Quality of life is often mentioned as the reason why some people choose to live in a small town. But if you try to get a definition of what quality of life means,  you quickly discover that there are all kinds of answers.  For instance, it may be the low student-to-teacher ratios in the local school, or it may be the friendly check-out person at the grocery store or the variety of activities available through civic organizations and local churches which come to mind when people define small town quality of life

Burkhart-Kriesel, Cheryl

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnCornhusker Economics Agricultural Economics Department10-18-2017Strengthening Quality of Life in Small TownsCheryl Burkhart-KrieselUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agecon_cornhuskerPart of the Agricultural Economics CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Economics Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornhusker Economics by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -Lincoln.Burkhart-Kriesel, Cheryl, "Strengthening Quality of Life in Small Towns" (2017). Cornhusker Economics. 925.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agecon_cornhusker/925agecon.unl.edu/cornhuskereconomics   Cornhusker Economics  It is the policy of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln not to discriminate based upon age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender-identity, sex, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran’s status, marital status, religion or political affiliation.   October 18, 2017 Strengthening Quality of Life in Small Towns  Quality of life is often mentioned as the reason why some people choose to live in a small town. But if you try to get a definition of what quality of life means,  you quickly discover that there are all kinds of answers.  For instance, it may be the low student-to-teacher ratios in the local school, or it may be the friendly check-out per-son at the grocery store or the variety of activi-ties available through civic organizations and local churches which come to mind when peo-ple define small town quality of life. Each of us can come up with a unique list of attributes but typically employment, schools, medical services, housing, local government, child and senior services, retail and entertain-ment are often directly or indirectly a contribu-tor to our mental list of factors impacting quali-ty of life. Recently a researcher at Iowa State University, Dr. David Peters (2017), looked at these attrib-utes to see what has really driven the quality of life in Iowa small towns over a 20 year period.  Using data from a long-term USDA funded re-search effort that polled residents of Iowa small towns in 1994, 2004 and 2014 and socioeco-nomic data from the U. S. Census Bureau, he was able to compare quality-of-life data and so-cial conditions over time in both minor and major small towns.  The project defined minor small towns as having a population between 500 and 1,500 with major towns having a popula-tion between 1,500 and 10,000.    Market Report  Year Ago  4 Wks Ago  10-13-17 Livestock and Products, Weekly Average          Nebraska Slaughter Steers, 35-65% Choice, Live Weight. . . . . .  .  97.40  *  * Nebraska Feeder Steers, Med. & Large Frame, 550-600 lb. . . . .  126.96  177.83  180.66 Nebraska Feeder Steers, Med. & Large Frame 750-800 lb. . .. .  132.73  160.86  170.20 Choice Boxed Beef, 600-750 lb. Carcass. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  182.43  191.03  197.50 Western Corn Belt Base Hog Price Carcass, Negotiated . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  47.14  52.30  59.57 Pork Carcass Cutout, 185 lb. Carcass 51-52% Lean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  72.41  78.52  73.45 Slaughter Lambs, wooled and shorn, 135-165 lb. National. . . . . . .  150.90  168.50  15.049 National Carcass Lamb Cutout FOB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56.94  403.44  389.35 Crops, Daily Spot Prices          Wheat, No. 1, H.W. Imperial, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2.81  3.22  3.15 Corn, No. 2, Yellow Columbus, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .  NA  3.09  3.07 Soybeans, No. 1, Yellow Columbus, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .  NA  8.84  9.01 Grain Sorghum, No.2, Yellow Dorchester, cwt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4.80  5.21  5.46 Oats, No. 2, Heavy Minneapolis, Mn, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2.65  2.83  2.92 Feed          Alfalfa, Large Square Bales, Good to Premium, RFV 160-185 Northeast Nebraska, ton. . . . . . . . . . .  160.00  *  * Alfalfa, Large Rounds, Good Platte Valley, ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  68.75  87.50  83.75 Grass Hay, Large Rounds, Good  Nebraska, ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .  67.50  87.50  82.50 Dried Distillers Grains, 10% Moisture Nebraska Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  109.00  115.00  117.50 Wet Distillers Grains, 65-70% Moisture Nebraska Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41.00  40.00  44.00  ⃰  No Market          .   Growing numbers of jobs in goods-producing industries over the past 20 years, in areas such as manufacturing, construction and mining (employment indicator);  More people involved in community im-provement projects (civic engagement indi-cator); and   Members in more local organizations but members of fewer non-local organization outside the community (social capital indi-cator); and  Ratings given by residents that showed themselves more well-kept, supportive, open to new ideas, trusting, safe, tolerant and friendly than other communities.  They also saw themselves as having strengthened these characteristics over the past 20 years (social capital indicator). Implications for Midwestern Small Towns  You may be asking yourself, “Why would these indicators be linked to high quality-of-life scores?”  The Iowa State University researcher shared these insights:   Community elders have the time, connec-tions and often financial resources to sup-port community projects.  Retirees also have leadership experience in the town and are often a large segment of the communi-ty’s population.  Finding ways to keep el-ders in the community through senior ser-vices or housing projects enhances the asset base of the town.   Job gains or losses do play a role in quality of life. The goods-producing sector offer many middle-skill and full-year opportuni-ties with decent benefits.  It is really about the “growth of quality jobs suited to small town economies that promotes overall community quality of life” (pg. 7.).   Re-search showed that a particular communi-ty economy, whether it was based on ser-vices, agriculture or manufacturing, did not really impact quality of life.   Key Findings Some of the major findings of the study include:  Residents of both major and minor small towns rated their schools and local government as very good with jobs and local retail rating poor;  When major (averaging 3,000 in population) towns were compared to minor (averaging about 1,000 residents) towns, larger communi-ties rated their medical services, entertainment, recreation, retail and shopping options higher than the smaller communities;  Over time most small towns, regardless of size, felt that quality of life had improved, with the larger improvements occurring in major small towns; and  Over time small towns saw specific improve-ments in quality of entertainment, child care, and local government since 1994 but little change was seen in the local schools.  In terms of senior services, quality of life seemed to de-cline or worsen in that same time period. Graphically the comparison of quality of life attributes over time for the minor small towns vs. major small towns could be depicted on a continuum of change: The study also focused in on what really contributed or impacted the quality of life in small towns.  The data revealed that communities with high quality of life scores had:  More elders aged 65 years and older (demographic indicator);     Civic engagement as an indicator measured the community’s actions to identify and ad-dress community issues.  Social capital meas-ured the trust, reciprocity, cooperation, net-works and attachments that energize and im-prove coordinated actions within that commu-nity.  Growing both of these areas should be considered a priority for small towns because there are actionable, short-term and often in-expensive ways to increase these attributes without outside help or intervention.   Getting people involved in community projects and organizations is also something many commu-nities do naturally.  It shows their commit-ment to improving show up there no work their community and often build more social capital increasing the number of people in-volved and also helps building trust and net-works.  Getting involved and keeping that en-gagement at a high level in a small town is simply a spiral upward toward increased quali-ty of life.     Reference:  Peters, David, J. (2017, May). What drives quality of life in Iowa small towns?  Iowa State University, Ru-ral Sociology (SOC 3082).  Available at: www.soc.iastate.edu/smalltowns   Cheryl Burkhart-Kriesel Extension Specialist, Community Vitality University of Nebraska - Lincoln Panhandle Research and Extension Center (308) 632-1234 cburkhartkriesel1@unl.edu 

Strengthening Quality of Life in Small Towns

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1929&amp;context=agecon_cornhusker

Strengthening Quality of Life in Small Towns

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska