A Literature Review of Existing Studies
Comparing and Contrasting Urban and Rural Life: A Literature Review of Existing Studies
Within the United States, there are many pockets of rural and urban environments. Although urban living tends to garner the most positive and negative attention, plenty of parts of the United States are less inhabited and more rural. For as long as civilization has existed, the debate over whether urban living or rural life is better has taken place. While these arguments have been strongly rooted in anecdotal evidence and personal opinion, in recent years researchers have started to study the effects of urban versus rural life on humans. In order to provide subjective arguments on the benefits and negative impacts of each life style, researchers have isolated various variables that can be measured and analyzed in a scientifically appropriate way. Within this paper, a literature analysis of the effects of urban and rural living will be conducted with special attention directed towards the variables of longevity, reported personal happiness and economic outcomes. Although the variables examined in this report will not provide a conclusive study of all the variables associated with the benefits of urban and rural lifestyles, the report will add more substance to the otherwise subjective arguments made in the past.
Longevity is best described as how long the average person lives. The expected life-span for an urban dweller and a rural American varies, even when third variables, such as pre-existing health conditions and age, are accounted for. Those living in rural environments tend to live for six months less than those in urban environments (Takano, Nakamura, & Watanbe, 2002). Although those in rural areas are generally exposed to less pollution, access to health care is more limited. For many people living in rural environments, seeking health care means driving to the nearest town to see a doctor, which creates an inconvenience which may cause patients to put off preventative care that would otherwise detect illnesses early on. Once a patient has been diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, treatment may mean relocating to the nearest major city in order to receive care from highly trained specialists. On the other hand, many major cities have world-renowned health care systems capable of providing quality care without requiring the patient to travel. Cities tend to have more options for low-income families as well, such as free clinic or sliding-fee scale clinics, making preventative care more appealing and affordable. Lifestyle trend differences between both groups also account for the longevity disparity (Takano, Nakamura, & Watanbe, 2002). Rural dwellers are more likely to be life-long smokers, which contributes to the increased instances of lung cancer, COPD and heart disease in the rural population. Deaths related to complications from diabetes and obesity are more common in urban dwellers. Although each population has specific health-related issues, those inhabiting urban environments are more likely to live longer thanks to the easier access to quality health-care services.
Personal happiness is a difficult concept to quantify, however, researchers have worked on different measures of happiness, which have been tested for reliability and validity. Factors related to personal happiness include ability to procure fulfilling employment, having access to green spaces and maintaining social support networks (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010). In addition to examining the three factors, participants in Knight and Gunatilaka's study completed personal happiness measures in the form of surveys. The researchers found that the ability to find fulfilling work was more prevalent in urban areas, although only by a slight margin. For those living in rural areas, many people were able to find ideal work, particularly in the fields of agriculture and education. However, for inhabitants that were not fulfilled by agricultural or educational positions, finding their dream job involved either driving long distances to the nearest major city or taking a position in another field. Urban dwellers have access to a wider range of career choices, however, the higher costs of living in the city cause many inhabitants to chose their field of work based on income and not personal fulfillment. Those who live in urban environments are also more likely to work multiple jobs in order to finance their life. Rural dwellers have far better access to green spaces, such as parks, forests and fields, which has been correlated with personal happiness. Social networks are another important component for personal happiness. While at first thought it may appear that living in an urban environment would provide greater opportunities for maintaining social networks, study participants living in urban areas tended to not know their neighbors, live further away from their family members and feel more isolated (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010). On the other hand, rural study participants tended to have deeper connections with the people in their towns and felt more supported by their communities. Finally, after examining the results of the personal happiness survey, Knight and Gunatilaka discovered that rural study participants reported higher levels of personal happiness with their day-to-day lives.
While cities are often described as hotbeds for poverty, rural poverty is an imminent issue for many of those living in rural America. Cities tend to have more job opportunities available in a variety of fields, as well as resources for job training and placement. Those who live in rural environments have fewer job opportunities and typically spend more time commuting to their jobs. Conversely, the cost of living in a major city is significantly higher than the cost of living in rural communities. Although money does not necessarily guarantee happiness, poverty has negative effects on the quality of life of those who deal with it (Henderson, 2002). Poverty is linked to stress, anxiety and depression, all of which impacts the day-to-day happiness of the study participants. Although it costs more to live in cities, major metropolitan areas tend to have more social support services available, therefore allowing urban dwellers access to subsidized health care services, housing assistance, food assistance and transportation. In rural areas, support services exist, but low-income individuals have several unavoidable expenses, such as needing a working car to get to and from work and higher health care costs (Henderson, 2002).
The studies mentioned in this literature review only begin to explore the argument of whether city life or rural life is better. Determining what environment has long been a subjective argument supported primarily with anecdotal evidence and loosely scientific evidence. As the field of research and statistics continues to develop, better measures of quality of life can be developed and applied to this issue. Defining the term “better” is difficult, but the scope of this literature review chose to examine the variables of longevity, personal happiness and economic opportunities.
In the field of longevity, research suggests that urban dwellers are more likely to have affordable access to healthcare when they need, allowing city residents to live, on average, a total of six months longer than their rural counterparts. However, reported personal happiness is higher for those living in rural America as opposed to the city dwellers. The economic benefits for each style of living are equally tempered with draw-backs. While urban residents enjoy a wider variety of job opportunities, the cost of living is much higher than it is in rural America. On the other hand, those living in rural areas find themselves with fewer job opportunities and restricted access to social support services.
The argument of whether or not living in a city or a rural community is better will continue to wage on. In the end, despite psychological measures and data analysis, the enjoyment of each lifestyle is likely to be influenced by many different factors, including personal preference and personality type.
Works Cited
Takano, T., Nakamura, K., Watanbe, M. (2002). Urban residential environment and senior citizens' longevity in megacity areas: The importance of green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(1), 913-918.
Knight, J. & Gunatilaka, R. (2010). The Rural-Urban Divide in China: Income but Not Happiness?. The Journal of Development Studies 46(3), 506-534.
Henderson, J. (2002). Building the rural economy with high-growth entrepreneurs. Economic Review, 3, 45-70.
