgroups as well. Within the region, it seems that the drought holds sway as the
leading factor that led to the Dust Bowl. On both items, there was a stair-step
progression toward stronger agreement with successively older respondents.
Geoff Cunfer (2004) provides a series of six defining characteristics of the Dust
Bowl. These six questionnaire items are generalized, fact-based statements and do
not reflect the aforementioned tendency of some authors to present more
anthropogenic-based causal explanations while others have emphasized the
123
402
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
Fig. 3 Dust Bowl defining characteristics Likert scores
physical/climatological factors. In other words, most Dust Bowl academics would
agree with these distilled components of the phenomenon. Figure 3 illustrates the
statements and the mean responses by age group to the defining Dust Bowl
characteristics, while Table 3 presents a summary of statistical measures for each
questionnaire item by age group. Of the six statements, the strongest agreement by
all respondents was recorded for item 2 while the lowest level of agreement
occurred with item 5, although the mean was still categorized as agreement.
Item 1, ‘‘The Dust Bowl was defined by a combination of extended severe
drought and unusually high temperatures,’’ had a mean score of 2.36 and exhibited
considerable differentiation between the youngest age group and the three older
groups. The youngest age group agreed more strongly with this statement. However,
this may reflect a previously discussed problem with the survey instrument. The
older respondents generally could not explicitly recall the temperature component of
the event and thus were reluctant to agree with the statement. The dualistic nature of
the statement had some impact on the results. Meanwhile, it is also possible that a
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
403
Table 3 Dust Bowl defining characteristics statistics
Age group
n
x
r
r2
r
Item 1—…severe drought and unusually high temperatures…
20–39
80
2.213
0.630
0.397
40–59
90
2.422
0.687
0.471
60–79
92
2.424
0.633
0.401
80?
93
2.362
0.788
0.620
355
2.360
0.692
0.479
Sample
0.066
Item 2—…regional dust storms and localized wind erosion
20–39
80
2.075
0.569
0.323
40–59
90
2.044
0.539
0.290
60–79
92
1.989
0.432
0.187
80?
93
1.872
0.366
0.134
355
1.994
0.481
0.231
Sample
-0.154
Item 3—…agricultural failure…
20–39
80
2.025
0.573
0.328
40–59
90
2.089
0.697
0.486
60–79
93
1.902
0.696
0.485
80?
93
1.872
0.643
0.414
356
1.966
0.662
0.438
Sample
-0.116
Item 4—…collapse of the rural economy…
20–39
80
2.038
0.489
0.239
40–59
90
2.122
0.650
0.423
60–79
93
2.152
0.553
0.306
80?
93
2.170
0.500
0.250
356
2.124
0.553
0.306
Sample
0.071
Item 5—…reform movement by the federal government
20–39
80
2.713
0.660
0.435
40–59
90
2.778
0.650
0.422
60–79
93
2.652
0.733
0.537
80?
93
2.266
0.642
0.412
356
2.593
0.700
0.490
Sample
-0.240
Item 6—…migration…
20–39
80
2.325
0.742
0.551
40–59
90
2.344
0.752
0.565
60–79
93
2.163
0.788
0.621
80?
93
1.883
0.670
0.449
356
2.174
0.760
0.578
Sample
-0.220
more generalized understanding of the Dust Bowl by those who did not directly
experience it combined with the perception that drought and heat often go hand-inhand is demonstrated by the younger groups.
123
404
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
‘‘The Dust Bowl was defined by episodic regional dust storms and routine
localized wind erosion’’ is the statement attached to item 2. All age groups
demonstrated agreement with this item, resulting in the third strongest level of
support (1.994) for any one item on the questionnaire as well as the narrowest
spread among age groups for any item. The two oldest age groups voiced the
strongest support for this statement, while the 80 and older group exhibited the
lowest standard deviation for any age subgroup for any one questionnaire item. For
those that experienced the Dust Bowl firsthand, this is the defining characteristic
that resonated most strongly. The dust storms and the quintessential Dust Bowl
event, the epic Black Sunday dust storm, are emblematic of the Dust Bowl event.
This may explain the high level of support across all groups.
Sample-wide agreement with item 3, ‘‘The Dust Bowl was defined by
agricultural failure, including both cropland and livestock operations’’ was strongest
(1.966) of the six defining characteristics. The pattern among age groups for the
previous statement regarding dust storms was repeated here. The oldest groups
offered stronger agreement in comparison with the two younger age groups. The
mean value for the 80 and older group (1.872) tied for the highest for any age group
for any statement. The number of strongly agree responses increased incrementally
with each age group.
The general correlation between older respondents and stronger agreement
evident in the preceding two statements is reversed on item 4. Younger residents of
the region expressed slightly more unanimity in agreeing with the Dust Bowl being
‘‘defined by the collapse of the rural economy, affecting farmers, rural businesses,
and local governments.’’ Discussions with respondents in the oldest subgroup
suggested that they took issue with the term ‘‘collapse,’’ and thus, they were
unlikely to select ‘‘strongly agree.’’ In fact, the dearth of strongly agree responses in
all age groups despite the overwhelming agreement leads to relatively lower
subgroup standard deviations for this item. However, the mean for all age groups of
2.124 combined with minimal variation between age groups and within age groups
still indicates solid agreement with the statement.
Item 5, ‘‘The Dust Bowl was defined by an aggressive reform movement by the
federal government’’ elicited the weakest level of agreement (2.593) of the six
defining characteristics. This statement also was responsible for producing the
widest gaps among age groups, leading to the highest correlation value between
older respondents and statement agreement of any item. In this case, the 80 and
older age group voiced agreement in line with the previous four statements while
the other age groups produced mean responses that were closer to neutral on the
Likert scale.
What explains this notable discrepancy between the age groups on this item? One
thing that distinguishes this statement from the other five is the more general nature
of this defining characteristic combined with the subjective term ‘‘aggressive.’’ To
someone not familiar with the dramatic changes that were taking place in the federal
government, particularly in regard to agricultural programs, the terms reform and
aggressive could be confusing. Nonetheless, this statement did resonate with the
oldest respondents. The significant decrease in neutral responses and increase in
‘‘agree’’ responses for the 80 and older group speaks to the lived experience of the
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
405
older respondents. These people witnessed the creation of New Deal agencies such
as the Works Progress Administration and legislation such as the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1933 and the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of
1935 that directly impacted their lives. These initiatives led not only to temporary
make-work programs in the 1930s, but to enduring government agencies essential to
productive livelihood on the Plains such as the Soil Conservation Service, as well as
the inception of widespread farmer subsidies.
Older respondents displayed the strongest agreement with the defining characteristic of migration, item 6. The twenty-five ‘‘strongly agree’’ responses were
second only to the twenty-six associated with the 80 and older group for item 3.
Additionally, several respondents commented that migration from rural areas into
the cities of the region was much more common than out-of-region migration during
the Dust Bowl era and therefore selected the neutral response. Therefore, the 80 and
older subgroup’s level of support may have been markedly higher if the statement
had been split into its two respective components. It is possible this problem
affected the other subgroups too, as this item exhibits the highest standard deviation
value for the sample as a whole.
In summary, questionnaire respondents largely agreed with the six defining
characteristics of the Dust Bowl. All six statements returned Likert means on the
agreement side of the response spectrum. Strongest agreement for the sample as a
whole occurred with items 2 and 3, pertaining to dust storm, wind erosion, and
agricultural failure characteristics of the event. Among age groups, the strongest
agreement to statements was provided by the 80 and older respondents for four of
the six statements. A general pattern of stronger agreement with increasing age was
also witnessed with the same four statements (2, 3, 5, and 6). This is most evident
with items 5 and 6, tied to federal reform and migration, respectively.
The Dust Bowl era: when was the Dust Bowl?
The standardized collection of dates via the questionnaire creates the opportunity for
comparative analysis of the Dust Bowl era in the mind of the public. The first
notable pattern in the results is the disproportionate selection of 1930 and 1939 as
beginning and end years of the event (Figs. 4, 5). This suggests that many
respondents generalize the Dust Bowl to a decade-long event that corresponds with
the 1930s or the ‘‘Dirty Thirties.’’ The notion of generalization to a decade-long
concept of the Dust Bowl is also supported by the overwhelming number of
responses that selected 1930 as the beginning year of the Dust Bowl. Most locations
in the Dust Bowl region, however, did not experience the drought until 1931.
The clear favorite for the concluding year is 1939, but by a lesser margin than
1930 was selected as the starting year. The spread of responses for ending years that
stretch through the following decades of the 1950s and 1960s is noteworthy. This
suggests that respondents may have been tying personal experiences of drought and
dust to their reported end years. Very few respondents could relate personal
experiences that predated 1930 whereas the dusty conditions of the 1950s were
experienced by at least half of questionnaire respondents.
123
406
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
Fig. 4 Respondent-defined Dust Bowl eras, 20–39 and 40–59
Comparison between the age groups shows that the range of responses
progressively narrows with age (Table 4). In the 20–39 age group, 47 % of
respondents tied the Dust Bowl era partially or wholly to years outside the
1930–1940 time frame, and the average duration of the event was nearly 11 years.
By contrast, 13 % of the 80 and older group responses fall outside the same 11-year
window. All of the responses on the 80 and older chart are at least partially in the
1930s. It is also noticeable that the spans are shorter, indicating a perceived Dust
Bowl era that was more brief, as one progresses through the responses from young
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
407
Fig. 5 Respondent-defined Dust Bowl eras, 60–79 and 80?
to old. For example, the average duration for the 80 and older subgroup was
6.645 years. Not only do we see a clear relationship between age and duration of the
event, but also with the year identified as the peak of the event. All four age
subgroups produce an average that falls in 1934. However, the standard deviation
for the youngest group is more than 16 years, while it is less than two for the oldest
group of respondents.
When the attention turns to examining the responses by state group, significant
variation can also be noted. Kansas exhibits the most homogeneity within responses.
With only a handful of exceptions, the uniformity in the Kansas responses across
123
408
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
Table 4 Respondent-defined Dust Bowl era statistics
Age group
n
x
r
r2
r
Respondent-defined peak year of the Dust Bowl
20–39
75
1,934.507
16.366
267.848
40–59
90
1,934.452
12.669
160.511
60–79
93
1,934.817
6.472
41.889
80?
93
1,934.505
1.613
2.600
351
1,934.199
9.496
90.188
35.100
Sample
0.025
Respondent-defined length of the Dust Bowl era (years)
20–39
75
10.813
5.925
40–59
90
10.225
5.986
35.829
60–79
92
8.613
3.978
15.827
93
6.645
2.527
6.384
350
8.798
4.592
21.088
80?
Sample
-0.322
age groups is striking. Comparatively, Texas exhibits significant variation in
beginning years and end years. A final observation pertains to the relationship
between beginning year and duration. In general, respondents that provided later
start years provided shorter eras for the Dust Bowl. If a respondent does not assign a
start date of 1930, they are less likely to extend the Dust Bowl era to 1939 or 1940.
Providing a beginning date that follows 1930 suggests more knowledge of the Dust
Bowl phenomenon. Such an understanding may lead to these respondents providing
an end date that correlates to improvements in local conditions or a specific element
of the Dust Bowl phenomenon.
The Dust Bowl region: where was the Dust Bowl?
As discussed above, there is strong agreement among academic texts as to the area
generally defined as the Dust Bowl. The variety of Dust Bowl regional depictions
expands notably, however, when popular literature, juvenile texts, and Internet
sources are included in the sample (removed for review). Considering that these
sources play a complimentary role in some cases and likely supplant the academic
sources in others, the Dust Bowl region could quickly become convoluted in the eye
of the general public.
Questionnaire respondents were asked to draw a closed line around the Dust
Bowl region on a provided map. The map was 700 9 1000 and displayed the
contiguous USA at a scale of 1:20,000,000. All states were labeled, and major rivers
were shown, but not labeled. The North American Albers Equal Area Conic
projection was utilized with the central meridian located at 96 west longitude and
standard parallels at 20 and 60 north latitude. This projection utilizes the North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983). Maps were completed by 355 of 372
respondents. The remaining seventeen respondents were not familiar with the Dust
Bowl and subsequently could not portray it on a map. Respondent maps were
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
409
scanned at a resolution of 200 dots per inch to create a digital image that could be
utilized with ArcMap GIS software. Scanned images were subsequently georeferenced, a process completed in ArcMap that aligned these images to a known
geographic coordinate system (NAD 1983) to facilitate viewing and analysis (Wade
and Sommer 2006). Following georeferencing, respondent polygons were on-screen
digitized. In this process, respondents’ polygons were displayed on a computer
monitor and traced by mouse to create a digital version of the polygon to be used for
subsequent geospatial analysis and display.
When viewed collectively, the hand-drawn regions demonstrate that the public
identifies with the academic consensus of the spatial characteristics of the Dust
Bowl. However, the individual Dust Bowl regions both parallel and diverge from
academic norms. This reflects the fact that all inhabitants, with their different lived
experiences, and ultimately their different interpretations of the event and its
manifestation on the landscape will not perceive a Dust Bowl region with
homogenous spatial characteristics. As J.B. Jackson stated, no region or ‘‘landscape
can be exclusively devoted to the fostering of only one identity’’ (1984, 12). For
example, physical features such as the Rocky Mountains as well as political
boundaries like the Kansas/Nebraska border act as respective points of harmony for
public geographic perceptions of the region. This illustrates how people can attach
environmental meaning to both physical and cultural landscape elements. Despite
individual respondent idiosyncrasies, as well as a more general collective agreement
on the bounds of the region, responses grouped by age or location highlight some
interesting differences.
In general, the younger the respondent, the larger and more generalized their
hand-drawn Dust Bowl region (Fig. 6). Many younger respondents identified the
Dust Bowl region as being synonymous with the Great Plains and subsequently
drew large symmetrical ovals over the central USA for their regional delineation.
On the other hand, respondents from the 80 and older group often completed very
detailed, non-symmetrical maps that were typically much smaller than those
provided by younger groups. In fact, the average size of 80 and older respondent
regions was approximately one-third that of 20–39 year olds. Responses on
qualitative, open-ended questionnaire items from the oldest age group suggested
more localized perceptions of the event that could lead to delineation of smaller
Dust Bowl regions. Beyond providing regional area estimates more readily
justifiable in comparison with the academic record, the 80 and older respondents
generally placed their regions 50–100 km farther west than the other age groups.
For Plains inhabitants the Dust Bowl happened where you live. From a state
group perspective, regional bias is evident throughout the analysis of regional
definition. For example, Texans’ regions are farthest south while Kansans’ regions
are pulled north and east. Not surprisingly, Oklahoma’s regions are the most
centrally located. This suggests that people associate the Dust bowl with the
location to which they have the strongest sense of attachment to place. This is
interesting in light of the comments that other researchers have made about the
overwhelmingly negative connotation of the Dust Bowl (Bader 1988; Jordan 1978;
Riney-Kehrberg 1994). From a spatial perspective, respondents did not hesitate to
associate their home states with this inauspicious event. Rather, many respondents
123
410
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
Fig. 6 Select Group Dust Bowl regions by age or location
wore the Dust Bowl experience as a badge of their community’s perseverance and
steadfastness. The Kansas and the 80 and older groups, from state and age cohorts,
respectively, provided Dust Bowl regions that were judged to be the most congruent
with the established academic consensus.
Returning to view the respondent-defined region as a whole (Fig. 6), several
interesting patterns emerge. First, the western edge of the region is much ‘‘harder’’
than the eastern edge. This indicates that respondents exhibited much more
agreement regarding the western edge of the Dust Bowl region. This suggests that a
physical feature, in this case the Rocky Mountains, acted as a feature of consensus
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
411
for public geographic knowledge. Respondents may not have been able to define an
exact western boundary, but they were able to recognize that the region did not
expand over the Rockies and against the predominant atmospheric flow (the
Westerlies) for that matter. On the opposite of the respondent-defined region,
support for an eastern boundary is much more ambiguous. Support for including
respective counties in the region fades slowly with increasing distance east. This
distance decay is an appropriate reflection of the region and this researcher would
argue a better way of representing the Dust Bowl region than most hard edge
representations. Wind erosion, dust storms, and drought were generally experienced
with decreasing severity as one moved eastward.
As it is impossible to know what variables respondents utilized to construct their
respective Dust Bowl regions, it is also impractical to know what sources have
informed their knowledge base on the topic. Any number of popular and academic
sources may also have contributed to the formation of Dust Bowl concepts in the
minds of respondents. An example of how the regional concepts of the Dust Bowl
could be influenced by outside sources includes Woody Guthrie’s folk music.
Guthrie was a noteworthy voice of the Dust Bowl era and his 1940 album, Dust
Bowl Ballads, chronicles the hardships of the time. One song on that album is titled
The Great Dust Storm and it tells the story of the April 14, 1935 Black Sunday dust
storm. In this song, Guthrie ticks off the geographic dimensions of the epic storm,
beginning with the line ‘‘From Oklahoma City to the Arizona line…’’ (1940). In all
likelihood, respondents’ spatial understanding is not based solely on one book or
song or one classroom lesson, but rather an amalgamation of numerous sources.
Discussion
Principally academic, but also from popular culture, the voices contributing to our
understanding of the Dust Bowl have presented a range of information related to the
three Dust Bowl concepts. Dominant themes emerge including a preponderance of
New Deal era accounts emphasizing the culpability of farmers to more recent and
narrowly focused works which increasingly accentuate meteorological and climatological components of the phenomenon. The Dust Bowl remains a popular topic
of study for academics and popular voices alike in the second decade of the twentyfirst century. Climatologists, in particular, try to uncover new insights into droughtdrivers (Burnette et al. 2010; Captondi and Alexander 2010; Cook et al. 2010;
McCrary and Randall 2010; Nigram et al. 2011) and a new Ken Burns documentary
on the Dust Bowl airing on the Public Broadcasting System in 2012 [with
companion book (Duncan and Burns 2012) and website] provided the most recent
mass media ‘‘big picture’’ explanation of the event.
Meanwhile, this exploration of the degree to which public knowledge parallels
academic norms in terms of the core elements of the Dust Bowl has revealed a
strong relationship. In general, Great Plains residents agree with the key traits of the
Dust Bowl as defined by Cunfer (2004). Nonetheless, significant variation was noted
within the sample of study area residents. As a whole, respondents expressed
stronger agreement with the academic consensus on the three biophysical statements
123
412
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
(items 1–3) than the socioeconomic statements (items 4–6). This may be explained
by the pervasive drought conditions affecting the study area at the time of
questionnaire administration and/or the less value-laden nature of the biophysical
statements in comparison with the socioeconomic statements. Respondents were
generally more likely to express stronger agreement with both biophysical and
socioeconomic as a function of increasing age. Respondents in the oldest age group
(80 and older) were as young as three when the Dust Bowl commenced. While a
number of the oldest respondents (particularly those older than 90) expressed firsthand memories of the Dirty Thirties, many spoke of the stories and experiences
relayed by their parents and their parents’ peers. In many cases, this relayed
information represented the primary source of their Dust Bowl knowledge. With
each passing year, these first and even second generation familial sources diminish
and any documentable Dust Bowl knowledge thus becomes less a product of shared,
local memory.
Similarly, the public knowledge paralleled the academic record to a higher
degree in the northern half of the study area (north of 37 North latitude). This area
was home to a higher percentage of respondents born within the study area, and
subsequently a higher number of persons that know or have known Dust Bowl
survivors. It was also the focus of a much publicized locally produced Dust Bowl
documentary (Kinderknicht 2006) repeatedly broadcast in the area prior to
administration of the questionnaire. Numerous respondents in northwest Kansas
discussed Stories from the Dust Bowl during the course of questionnaire
administration. The film may have played a role in the higher relative levels of
Dust Bowl knowledge that were documented for this subregion.
State educational standards also support the relatively higher public/academic
knowledge correlation for the state of Kansas. The Kansas State Department of
Education identifies the topic of the Dust Bowl as a high school knowledge and/or
application indicator to support benchmark two (the student uses a working
knowledge and understanding of individuals, groups, ideas, developments, and
turning points in the era of the Great Depression through World War II in United
States history) of the state history standard. The high school instructional
suggestions for benchmark two include a comparison of The Grapes of Wrath to
actual accounts of the Dust Bowl found in diaries, letters, or oral histories (Kansas
State Department of Education 2005). On the topic of education, it is worth noting
that due to large numbers of respondents not answering the question about
educational attainment, calculations were not completed to determine any statistical
relationship between educational attainment and Dust Bowl knowledge. However,
for those that did report educational attainment, the oldest respondents proportionally had the lowest levels of education. In this case, it appears factors such as
historical proximity to the event and all that goes with it (e.g., more likely to have
been born in study area and have immediate family that lived through it and
discussed it) trumped formal education for knowledge acquisition.
When placing these results in a contemporary context, one must think about the
demographics of the Plains. The oldest denizens of the region have witnessed the
dramatic transformation of the Plains from a home to epic dust storms of the 1930s,
and to a lesser degree the 1950s, into a land of verdant center-pivot irrigation fields
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
413
that stay green via the waters of the Ogallala Aquifer. This is a very different visual
reference point for today’s arrivals to the Plains. As Tuan (1974) points out, it can
take a long time to know a place. The fact that the older generations have seen these
changes take place speaks to their abilities to describe, map, and understand the
Dust Bowl phenomenon (Jackson 1984) and their understanding that change can and
will come again. Unfortunately, this research has documented an ongoing erosion of
that accumulated knowledge. The decline is steady and dramatic among the four age
groups sampled. As the most informed group of residents passes away in coming
years, they are replaced with younger people who do not possess a comparable
understanding of the complex event, era, and region.
Conclusion
Over the course of collecting the questionnaire data, the author was exposed to a
remarkable group of Great Plains citizens, many holding on to personal and family
stories of this unique chapter of American environmental history. Among the tales
of the ever-present dust, those respondents who lived through the era spoke of abject
poverty and hunger. That was not necessarily the worst of it for many of these
people, however. Nine respondents in the oldest age group provided unsolicited
commentary about losing one or more family members to the dust. Seven had
siblings succumb to dust pneumonia and two more lost their fathers to automobile
accidents occurring in dust storms.
But in spite of these hardest of hard times, people somehow persevered. ‘‘Nobody
went hungry in Clayton; they all looked out for each other,’’ stated the 80 and older
respondent from Union County, New Mexico. ‘‘When the government was coming
to kill the cattle, Dad turned them out so the poorer neighbors might have a milk
cow,’’ explained a resident from Potter County, Texas. ‘‘Dad always tried to keep 10
acres of pinto beans growing for the community to use as needed.’’ A respondent
from the 60–79 year old group in Moore County, Texas said, ‘‘My father ran a
mercantile and he never turned anyone away. He had more than $150,000 out on
credit when he was forced to close.’’ One of the author’s favorite stories came from
the 80 and older respondent from Roosevelt County, New Mexico. She reported that
her parents owned a grocery and neighbors would trade a chicken for their daily
goods. ‘‘At night, mom would sneak out and return the chickens to the neighbors,’’
she said.
These stories of hardship and examples of personal and community resiliency tell
a story that statistics cannot convey. This underscores the need for documenting
these human resources through oral history projects as well as the development of
educational pathways that will supplement the invaluable words and experiences of
a fading generation. They present the opportunity to contribute to understandings of
varied adaptive strategies that are employed by households and communities in
order to better prepare for future drought events. Research that focuses on these
adaptive strategies in the context of climatic variability (e.g., McLeman 2006;
McLeman et al. 2008; Orlove 2005) and diminishing resource bases (e.g., Parton
et al. 2007) is enhanced by additional firsthand accounts such as these. But Great
123
414
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
Plains-centric research agendas can also benefit and their necessity be underscored
by the principal finding presented here.
In sum, the regional knowledge base regarding what is arguably the USA’s most
acute, long-term environmental disaster is in decline. Successively, younger
generations are less aware of the Dust Bowl as historical distance from the event
increases. Ongoing demographic change in the region may strengthen this pattern.
Many counties in the historic Dust Bowl region have witnessed a significant influx
of persons from outside the region in recent years (Haverluk and Trautman 2008).
Interviews conducted for this research suggest that these new arrivals are principally
in the youngest age category included in this research (20–39) and rarely have
significant, if any, knowledge of the Dust Bowl. Thus, increased migration into the
region may accelerate the decline in Dust Bowl knowledge, particularly for the
younger age groups.
In spite of the appearance of ‘‘conquering geography’’ in the region (Lewis 1979)
by the application of center-pivot irrigation, the region’s documented history of
widespread, long-term drought events suggests that it is a merely a matter of time
until the next challenge is presented to human existence on the Great Plains. As the
Dust Bowl becomes increasingly generalized, or entirely foreign, to residents of the
region, the opportunity for making better decisions based on past experience is
muted. When the uncertainties of climate change, increasing energy costs and
groundwater depletion are considered as well, one wonders if the residents of the
Great Plains can afford not to know their past. Previous research has illustrated
unanimity for enhanced educational resources (removed for review) while the
information presented here speaks to its necessity if future generations will be able
to answer the question, ‘‘What was the Dust Bowl?’’
References
Bader, R. S. (1988). Hayseeds, moralizers, and methodists. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Baltensperger, B. H., Blouet, B., et al. (1979). Agricultural adjustments to Great Plains drought: The
Republican River valley, 1870–1900. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bonnifield, M. P. (1979). The Dust Bowl: Men, dirt, and depression. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
Broennimann, S., et al. (2009). Exceptional atmospheric circulation during the Dust Bowl. Geophysical
Research Letters, 36(8), 1–6.
Bucher, A., & Burke, H. (Producers). (2008). Black Blizzard [Documentary]. United States: Engel
Entertainment.
Burnette, D. J., Stahle, D. W., & Mock, C. J. (2010). Daily mean temperature reconstructed for Kansas
from early instrumental and modern observations. Journal of Climate, 23, 1308–1333.
Burns, K. (Director). (2012). The Dust Bowl [Documentary]. United States: Florentine Films.
Captondi, A., & Alexander, M. A. (2010). Relationship between precipitation in the Great Plains of the
United States and Global SST’s: Insights from the IPCC AR4 models. Journal of Climate, 23,
2941–2958.
Clements, F. C. (1938). Climatic cycles and human populations in the Great Plains. The Scientific
Monthly, 47(3), 193–210.
Colin, T. J. (2003). Crisis on the plains, can dying rural communities be saved? CQ Researcher, 13(18), 417–448.
Connell, K. (2004). Dust Bowl Days. Washington D.C: National Geographic Society.
123
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
415
Cook, B. L., Cook, E. R., Anchukaitis, K. J., Seager, R., & Miller, R. L. (2010). Forced and unforced
variability of twentieth century North American droughts and Pluvials. Climate Dynamics, 37,
1097–1110.
Cook, B. L., Miller, R. L., & Seagar, R. (2008). Dust and sea-surface temperature forcing of the 1930s
Dust Bowl drought. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, 1–5.
Cooper, M. L. (2004). Dust to eat: Drought and depression in the 1930s. New York: Clarion Books.
Cronon, W. (1992). A place for stories: Nature, history and narrative. The Journal of American History,
78(4), 1347–1376.
Cunfer, G. (2004). The Dust Bowl. Economic history association. Available via http://eh.net/
encyclopedia/article/cunfer.dustbowl. Cited 15 April 2013.
Cunfer, G. (2005). On the Great Plains: Agriculture and environment. College Station: Texas A&M
University Press.
DeAngelis, T., & DeAngelis, G. (2002). The Dust Bowl. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers.
Duncan, D., & Burns, K. (2012). The Dust Bowl: An illustrated history. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
Durbin, W. (2002). The journal of C.J. Jackson: A Dust Bowl Migrant. New York: Scholastic.
Egan, T. (2006). The worst hard time. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Floyd, F. (1950). A history of the Dust Bowl. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Oklahoma, Norman.
Great Plains Committee. (1936). The future of the Great Plains. Washington DC: Government Printing
Office.
Gregory, J. N. (1991). American exodus: The Dust Bowl migration and Okie culture in California. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Guthrie, W. (1940). Dust Bowl Ballads. New York: RCA Victor Music.
Hansen, Z. K., & Libecap, G. D. (2004). Small farms, externalities, and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. The
Journal of Political Economy, 112(3), 665–694.
Haverluk, T. W., & Trautman, L. D. (2008). The changing geography of U.S. Hispanics from 1990–2006:
A shift to the south and Midwest. Journal of Geography, 107(3), 87–101.
Heinrichs, A. (2005). The Dust Bowl. Minneapolis: Compass Point Books.
Henderson, C. (2001). Letters from the Dust Bowl. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hesse, K. (1999). Out of the Dust. New York: Scholastic Signature.
Hurt, R. D. (1981). The Dust Bowl: An agricultural and social history. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Jackson, J. B. (1984). Discovering the vernacular landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Johnson, V. (1947). Heaven’s Tableland: the Dust Bowl story. New York: Farrar, Straus.
Jordan, T. G. (1978). Perceptual regions in Texas. Geographical Review, 69(3), 293–307.
Kansas State Department of Education. (2005). Kansas curricular standards for history and government;
economics and geography education. www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1715. Accessed August 13,
2013.
Katzin, N. (2002). Dust Bowl. Jefferson City, MO: Scholastic Professional Books.
Kinderknicht, L. (2006). Stories from the Dust Bowl [Documentary]. United States: Smoky Hills Public
Television.
King, D. C. (1997). The Dust Bowl. Carlisle, MA: Discovery Enterprises, Ltd.
Larson, O. F. (1940). Farm population mobility in the southern Great Plains. Social Forces, 18(4),
514–520.
Lauber, P. (1958). Dust Bowl: The story of man on the Great Plains. New York: Coward-McCann.
Lewis, P. F. (1979). Axioms for reading the landscape: Some guides to the American scene. In D.
W. Meinig (Ed.), The interpretation of ordinary landscapes: Geographical essays (pp. 11–32). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Low, A. M. (1984). Dust Bowl diary. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Malin, J. C., & Swierenga, R. P. (1984). History and ecology: Studies of the Grassland. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
McCrary, R. R., & Randall, D. A. (2010). Great Plains drought in simulations of the twentieth century.
Journal of Climate, 23, 2178–2196.
McDean, H. C. (1986). Dust Bowl historiography. Great Plains Quarterly, 6(2), 117–126.
McLeman, R. D. (2006). Migration out of 1930s Rural Eastern Oklahoma: Insights for climate change
research. Great Plains Quarterly, 26(1), 27–40.
McLeman, R., Mayo, D., Strebeck, E., & Smit, B. (2008). Drought adaptation in rural eastern Oklahoma
in the 1930s: Lessons for climate change adaptation research. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change, 13(4), 379–400.
123
416
Popul Environ (2014) 35:391–416
Meltzer, M. (2000). Driven from the Land: The story of the Dust Bowl. New York: Benchmark Books.
Nigram, S., Guan, B., & Ruiz-Barradas, A. (2011). Key role of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation in
20th century drought and wet periods over the Great Plains. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, 1–6.
Orlove, B. (2005). Human adaptation to climate change: A review of three historical cases and some
general perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 589–600.
Parton, W. J., Gutmann, M. P., & Ojima, D. (2007). Long-term trends in population, farm income, and
crop production in the Great Plains. BioScience, 57(9), 737–747.
Pursell, D. E. (1981). Natural population decrease: Its origins and implications on the Great Plains. In M.
P. Lawson & M. E. Baker (Eds.), The Great Plains: Perspectives and prospects. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Rathge, R. W. (2003). The changing population profile of the Great Plains. Fargo: North Dakota State
Data Center, North Dakota State University.
Rathge, R., & Highman, P. (1998). Population change in the Great Plains: A history of prolonged decline.
Rural Development Perspectives, 13(1), 19–26.
Raven, M. T., & Essley, R. (1997). Angels in the dust. Mahwah, NJ: BridgeWater Books.
Riney-Kehrberg, P. L. (1991). In god we trusted, in Kansas we busted…again: A social history of Dust
Bowl Kansas. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Riney-Kehrberg, P. L. (1994). Rooted in dust. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Skaggs, R. H. (1978). Climatic change and persistence in Western Kansas. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 68(1), 73–80.
Stallings, F. L. (Ed.). (2001). Black Sunday: The Great Dust Storm of April 14, 1935. Austin: Eakin Press.
Stanley, J. (1992). Children of the Dust Bowl: The true story of the school at Weedpatch Camp. New
York: Crown.
Steinbeck, J. (1939). The grapes of wrath. New York: Viking Press.
Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perceptions, attitudes, and values. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Tyrrell, D. (Producer). (2008). When weather changed history: Dust Bowl [Documentary]. United States:
The Weather Channel.
Wade, T., & Sommer, S. (Eds.). (2006). A to Z GIS. Redlands: ESRI Press.
Webb, W. P. (1931). The Great Plains. Boston: Ginn and Company.
Worster, D. (1979). Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
123