Advertisement

Comparing Urban and Rural Quality of Life in the State of Washington

  • Benjamin L. MesserEmail author
  • Don A. Dillman
Chapter
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 45)

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.

Keywords

Child Care Cell Phone Public Transportation Urban Resident Religious Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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=
  2. 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
  3. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of life in America: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective ­indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillman, D. A. (1979). Residential preferences, quality of life, and population turnaround. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(5), 960–96.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Land, K. C. (1983). Social indicators. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu, B. C. (1976). Quality of life indicators in U.S. Metropolitan Area. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Northwest Area Foundation (NWAF). (2009). Indicators website: Washington. http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/DrawRegion.aspx?RegionID=53000
  19. Office of Financial Management (OFM). (2009). Population, State of Washington. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/default.asp
  20. Ritter, H. (2003). Washington’s history: The people, land, and events of the far Northwest. Portland: Westwinds Press.Google Scholar
  21. Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4(3), 227–241.Google Scholar
  22. Schwantes, C. A. (1989). The Pacific Northwest: An interpretive history. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Stern, M. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2006). Community participation, social ties, and use of the internet. City and Community, 5(4), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stratton, D. H. (2005). Spokane and the Inland Empire: An interior Pacific Northwest anthology. Pullman: Washington State University Press.Google Scholar
  26. U.N. Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS). (1994). Population, urbanization, and quality of life. New York: United Nations Publications. 47 pp.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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/
  30. World Bank. (2009). World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography (p. 393). Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.Social and Economic Sciences Research CenterWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations