Rural is a word that is regularly used to describe large population groups and swaths of land, but what does it really mean? Well, it depends who you ask. Merriam-Webster defines it as, "of or relating to the country, country people or life, or agriculture." which makes some sense; we typically identify "rural" areas as those that are without people (i.e. "the country") or as folks within those areas (i.e. "country folk") or as the thing which those people in that area produce (i.e. agriculture).
However, if you ask the United States federal government it would say rural is both a lot of things and at the same time nothing. The U.S. Census Bureau has traditionally defined rural by defining the areas that it is not; "'Urbanized Areas' (UAs) are those with 50,000 or more people. 'Urban Clusters' (UCs) are those with at least 2,500 but less than 50,000 people." In fact, by the classification of areas as urbanized or urban clusters, the government defines rural by what it is not; "'Rural' encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Whatever is not urban is considered rural."
Despite the definition by contrast that the U.S. Census Bureau has provided, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines rural in a similar albeit different way. In the OMB's eyes, area are either "Metropolitan" (a core urban area of 50,000 or more population), "Micropolitan" (an urban core of at least 10,000, but less than 50,000 population) or "Neither." In other words, the government differentiates high density populations, but those outside of it are lumped into a classification of either "neither" or simply nothing.
Metropolitan: > or = 50,000 people
Micropolitan/Urban Cluster: > 2,500 people, but < 50,000
Rural: < 2,500 people
Interestingly enough, however, is the fact that some metropolitan areas can be classified as rural (according to the Census definition) and some rural areas can be classified as metropolitan (according to the OMB definition) as exemplified by the Grand Canyon; a very rural area located in a metropolitan county. Thus, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' own website (in the link "United States federal government" above), one could argue that the Census overcounts rural populations while the OMB undercounts rural populations.
In 2023 the OMB sought to clarify the definition of urban/metro/micro vs non-metro/rural by utilizing a regional labor-market concept that utilized a county-level view taking labor force into consideration.
Metro: central counties with one or more urban areas with populations of 50,000 or more people
Outlying counties that have at least 25% of its workers that commute to central (core) counties are included in the "metro" designation
Outlying counties that employee at least 25% of works coming from central (core) counties are included in the "metro" designation
Non-Metro:
Micropolitan: areas that are non-metro labor-market areas but urban with10,000 to 49,999 people
- The same rules for outlying "metro" counties apply to non-metro micropolitan populations
Non-core: areas that are not considered core metro or core non-metro counties
Of course one might surmise that an institution like the government having two (if not more) at best nebulous definitions for a land category that constitutes 97% of the United States' land area might be a problem when significant economic, health, and development policy decisions are made according to them. If one considered what the implications of defining rural were according to the Rural Health Information Hub discussion on "what is rural," it would be easy to understand what the problem of not having a more robust, comprehensive, inclusive, and singular definition is.
Eligibility for grant programs, community development policies, environmental protection plans, healthcare provisions and reimbursements, and more are all affected by a classification of "rural." Unfortunately, rural continues to be classified as "other" despite the fact that an increasing number of Americans (over 60 million or 19.3% of the U.S. population) are living in such land areas. More important than a misclassification or ill-defined term though is the fact that these areas suffer from higher rates of unemployment, poverty, illness and simultaneously a lack of education or employment opportunities, and access to healthcare despite a continued willingness to serve their country.
The truth is, identifying rural as a geographic distribution or as a population is not nearly as complex as a metro/non-metro and micro/non-micro designation. In fact, such a designation of "not being that" is not only (likely) offensive, but wildly inaccurate. There are many areas in the United States which are proximal to villages, towns, and cities that are still very much "rural" in identity and need. In its essence, rural is a contrast of realities: unforgiving and also promising, simple but earnest, close yet far. Indeed some locations are not just rural but are remote; and that reality brings challenges to an egalitarian distribution of access to some of the creature comforts associated with proximity to large metropolitan areas. In most cases however, those who live in rural or remote areas are not seeking the creature comforts of places not their own, just recognition of who they are, the realities of where they live, and the basic and foundational benefits to citizenry such as opportunity for work, access to healthy food, clean water, and healthcare; the Alliance for Rural Healthcare intends to bring all that and more to them.
*Note: The U.S. Census Bureau updated its criteria on the urban-rural definition in 2022 according to the 2020 Decennial Census.
Comments