Rurals of Nevada - What is Rural? (art. 02)

Nevada is simultaneously one of the most rural states in the Union and the most urban. Wait . . . what?

U.S. Census Bureau map of Nevada’s population densities by county during the 2020 Census. From “America Counts: Nevada Continued Double-Digit Population Growth,” 25 August 2021.

We start with the premise that statistics be funky. Both of the above statements are true. The vast majority of Nevada’s population—over 90%—lives in urban areas. This places Nevada towards the BOTTOM of states with rural populations—between Massachusetts and New Jersey in this ranking based on 2010 Census data. Nevada’s population is overwhelmingly urban.

But note the map above with the low population densities. Nevada’s overall population density per the 2020 Census is 28.1 people per square mile (28.1/sq.mi), the 9th least densely-populated state (between Nebraska and Kansas). Hard to be more rural than this. Our “urbanized rivals” Massachusetts and New Jersey straddle the 1000 people/sq. mi line—over 35 TIMES as densely populated. Statistics be funky.

So what does “rural” mean? This is going to be a long article . . . .

Rural and Urban

We could go back to the Latin term ruralis, “of the country,” for an idea of what is rural. But surely there is a more modern definition? The basic definition of “rural” provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is “any population, housing, or territory which is NOT in an urban area.” Couldn’t be clearer, right?

I want to go on the record stating that apothetic definitions are even less useful for 21st-century policy-making than they were for early medieval Byzantine theology.¹

The definition makes more sense, however, considering the historical background. From the late 19th century, when Americans began moving into cities in large numbers, the concern of government agencies was how to deal with the unique challenges of urban areas. Everyone knew what “rural” was—sound familiar? And as this interesting story-graphic from the Census Bureau shows, the last 100+ years have seen repeated efforts to fine-tune the definition of urban (and metro, and then suburban, etc.). And the truth was and is that most “rural” areas are within close proximity to urban areas. Understanding the variations of population densities in urban areas provides a short-hand way to approximately a range of issues and services for most of the population.

Historically, the tendency has been to define “rural” apothetically as “NOT urban.”
The rest was assumed to be . . . obvious?

However, note the key phrase: “services.” These definitions matter because they are tied to access to services, whether that be funding, infrastructure, health care, education, or a multitude of other items. Clearly defining rural and urban is vital for policy decisions about services.

So No Definition of Rural, Right?

Over the last thirty years or so, there have been increased efforts to move towards a clearer definition of rural. The driving force has been the recognition that rural areas do present unique sets of circumstances that public policy, particularly grants, need to recognize. Most government bodies are continuing to use population levels to determine classification, although the Census Bureau is preparing to change to housing units as the basis rather than population. But in all these cases, urban density is being used as a proxy for the key item, services available.

Clearer definitions of “rural” matter because they are vital for policy decisions about needed services, whether it be funding, infrastructure, health care, education, et cetra.

The U.S. Census Bureau is the premier demographic data collection agency in the U.S. and most government agencies rely on its data as a baseline. The Bureau is set to release new urban area maps based on 2020 Census information in December 2022. In addition, it is currently in the midst of adjusting its definition of “urban.”—which will impact the definition of rural. Previously, the Census had set the basis as a heavily developed “urban core” area (since 2000 at the census block level) with a density of 1,000 people per square mile. From there, two other distinctions were used. The first, Urban Areas, have populations greater than 50,000. The second, Urban Clusters, have populations between 2,500 and 50,000. Rural areas are areas outside of those.

The new definitions will use housing unit density rather than population, as discussed in this video, although it is not clear to me yet how this might change the map. We’ll see next month.

Other government agencies currently have similar definitions as those defined by the Census Bureau and probably will continue to use the existing Census designations for some time. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for example, uses the designation “Metropolitan,” applied at the county level, to represent a mix of urban and rural populations based on population centers. But note that “Non-Metro[politan]” does not mean rural by itself, only the proportion of the population that has access to different levels of urban areas or clusters. And I live in Elko, Nevada, which is a “Micropolitan” area defined as a non-metro area with an urban core of 10,000-50,000 people. No allowance is made for cattle.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) has been the most active in trying to clarify rural areas, although continuing to rely on the urban population as the starting point. The big contribution, however, has been to focus more on services and move beyond political divisions such as townships or counties to other geographic divisions that more accurately capture land use, service access patterns, and commutes. The Rural-Urban Commuting Area Code (RUCA) uses Census tracts, for instance, to do more fine-grained analysis and has a complex system of 40 codes to classify areas.

All of these definitions, however, continue to rely on rural definitions based on population as distinct from urban areas. And all use population density effectively as a surrogate for service provision. There is one developing model, however, which may be a game changer—the Frontier and Remote Area (FAR Area) idea promoted by ERS.

Frontier and Remote (FAR) Areas - A New Wrinkle Idea

Although in development since the 1990s, the Frontier and Remote (FAR) Area program found its policy raison-d’être in the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, in the vernacular). The FAR classifications are based on zip codes (ugh), but the defining characteristic is travel time to population centers. Since both emergency medicine is time-constrained and regular medical care can increase drastically in price as transportation cost is factored in, the FAR Area designation was an analytical tool that appeared at the right place at the right time.

The FAR Area approach is based on four separate levels, each reflecting longer travel time to different densities of urban populations. The ERS defines its basic approach as:

FAR areas are defined in relation to the time it takes to travel by car to the edges of nearby Urban Areas (UAs). Four levels are necessary because rural areas experience degrees of remoteness at higher or lower population levels that affect access to different types of goods and services.

The direct emphasis on “goods and services” is a welcome change, and the FAR Area model includes not just medical services but discusses high-end appliances, clothing, and even movie theaters. The maps of the FAR Area levels, currently still drawing on 2010 Census data, are probably the best existing look at the variety of rural areas available to policymakers.

But they are not perfect. There has been a tendency in recent discussions with clients and colleagues to use the “Frontier” designation as a counterpoint to “Rural,” so that Nevada could be divided into Urban, Rural, and Frontier areas. My take is that this interpretation is incorrect because the FAR designation is just a re-arrangement of a rural definition. It might evolve into a better approach by its clear recognition of the centrality of services rather than population, but it is still caught in the apothetic trap of starting from an urban area to define the rural.

The Three Rurals of Nevada

If you have made it this far, you might be wondering how these relate to the Three Rurals of Nevada I am proposing. I could go through each of the above definitions in detail, but I value my sanity and my subscribers too much.

So let’s turn back to the most basic definition: population density. Population density has a direct impact on basic services. The costs to install electric or internet grids increase dramatically when you are connecting remote dwellings. Likewise, getting services such as emergency response or even mail becomes more difficult as the population spreads. People-in-(land)space matters.

So, based on simple population density, here is how the Three Rurals stack up as of the 2020 Census:

Note that the Western Rural area (Churchill, Douglas, Lyon, and Storey Counties) has a significantly higher population density than the other two Rurals. Combined with their proximately to the Reno-Carson City complex, they seem to exist as rurals in a different way from the remoter and more sparse I-80 Corridor and Central Rural counties.

“Ah, ha!”, says the astute reader of our first article, “doesn’t Churchill County’s population density mean it should not be in the Western Rural category?” A fair point. Let’s look at the individual county measures:

Based on this data, there is a pronounced difference in population density between Churchill County and its companions in the Western Rural area. It is somewhat closer to the other rurals, although still significantly higher than the rest.

But this is based only on population. Under the assumption that population = services, it might make sense to group Churchill with either the I-80 Corridor or, more likely, the Central Rural counties. However, if we add to the population density something like the FAR Area model which more directly addresses services, our picture changes. Indeed, the map of FAR Area Level One (the “least rural” level) shows Churchill County is not included.

Map from ERS showing Nevada FAR Area Level One zip codes in blue. The large unshaded county jutting into central Nevada is Churchill, not in a FAR area.

Like most of the majority of zip codes in the other Western Rural counties, the proximity to the Reno-Carson City complex means these areas have better access to services. This fact is one of the main reasons for including Churchill County in the Western Rural region.

The conversation about “rural” needs to shift from strictly measuring people to a more nuanced analysis of services and conditions.

So what does this distinction matter in policy? Let me give an admittedly simplistic example. Some organization wants to donate a medical-evac helicopter to “rural Nevada,” with the stipulation that it be based where it can best serve the largest number of people. From the perspective of population density alone, Churchill County might seem to be in the running. However, if access to other hospital transportation is taken into account, it might make more sense to place that helicopter in, say, Tonopah (Nye County), which cannot rely on easy road access to urban hospitals. Of such dilemmas are policy nightmares made.

At the end of the day, a significant hurdle in analyzing rural Nevada is that a clear definition of rural is lacking. Yet I see growing consensus that the conversation about a rural definition (and policies) needs to shift from strictly measuring people to a more complex analysis of services and conditions.

For the next article, I want to jump quickly into current events. With the votes (finally!) counted in the 2022 Midterm Election, let’s look at how the Rurals of Nevada voted.

1. Apothetic means to define in the negative—that is, to state what something is not. Faced with protests about the nature of Jesus Christ in early Christianity, Byzantine theologians tried to create unity by promoting statements on what Christ was not. Shockingly, this did absolutely nothing to diminish the controversies roiling the Byzantine Empire.