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

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.

4Defining “rural” has been a challenge for policymakers and researchers. Although most people have an image of rural areas with dispersed population and an economy based on natural resources, developing a coherent statistical definition is not simple. Definitions range from simply “not urban” to detailed census-tract analyses of community characteristics such as population size and density, proximity and influence of urban centers, and the economic base. The most com- monly used stratification is that defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which classifies 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 minimum 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 or non-metropolitan (the latter includes both OMB- classified micropolitan and non-metropolitan counties). In addition, the Census classifies the population within each county as either “urban” or “rural,” based on the proximity 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 coun- ties 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 independent municipalities. The total “rural” sample includes 2,436 counties and independent municipalities, or C H A P T E R 2 Profile of the Rural United States roughly two-thirds of all U.S. counties. These are mapped in Figure 1. This sample served as the basis for generating a sta- tistical profile of the rural United States as well as for circula- tion of the county survey. Throughout the remainder of this report, any reference to “rural counties” includes all 2,436 rural counties and independent municipalities. Because of variations in county size across the country, the map in Figure 1 (and later figures) may indicate some mis- leading results for states with large counties. The clearest example is in California, where large county size and the spread of urbanization 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 is simply not available at the fine-grained level of detail necessary to most accurately represent large rural counties. Economic and Social Conditions of the Rural United States Data from the 2000 U.S. Census and the Economic Research Service (ERS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, provides a snapshot of economic and social conditions in the rural United States (summarized in Table A-1 in Appendix A). Between 2000 and 2004, the population in the 2,436 sampled counties grew by an average of 2.6 percent. Of these, 734 coun- ties housing over 25 million people grew at a rate faster than the national average, while 1,704 counties housing almost 36 mil- lion people grew at a rate slower than the national average. In addition to the national averages, Table A-1 in Appendix A includes data stratified by growing and declining counties. Rural and Non-Rural Counties Rural and non-rural populations in the United States dif- fer substantially in the following ways (see also Table A-1 in Appendix A):

• 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 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 4 times larger than the rural population and grew about 2 times as fast from 2000 to 2004. However, the growing rural counties grew slightly faster than 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 4 times more likely to suffer from low educational attainment or low employment availability, while non-rural communi- ties are 2 times as likely to suffer from inadequate or unaffordable housing. Growing and Declining Rural Counties Within rural counties there are also differences between counties that have been growing faster than the average rural growth rate versus those that have been declining, which also 5 Figure 1. Study sample (2,436 rural counties/municipalities).

includes counties that are growing more slowly than the average rural growth rate (see also Table A-1 in Appendix A): • Growing communities are 3 times as likely to be 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 differences in the makeup of growing and declining com- munities. The portion of declining farming communities is 3 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 (i.e., a diverse economy that does not depend heavily on any one sector). • Although not an indicator of economic dependence, a related measure is that of communities defined as recre- ation or retirement destinations. The data shows that these two markets are far more developed in growing communi- ties. 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 with 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 a higher proportion of households 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 4 percent lower than in declining communities. Growing communities are having more difficulty providing adequate and affordable housing while declining communities are having more difficulty 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 of Ap- pendix A demonstrates this using the Urban Influence Codes developed by ERS. The table indicates that counties in any metropolitan area or next to a large metropolitan area are growing faster than the national average. Counties defined as micropolitan or those adjacent to a small metropolitan area are experiencing slower-than-average growth. Non-metropolitan, non-core counties not adjacent to a metropolitan area are either stagnant or losing population. The Influence of Economic Dependence on Growth A second strong influence on rural population growth is the primary economic engine of the county. The population in farming and mining communities remained fairly constant from 2000 to 2004 (see Table A-3 in Appendix A). 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 the rural United States. ERS has also developed two categories identifying counties that serve as destinations for recreational activities or retirees. The population in recreation counties grew at more than twice the national average from 2000 to 2004, while the population in retirement counties grew at triple the national average (see Table A-4 in Appendix A). Rural Demographic Subgroups The ERS data indicates that rural U.S. counties are predominantly white, at 83 percent. Hispanics are the fastest growing racial/ethnic group in the rural United States. Table A-5 in Appendix A lists all the demographic percent- ages of subgroups 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. Although an influx of Hispanic migration has revitalized many rural towns, the rapid growth and unique needs of this population have created a strain on housing supplies, public infrastructure, and community services.1 The data in Table A-5 reveal that counties with comparatively large Hispanic populations depend heavily on farming and mining with very little emphasis on manufacturing. Although counties with large Hispanic populations 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. The Cutler-Orosi case study in Tulare County, California, is representative of rural counties with high and growing Hispanic populations. 6

By contrast, Native Americans are the fastest declining racial/ethnic group in the rural United States (see Table A-5 in Appendix A). 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 counties 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 experience some of the highest rates of poverty, inadequate/unaffordable housing, and low em- ployment. New casino openings in Native American commu- nities have led to some job and population growth; however, these jobs tend to be relatively low skill and low income.2 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 3 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 el- derly populations experience below average rates of poverty, inadequate/unaffordable housing, low education, and low employment. Even though vehicle ownership rates are little dif- ferent than the rural United States on average, elderly residents tend to create additional demand for public transit services. 7