Skip to main content
Skip to main content

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Rural Economy

(Selected research findings from FY 23)

Hawaii and the Appalachian Mountains had the largest share of its population living in highly rugged census tracts in 2010 

Webinar

Image
Illustration of road going through mountains

ERS researchers developed two national representations of relative topographic variability for census tracts: the Area Ruggedness Scale characterizes overall ruggedness and the Road Ruggedness Scale characterizes ruggedness along roads. This report found that as land becomes more rugged, population density decreases, more people live in rural locations, and more rural residents live in low-income census tracts. Ruggedness is distinct from rurality but in locations that are both highly rugged and rural, unique challenges may arise.

 


Rural America has become more economically diverse over time, with increasing employment in health care, hospitality, and other service industries 

Image

This report looks at recent population trends, the changing structure of economic sectors, the labor force, and job growth in rural areas. After a decade of overall population loss from 2010 to 2020, nonmetropolitan areas grew at a faster rate than metropolitan areas during 2020–21 due to a sharp turnaround in migration flows occurring in the first year and a half of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The fastest growing rural industries are smaller in employment size than many of the slower growing rural industries—except for health care and social assistance, which is a large and growing industry.

 

 


Rural, nonmetro counties have fewer food away from home (FAFH) establishments per 1,000 people than more heavily populated nonmetropolitan, urban counties

Image
Cover image for The Rural Food-Away-from-Home Landscape, 1990–2019

This report focused on FAFH establishments, such as full- and limited-service restaurants and cafeterias in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties. Households in sparsely populated areas face unique food access challenges because the type of establishments may be more limited and travel distances may be greater, though certain local economic conditions or adjacency to a metro area may improve food access. Nonmetropolitan counties are often discussed as a collective, but the counties have heterogeneous economies. Counties with recreation as the primary industry have more FAFH options and a greater proportion of FAFH options relative to FAH options, like grocery stores, when compared with similarly sized counties where farming is the primary industry, which demonstrates how the broader local economy relates to the local food landscape in rural areas. 


The availability of healthcare professionals in rural areas lags behind that in urban areas 

Image
Cover image for Linkages Between Rural Community Capitals and Healthcare Provision: A Survey of Small Rural Towns in Three U.S. Regions

This study focuses on how rural communities can attract and retain healthcare professionals. The findings are based on key informant interviews with community leaders, health facility administrators, other healthcare representatives, and healthcare professionals in 150 small rural towns in 9 States (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin). Healthcare professionals cited friendliness of the people, good place to raise a family, and need for providers as the top three important or very important factors in their decision to locate in the town. 

 

 


From April through June 2020, nonmetro counties where mobility remained high (similar to pre-pandemic levels) showed COVID-19 infection rates twice those of counties with greater reductions in day-to-day mobility 

Image
Image of COVID-19 virus

This COVID-19 Working Paper examines how movement between and within communities was linked to the initial arrival and spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) infections into and through nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) counties. While infection rates increased across all nonmetro counties through summer 2020, the gap persisted between counties with reduced local mobility and those with high mobility. These findings suggest that in the absence of medical interventions (e.g., vaccines and treatment), limiting movement between and within places may slow the spread of highly contagious viruses, and certain types of places may be less able to implement these nonmedical tactics and may therefore be at greater risk in future pandemics.