Rural Counties Draw Urban Dwellers

Rural Counties Draw Urban Dwellers

by Dana E. Jones

Industrialization, mechanization of farming, changing economics and intellectual opportunities drew millions of women and men from rural areas to cities throughout much of the 20^th century, but as the century closed, migration patterns appeared to be changing. Beginning in the 1970s, population in many rural regions of the United States began growing for the first time in many years.

Migration to rural areas slowed in the 1980s but by the 1990s a "rural rebound" had begun, says Kenneth M. Johnson of Loyola University in Chicago in a report recently published by the Population Reference Bureau.

The reasons people are moving to rural areas include:

Retirees who grew up in rural areas but worked for years in urban areas are returning;
Rural life is seen as simpler and less stressful;
Highway systems make city access easier for those who want to live away from urban congestion;
Space in metropolitan areas has run out so population is spilling over into surrounding rural counties;
It costs less to live in rural areas;
Technology is allowing people to work further from offices and in some cases without urban offices;
U.S.-born urban residents are leaving to avoid what they perceive as increasing competition with immigrants for jobs;
White urban residents are fleeing metropolitan areas as they become home to increasing numbers of people of color.

Migration of urban dwellers to rural areas is being greeted with mixed reactions. Rural counties that have experienced years of population decline, often fueled by the departure of young adults, welcome new resources brought by new residents. At the same time, they are concerned that those coming from urban areas will change rural lifestyles, will bring traffic congestion and will spur environmental destruction.

Mr. Johnson explains:

"While many long-time residents welcome the energy and enthusiasm new arrivals bring, others fear they will undermine the very ‘rural way of life’ they seek....The newcomers...are in rural America but not of it. It is almost inevitable that they will change it."

Those migrating to rural areas seek the same services they enjoyed in urban areas, including such things as city sanitation facilities, schools, medical services and highways. Their expectations can overwhelm financial resources of small towns.

Fertility and population

Rural populations grew in the 1800s because rural women had more children than the number of people who died. As the 20^th century progressed, fertility rates of rural women declined. As rural women had fewer children, and more of their children chose to move to metropolitan areas, death rates in many rural counties outstripped birth rates. Mr. Johnson explains the impact today:

"Because rural America no longer enjoys the high fertility rates that traditionally fueled its population growth, its demographic prospects in coming decades will depend more than ever on the course of migration."

Such a change links the future of rural counties more to national and international economics than ever. Rural areas are no longer isolated from urban areas. Technology, transportation and now migration are pulling rural, urban and suburban people together.

Mr. Johnson compares the current rural migration trends to suburbanization of the 1950s:

"The forces underlying suburbanization were complex, but prominent among them were transportation and technological innovations that diminished the need for geographic proximity, the desire for more space and a better environment for family life, dissatisfaction with the style and pace of city life, and concerns about the changing racial structure of the city."

Migration and environment

Rural residents disenchanted with an influx of new neighbors from urban areas point to concern that they will bring city problems with them. Such problems are often identified as drugs, crime and gangs.

Experience is showing the greater concern may lie in environmental threats posed by increased populations. As farming shifts from family farms to corporate farming, pesticide use and its accompanying hazards increase.

Missouri’s Mercer and Sullivan counties provide an example of environmental impact. These northern Missouri counties had experienced years of population declines. That began changing in the 1990s when an entrepreneurial firm opened hog-raising and pork-processing plants in the area.

The plants have provided jobs that have attracted people to the counties. The home-construction industry has prospered. The environment, however, is faring less well. Some local residents are concerned about the environmental impact of massive amounts of waste produced by the plants. Looking to other areas of the country with similar pork operations fuels their concerns.

Family farmers in counties closest to metropolitan areas face challenges to their future ability to farm. As neighboring farms are sold for housing developments, they face fragmenting of agricultural land that makes raising crops difficult. They also face escalating land values that make it difficult for young farmers to get started and costly for older farmers to pass land onto their children.

Migration is impacting their future and the future of rural residents across the United States.

Dana E. Jones is editor of Response.