Popular Images of “Rurality”: Data from a Pennsylvania Survey

Abstract

The meaning of rurality from the person-on-the-street perspective was explored using data from a statewide telephone and mail survey of 1,241 Pennsylvania residents. Responses to 35 Likert items were factor analyzed and five factors were delineated: positive images of rural life, negative images of rurality, antiurbanism, agrarianism, and wilderness values. Widespread agreement with the positive images of rural life, antiurbanism, agrarianism, and wilderness values was found. Negative images of rurality were overwhelmingly rejected by the respondents. Rural dwellers were somewhat more positive in their attitudes toward all aspects of rurality than were urban or suburban residents. The relevance of these overall findings for rural development is suggested.

Understanding maternal smoking during pregnancy: Does residential context matter?

“…Most argue that what it means to be rural includes multiple dimensions, such as differences in occupations, environment, social mobility, migration patterns, and social interactions (Bealer et al, 1965; Miller & Luloff, 1981; Willits & Bealer, 1967; Willits et al, 1990). There is no consensus on how many different dimensions actually encompass the complex concept of rurality; however, there seems to be some agreement that rurality is comprised of ecological, occupational, and sociocultural dimensions (Bealer et al, 1965).…”

Parallels Between Objective Indicators and Subjective Perceptions of Quality of Life: A Study of Metropolitan and County Areas in Taiwan

“…The lack of economic opportunities and poor public services contributes to a view of rural areas as having a lower quality of life (Chen 1998;Wu and Shih 1996;Willits et al 1990). Such a perception is often based on socio-economic indicators rather than individual levels of satisfaction.…”

“…Such a perception is often based on socio-economic indicators rather than individual levels of satisfaction. The latter was demonstrated by the fact that quiet neighborhoods, good natural environments, and ample living space all made rural places ideal residential destinations (Bell 1992;Willits et al 1990). When considering social and economic differences from urban areas, disadvantaged rural areas are still seen as lacking resources.…”

Identities and Subjectivities

“…Debates about how to define "rural" have been ongoing (Rye 2006) with the term being related to places, people, artifacts, lifestyles, moral and aesthetic values, modes of production, and occupations and in opposition to epochs (modernity), places (urban), and socioeconomic systems (capitalism) (Edensor 2006;Luloff et al 1986;Sarantakos 1998;Short 1991;Waterhouse 2005;Willits et al 1990;Wirth 1964;Woods 2010). Rural has also been defined through bureaucratic tools that measure population or proximity to regional or urban center, thus focusing on quantity rather than quality of the term and presupposing a deficit with the term by lacking of urban characteristics (Cuervo and Wyn 2012;Vanderbeck and Dunkley 2003).…”