National Academies Press: OpenBook

Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States (2007)

Chapter: Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States

« Previous: Glossary
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23149.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23149.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23149.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23149.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23149.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23149.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23149.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23149.
×
Page 33

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

26 A P P E N D I X A Defining “rural” has been a tricky proposition for policymakers and researchers. While most people have an image of rural areas with dispersed population and a natural- resource-based economy, developing a coherent statistical definition is not simple. Definitions range from simply “not urban” to detailed census-tract analyses of community char- acteristics such as population size and density, proximity and influence of urban centers, and the economic base. The most widely used classification systems are based at countywide levels due to the availability of richer data. Although many counties are composed of both urban and rural populations that are better represented at the census tract level, data lim- itations and the sheer number of census tracts (66,304 census tracts compared to 3,219 counties and independent munici- palities) make analysis at the census-tract level impractical for a nationwide research effort. The most commonly used stratification is that defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which classi- fies counties as • Metropolitan: One or more counties clustered around a city with a population of 50,000 or more that demonstrate an economic dependence on the core city and meet mini- mum population and density thresholds. • Micropolitan: One or more counties clustered around a city with a population between 10,000 and 50,000 that demonstrate an economic dependence on the core city and meet minimum population and density thresholds. • Non-metropolitan, non-core: All other counties that do not meet the above requirements. The 2000 U.S. Census classifies counties as either metro- politan and non-metropolitan (the latter includes both OMB-classified micropolitan and non-metropolitan coun- ties). In addition, the Census classifies the population within each county as either “urban” or “rural” based on the prox- imity to urban centers and localized population density. All micropolitan and non-metropolitan, non-core counties were considered “rural” for this study—a total of 2,052 counties and independent municipalities. Recognizing the rural nature of many outlying counties in metropolitan-classified areas, this sample was expanded to include counties in which more than 50 percent of the population is classified as “rural” according to the U.S. Census—totaling 384 additional counties and inde- pendent municipalities. The total “rural” sample includes 2,436 counties and independent municipalities, or roughly two-thirds of all U.S. counties, as indicated in Figure A-1 below. This sam- ple served as the basis for generating a statistical profile of rural America as well as for circulation of the county survey. The 2,436 rural counties and independent municipalities are mapped in Figure A-1 (see Chapter 2, Profile of the Rural United States). Throughout the remainder of this report, any reference to “rural counties” includes all 2,436 rural counties and independent mu- nicipalities. Due to variations in county size across the country, the map in Figure A-1 (and other maps) may indicate some misleading results for states with large counties. The most clear example is in California, where large county size and the spread of urban- ization inward from major cities along the coast preclude these counties from meeting the definition of “rural” as defined in this report. Much of the data used in this report are simply not available at the fine-grained level of detail necessary to most accurately represent large rural counties. Additional details on the various classification systems can be found at the Rural Policy Research Institute (http://www. rupri.org/resources/context/rural.html) with information on the new OMB micropolitan classification available at the Center for the Study of Rural America (http://www.kc.frb. org/RuralCenter/mainstreet/MSE_0704.pdf).16, 17 Economic and Social Conditions of Rural America Table A-1 summarizes data from the 2000 U.S. Census and the Economic Research Service (ERS), a division of the U.S. Demographic, Social, and Economic Profile of the Rural United States

27 NON-RURAL COUNTIES ALL RURAL COUNTIES GROWING RURAL COUNTIES DECLINING RURAL COUNTIES Number of counties and municipalities 704 2,436 734 1,702 Counties in metro areas 704 100% 385 16% 228 31% 157 9% Urban influence (1=highest, 12=lowest)1 2 7 5 7 Economy Farming dependent2 7 1% 434 18% 50 7% 384 23% Mining dependent2 7 1% 122 5% 23 3% 99 6% Manufacturing dependent2 183 26% 723 30% 230 31% 493 29% Federal/state government dependent2 127 18% 251 10% 74 10% 177 10% Services dependent2 204 29% 138 6% 96 13% 42 3% Non-specialized economy2 183 26% 768 32% 261 36% 507 30% Destination communities Recreational communities2 14 2% 321 13% 155 21% 166 10% Retirement communities2 99 14% 342 14% 243 33% 99 6% Natural amenities (1=fewest, 7=most) 3 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.3 Demographics Population 220,560,562 60,857,055 25,010,931 35,846,124 Annual pop. growth rate (2000-2004) 1.2% 0.7% 1.8% -0.1% White alone 143,364,365 65% 50,554,488 83% 20,911,192 84% 29,643,296 83% Black or African American alone 28,672,873 13% 5,112,632 8% 1,677,770 7% 3,434,862 10% Hispanic or Latino 33,084,084 15% 2,965,447 5% 1,403,081 6% 1,562,366 4% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1,102,802 0.5% 995,401 2% 368,149 2% 627,252 2% All other races 15,439,239 7% 1,229,087 2% 650,739 3% 578,348 2% Population over 65 years old 26,467,267 12% 8,816,617 15% 3,416,948 14% 5,399,669 15% Transportation Workers commuting to adjacent metro area N/A 11% 15% 9% Average travel time to work (minutes) 28 25 28 24 Average vehicles per household 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 Percent of households with no vehicles 5% 8% 6% 8% Poverty Median household income $43,611 $33,933 $36,302 $31,564 Percent population in poverty 12% 13% 13% 17% Inadequate or unaffordable housing2 29% 14% 20% 11% Low educational attainment2 6% 24% 21% 25% Low employment availability2 5% 18% 13% 19% 1 Urban influence codes : 1 = most urban, 12 = most isolated; ERS, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/urbaninf/ 2 County typology codes, ERS, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/ 3 Natural amenities scale: 1 = fewest amenities, 7 = most amenities; ERS, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/NaturalAmenities/ Table A-1. Statistical profile of rural America.

Department of Agriculture, to give a snapshot of economic and social conditions in the rural United States. Between 2000 and 2004, the population in the 2,436 sampled counties grew by an average of 2.6 percent. Of these, 734 counties, housing over 25 million people, grew at a rate faster than the national aver- age, while 1,704 counties, housing almost 36 million people, grew at a rate slower than the national average. In addition to the national averages, Table A-1 includes data stratified by growing and declining counties. Rural and Non-Rural Counties Table A-1 indicates several substantial differences between rural and non-rural populations in America: • Non-rural communities are much more likely than rural communities to depend on a service economy (consisting of retail trade, financial services, insurance, real estate, tourism, and other services) or depend on federal and state government employment, whereas a significant number of rural communities depend on farming and mining, two economic drivers almost non-existent in non-rural areas. • The non-rural population is about four times larger than the rural population and grew about twice as fast from 2000–2004. However, the growing rural counties grew slightly faster that the average non-rural county. • With 65 percent white residents and several substantial minority populations, non-rural communities tend to be more diverse than rural communities, where 83 percent of the population is white and the minority populations are smaller. • The median household income in non-rural communities is nearly $10,000 more per year than in rural communities. Although the poverty rate is similar in both non-rural and rural communities, rural communities are roughly four times more likely to suffer from low educational attain- ment or low employment availability, while non-rural communities are twice as likely to suffer from inadequate or unaffordable housing. Growing and Declining Rural Counties Within rural counties, Table A-1 also indicates differences between counties that have been growing faster than the average rural growth rate versus those that have been declin- ing (which also includes counties that are growing slower than the average rural growth rate): • Growing communities are three times as likely to be located within a metropolitan area. The higher urban influence score for growing areas indicates that these communities benefit from their proximity to urban areas. • Economic dependence also indicates some significant dif- ferences in the makeup of growing and declining commu- nities. The portion of declining farming communities is three times higher than the portion of growing farming communities. By contrast, growing communities are much more likely to be service dependent or to a lesser extent, to have a non-specialized economy (a diverse economy that is not heavily dependent on any one sector). • While not an indicator of economic dependence, a related measure is that of communities defined as recreation or retirement destinations. The data show that these two mar- kets are far more developed in growing communities. This is explained to some extent by the higher natural amenity score associated with growing communities. • The racial composition of growing and declining commu- nities is fairly similar, with a somewhat higher black or African-American population found in declining commu- nities and a slightly higher Hispanic or Latino population found in growing communities. • The average ages are similar, although the population of senior citizens is typically higher in declining communities. • Nearly twice as many workers in growing communities commute to adjacent metropolitan areas compared to their declining counterparts and have longer commutes by about 3.5 minutes. • The number of vehicles available per household is similar between growing and declining communities, but there is a higher proportion of households that do not have access to a vehicle in declining communities. • Median household income is nearly $5,000 higher in grow- ing communities, and their poverty rate four percent lower than in declining communities. Growing communities are having more difficulty providing adequate and affordable housing while declining communities are having more dif- ficulty providing for education and employment. The Influence of Urban Proximity on Growth As described earlier, a county’s proximity to an urban area has a strong influence on growth and economic vitality, allowing rural communities to benefit from a nearby urban market if their local markets are declining. Table A-2 demon- strates this using the Urban Influence Codes developed by ERS. The table indicates that counties in any metro area or adjacent to a large metro area are growing faster than the national average. Counties defined as micropolitan or those adjacent to a small metro area are experiencing slower than average growth. Non-metropolitan, non-core counties that are not adjacent to a metropolitan area are either stagnant or losing population. 28

The Influence of Economic Dependence on Growth A second strong influence on rural population growth is the primary economic engine of the county. Table A-3 shows that the population in farming and mining communities remained fairly constant from 2000 to 2004. Growth was just below the national rural county average in manufacturing and government-dependent communities while growth in service-dependent or non-specialized economies was above the national average. Service-dependent communities are growing the fastest, although the number of service-dependent counties makes up only a small portion of rural America. ERS has also developed two categories identifying counties that serve as destinations for recreational activities or retirees. Table A-4 shows that the population in recreation counties 29 URBAN INFLUENCE GROWTH RATE (2000- 2004) NUMBER OF COUNTIES PERCENT OF SAMPLE 1 In large metro area of 1+ million residents 2.1% 137 6% 2 In small metro area of less than 1 million residents 1.1% 248 10% 3 Micropolitan adjacent to large metro 1.0% 92 4% 4 Non-core adjacent to large metro 0.9% 123 5% 5 Micropolitan adjacent to small metro 0.6% 301 12% 6 Non-core adjacent to small metro with own town 0.4% 357 15% 7 Non-core adjacent to small metro no own town 0.2% 185 8% 8 Micropolitan not adjacent to a metro area 0.3% 282 12% 9 Non-core adjacent to micro with own town 0.0% 201 8% 10 Non-core adjacent to micro with no own town -0.4% 198 8% 11 Non-core not adjacent to metro or micro with own town 0.0% 138 6% 12 Non-core not adjacent to metro or micro with no own town -0.2% 174 7% National average 0.7% 2,436 100% Table A-2. County growth stratified by urban influence code. ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (2000-2004) NUMBER OF COUNTIES PERCENT OF SAMPLE Services 1.6% 138 18% Non-specialized 0.8% 768 5% Federal/State Government 0.5% 251 30% Manufacturing 0.5% 723 10% Mining 0.0% 122 6% Farming 0.0% 434 32% National average 0.7% 2,436 100% Table A-3. County growth stratified by economic dependence.

grew at more than twice the national average from 2000 to 2004, while the population in retirement counties grew at triple the national average. Rural Demographic Subgroups The economic and social data in Table A-5 pertains to coun- ties with high concentrations of Hispanic or Latino residents (more than 20 percent of the county population), American Indian or Alaska Native residents (more than 10 percent), Black or African-American residents (more than 30 percent), or elderly residents (more than 20 percent aged 65 years or older). The thresholds vary by subgroup in order to present a statistically significant sample size while ensuring that the data meaningfully represents each specific subgroup. The statistics in Table A-5 summarize data for the county population as a whole, not only for the specific subgroup population. Hispanics are the fastest growing racial/ethnic group in the rural United States. Rural Hispanics tend to be younger, have larger families, and have fewer years of formal education than the rural population as a whole. While an influx of Hispanic migration has revitalized many rural towns, the rapid growth and unique needs of this population has created a strain on housing supplies, public infrastructure, and community services.20 The data in Table A-5 reveal that counties with comparatively large Hispanic populations are heavily farm- ing and mining dependent, with very little emphasis on manufacturing. Although counties with large Hispanic pop- ulations have, on average, a natural amenity score almost one point higher than the average rural county, the percent of these classified as recreational is slightly less than that of the average rural county. The average age (35) is 3 years younger than the rest of the rural United States (38). Most social and economic indicators put these counties well behind the rural United States as a whole: median household income is more than $4,000 less, poverty is above 20 percent, and counties with large Hispanic populations are two to three times more likely to be classified as having inadequate/unaffordable housing and low education. By contrast, Native Americans are the fastest declining racial/ethnic group in rural America. These communities tend to be far more isolated than the average rural county with economies dependent on the federal government or not dependent on any specific sector. Their high natural amenity score corresponds to an above-average percentage of coun- ties classified as recreational. Median household income is $2,500 less than the average rural county. Relatively few Native American counties are classified as low education, but they ex- perience some of the highest rates of poverty, inadequate/ unaffordable housing, and low employment. New casino openings in Native American communities have led to some job and population growth; however, these jobs tend to be relatively low skill and low income.18 Counties with concentrated African-American popula- tions have the grimmest conditions of these four subgroups. These counties are slightly more likely to be near an urban area than the average rural county and are largely dependent on manufacturing. Very few of these counties are classified as recreational or retirement, even though the natural amenity score is only 0.1 points below the rural average. Average travel time to work is a minute higher than the average rural county, and vehicle ownership rates are the lowest of any subgroup. Counties with African-American populations of 30 percent or greater suffer from the highest poverty rate of all sub- groups, and median household income is over $6,000 less than the rural average. In these counties, the percentage experiencing inadequate/unaffordable housing, low employ- ment, and low education is roughly three times higher than the rural average. Of the four subgroups, counties with large elderly popula- tions are the most isolated from metropolitan areas. They are highly farming dependent with very little manufacturing. These are much less racially diverse than the average rural county, with over 90 percent of the population composed of white residents. Although median household income is more than $3,000 below that of the average rural county, counties with large elderly populations experience below average rates of poverty, inadequate/unaffordable housing, low education, and low employment. Even though vehicle ownership rates are little different than rural America on average, elderly residents tend to create additional demand for public transit services. 30 DESTINATION TYPE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (2000- 2004) NUMBER OF COUNTIES PERCENT OF SAMPLE Retirement 2.0% 342 13% Recreation 1.3% 321 14% National average 0.7% 2,436 100% Table A-4. County growth stratified by destination type.

31 ALL RURAL COUNTIES LARGE HISPANIC POPULATION LARGE NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATION LARGE BLACK POPULATION LARGE ELDERLY POPULATION Number of counties 2436 170 113 261 350 Counties in metro areas 385 16% 11 7% 6 5% 44 17% 3 1% Urban influence (1=highest, 12=lowest) 7 7 8 6 9 Economy Farming dependent 434 18% 66 39% 17 15% 35 13% 154 44% Mining dependent 122 5% 25 15% 7 6% 6 2% 9 3% Manufacturing dependent 723 30% 7 4% 13 12% 112 43% 35 10% Federal government dependent 251 10% 31 18% 26 23% 38 15% 10 3% Services dependent 138 6% 4 2% 5 4% 2 1% 20 6% Non-specialized economy 768 32% 37 22% 45 40% 68 26% 122 35% Destination communities Recreational communities 321 13% 19 11% 36 32% 7 3% 55 16% Retirement communities 342 14% 25 15% 15 13% 16 6% 70 20% Natural amenities (1=fewest, 7=most) 3.4 4.3 3.8 3.3 3.2 Demographics County population 60,857,055 2,837,261 2,229,782 6,007,683 3,864,518 Population growth rate (2000-2004) 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% White alone 50,554,488 83% 1,405,796 50% 1,288,336 58% 3,184,595 53% 3,492,726 90% Black or African American alone 5,112,632 8% 87,658 3% 89,860 4% 2,625,977 44% 113,161 3% Hispanic or Latino (any race) 2,965,447 5% 1,251,350 44% 143,652 6% 101,311 2% 15,264 0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 995,401 2% 41,682 2% 602,719 27% 30,432 1% 43,433 1% All other races 1,229,087 2% 50,775 2% 105,215 5% 65,368 1% 56,830 2% Average age 38 35 36 37 43 Population over 65 years old 8,816,617 15% 371,292 13% 284,451 13% 812,838 14% 865,838 22% Transportation Workers commuting to adjacent metro area 11% 6% 7% 11% 7% Average travel time to work (minutes) 25 22 23 26 21 Average vehicles per household 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 Percent of households with no vehicles 8% 8% 10% 12% 6% Poverty Median household income $33,933 $29,740 $31,381 $27,882 $30,595 Percent population in poverty 13% 20% 21% 22% 13% Inadequate or unaffordable housing 14% 32% 45% 40% 3% Low educational attainment 24% 58% 11% 74% 5% Low employment availability 18% 24% 44% 45% 11% Table A-5. Demographic subgroups in rural America.

32 1,279 (53%)558 (23%)600 (25%)2,436Number of counties 14%17917%9564%38416%390Counties in metro areas Urban influence (1=highest, 12=lowest) 4 7 Economy 34%4328%457%4218%434Farming dependent 10%1233%172%125%122Mining dependent 57%72415%8338%22830%723Manufacturing dependent Federal government dependent 0%025%1377%426%139Services dependent 0%036%19938%22832%767Non-specialized economy Destination communities 58%74258%3248%4813%317Recreational communities 61%78061%34018%10814%341Retirement communities Natural amenities (1=lowest, 7=highest) 4 Demographics 29,156,67814,995,07819,530,77060,857,055Population Population growth rate (2000-2004) 84%24,579,08083%12,505,89586%16.718,33983%50,554,488White alone Black or African American alone 4%1,253,7376%944,6904%761,7005%2,965,447Hispanic or Latino American Indian and Alaska Native alone 995,401 2% 195,308 1% 299,902 2% 320,723 1% 1%291,5673%449,8522%371,0852%1,229,087All other races Population over 65 years old Transportation Workers commuting to adjacent metro area Average travel time to work (minutes) 1.81.81.91.8Average vehicles per household Percent of households with no vehicles Poverty $32,665$34,960$36,969$33,933Average household income 14%13%12%13%Percent population in poverty Inadequate or unaffordable housing 25%13%21%24%Low education 19%23%9%18%Low employment 1 All counties with an urban influence code from 1-4. 2 All counties classified as recreational, retirement, or services dependent. 3 All counties classified as mining, manufacturing, or farming dependent. 4 Urban influence codes : 1 = most urban, 12 = most isolated; ERS, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/urbaninf/ Natural amenities scale: 1 = fewest amenities, 7 = most amenities; ERS, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/NaturalAmenities/ 772 0%014%788%4810%251 4.14.13.43.4 0.4%1.5%1.3%0.7% 9%2,711,5715%794,7398%1,484,3398%5,112,632 14%4,081,93515%2,249,26213%2,539,00015%8,816,617 12%10%20%11% 24252825 8%6%7%8% 11%25%8%14% PRODUCTION3DESTINATION2EXURBAN1ALL RURAL Table A-6. Statistical profile of rural community types.

Rural Community Types and Issues The data and literature demonstrate that most rural American counties can be classified into three main com- munity types stratified by their economic engine and rate of growth. In general, the growing counties tend to be either exurban (located near and dependent on an adjacent urban center) or destination (natural amenities attract tourists, sea- sonal residents, and retirees). In addition to these two gen- eral categorizations of growing communities, growth has come to other rural communities as a result of jobs created by casinos, jails or prisons, industrial agriculture, or through the development of niche economic markets. Declining counties are most typically production (dependent on mining, manufacturing, or farming) and the rate of decline may be exaggerated by the communities’ isolation from their economic markets.19 Of the 2,436 rural counties, 600 (25%) can be classified as exurban, 558 (23%) can be classified as destination, and 1,279 (53%) can be classified as production communities. Table A-6 breaks down the statistical profile into the three community types of exurban, destination, and production. A community may be classified in more than one category (i.e., a community may be in an exurban loca- tion with a production economy) or may not fall into any of the three categories. Therefore, the total number of commu- nities classified as exurban, destination, and production communities will not add up to 2,436. Additional detail on the three main community types is provided in Chapter 3, including maps. As noted earlier in the Profile of the Rural United States these maps do not portray conditions in large counties as accurately as they do for smaller counties. 33

Next: Appendix B - Case Studies »
Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 582: Best Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural United States explores how to integrate land use and transportation in rural communities. The report also highlights programs and investment strategies designed to support community development and livability while providing adequate transportation capacity.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!