Abstract
In the USA, Washington is a highly urbanized state with about three quarters of its population residing in just seven of thirty-nine counties. In the 1970s, urban residents were less satisfied with their quality of community life (QOL) compared to residents in rural communities. This presented somewhat of a paradox because urban residents had better overall objective conditions, such as higher levels of education and income. In this chapter, QOL in Washington is revisited to determine if the urban–rural paradox has persisted and which factors influence perceived differences in QOL. Data on the objective indicators of QOL in Washington indicate that the gap has widened between urban and rural counties since the 1970s, in which urban counties have become more advantaged. The authors conducted the 2008 Washington Community Survey (WCS), a general public household survey, to obtain measures of subjective QOL in urban and rural communities, as well as demographic characteristics. Survey results show that the trend in perceived QOL has reversed, with urban residents more satisfied with the QOL in their community compared to rural residents in Washington. In addition, the authors identify several community- and individual-level characteristics that significantly influence the perceived QOL in each region and propose a way of crafting state policies that accommodates urban–rural differences in the state.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Urban counties were distinguished by total population, population density, and location (refer back to Fig. 14.1 above). The urban counties in Washington – Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, and Thurston – all have populations greater than 200,000, population densities greater than 250 persons per square mile, and contain or are located adjacent to large cities greater than 150,000 people. (Two counties – Kitsap and Thurston – have relatively smaller populations but have large population densities with relatively large cities; each county also borders other urban counties.) All non-urban counties, on the other hand, fail to meet these criteria and range in population from just a few thousand to nearly 200,000 with population densities from 3 persons per square mile to about 95 persons per square mile. (Most of these counties are comprised of large rural areas, but some also have medium to small size cities of less than 100,000 and/or relatively dense residential areas that serve nearby urban centers.)
- 2.
Odds ratios are a measure of the odds of being in or selecting a certain outcome (for example, mostly/completely satisfied vs. somewhat/not at all satisfied) for every one unit increase in an independent or explanatory variable (e.g., place of residence, distance traveled from residence, satisfaction with aspects of community, etc.). An odds ratio of 1.00 indicates that there is no difference between the odds of being in the outcome category and the odds of the not being in that outcome category. An odds ratio greater than 1.00 indicates that the odds of being in the outcome category are better or greater than the odds of not being in that outcome category while the opposite is true for odds ratios smaller than 1.00. For example, in Table 14.3, Model 1, the odds ratio of 0.82 demonstrates that the odds of non-urban residents being mostly or completely satisfied with their community is 18% lower than the odds of urban residents being mostly or completely satisfied with their community. Similarly, in Table 14.3, Model 2, the odds ratio of 1.14 for the “medical care” variable demonstrates that a one-unit increase in satisfaction with medical care increases the odds of being satisfied with the community by 14%. In other words, respondents choosing “somewhat satisfied” with medical care in their community are 14% more likely to be satisfied with their community than those respondents choosing “not at all satisfied” with medical care, controlling for other variables in the model; those choosing “mostly satisfied” with medical care are 14% more likely to be satisfied with their community than those choosing “somewhat satisfied” with medical care, and so on.
References
American Community Survey (ACS). (2009). 2007 American community survey 1 year estimates: Washington. American Factfinder, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved July 2009, from http://factfinder.ensus.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=
Blumberg, S. J., & Luke, J. V. (2008). Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January–June 2008. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved June 2009, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of life in America: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.
Crowley, W. (2001). Turning point 7: A bumpy ride: Seattle’s economic booms, busts, and comebacks. HistoryLink.org. Accessed August 25, 2009, http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=3224
Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.
Dillman, D. A. (1979). Residential preferences, quality of life, and population turnaround. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(5), 960–96.
Dillman, D. A., & Dobash, R. P. (1972). Preferences for community living and their implication for population redistribution (Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 764). Pullman: Washington State University.
Dillman, D. A., & Tremblay, K. R. (1977). The quality of life in rural America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 429, 115–129.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken: Wiley.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2005). The antecedents of community-oriented Internet use: Community participation and community satisfaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 97–113. article 5.
Economic Profile System (EPS). (2009). County and regional data from 1970 to 2000 for the West. Sonoran Institute. http://eps.sonoran.org/ and Headwaters Economics, http://headwaterseconomics.org/profiles/searchprofile2.php?string=Washington&submit=Search
Filkins, R., Allen, J.C., & Cordes, S. (1999). Predicting community satisfaction among rural residents: An integrative Model. Center for Applied Rural Innovation. Journal Series No. 12451. Lincoln: Agricultural Research Division, University of Nebraska.
Horrigan, J. B. (2008). Home broadband adoption 2008: Adoption stalls for low-income Americans even as many broadband users opt for premium services that give them more speed. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from http://www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_2008.pdf
Land, K. C. (1983). Social indicators. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 1–26.
Liu, B. C. (1976). Quality of life indicators in U.S. Metropolitan Area. New York: Praeger.
Messer, B. L., & Dillman, D. A. (2010). Using address based sampling to survey the general public by mail vs. ‘Web Plus Mail’. Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC) Technical Report 10–13, Pullman, WA. http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers/2010/Messer%20Dillman%20WCSTechReport.pdf
Moody, F. (2004). Seattle and the demons of ambition: From boom to bust in the number one city of the future. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Northwest Area Foundation (NWAF). (2009). Indicators website: Washington. http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/DrawRegion.aspx?RegionID=53000
Office of Financial Management (OFM). (2009). Population, State of Washington. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/default.asp
Ritter, H. (2003). Washington’s history: The people, land, and events of the far Northwest. Portland: Westwinds Press.
Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4(3), 227–241.
Schwantes, C. A. (1989). The Pacific Northwest: An interpretive history. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Shucksmith, M., Cameron, S., Merridew, T., & Pichler, F. (2006). First European quality of life survey: Urban-rural differences. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Retrieved August 2009, from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/63/en/1/ef0663en.pdf
Stern, M. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2006). Community participation, social ties, and use of the internet. City and Community, 5(4), 409–424.
Stratton, D. H. (2005). Spokane and the Inland Empire: An interior Pacific Northwest anthology. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
U.N. Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS). (1994). Population, urbanization, and quality of life. New York: United Nations Publications. 47 pp.
U.N. Statistics Division (UNSD). (2007). Demographic yearbook. New York: United Nations. Retrieved August 2009, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dybsets/2007%20DYB.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). 1970 census population Washington: Characteristics of the population (Vol. 1(49)). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00496492v1p49_TOC.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2009). Measuring rurality: Rural-urban continuum codes. Economic Research Service, USDA. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbCon/
World Bank. (2009). World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography (p. 393). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Messer, B.L., Dillman, D.A. (2011). Comparing Urban and Rural Quality of Life in the State of Washington. In: Marans, R., Stimson, R. (eds) Investigating Quality of Urban Life. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 45. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1741-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1742-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)