The rural–urban interface: Rural and small town growth at the metropolitan fringe

• Published in: Population space and place 2021-04, Vol.27 (3), p.n/a
• Main Authors: Lichter, Daniel T., Brown, David L., Parisi, Domenico
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Boundaries; Counties; exurbia; Metropolitan areas; Peri-urban areas; peri‐urban; Rural areas; Rural population; rural–urban; suburbanisation; Urban population; urbanisation; Urbanization
• ISSN: 1544-8444; 1544-8452
• DOI: 10.1002/psp.2415

Urbanisation and the expansion of US metropolitan regions have blurred the spatial and social boundaries that are typically thought to separate urban from rural America. Our objective is to highlight both the conceptual limitations of the so‐called rural–urban divide, while also recognising the spatial interdependence of America's ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ people and places. Our analyses nest rural and urban population and places within metropolitan and non‐metropolitan counties, while acknowledging that rural places often grow into urban places (i.e., urbanisation) and that many non‐metropolitan counties are reclassified over time as metropolitan areas (i.e., metropolitanisation). Analyses show that most rural people—as officially defined—now live in metropolitan counties, often at the fringe. Reclassification to metropolitan areas was a major reason why. Small towns and thinly settled areas at the metropolitan fringe have grown rapidly since 1980 and have become increasingly integrated within metropolitan areas nationally. The heuristic value of our analytical approach at the national level is further demonstrated at the local‐area level, in Chicago and Atlanta, metro areas with very different demographic and economic histories. Our study highlights the dynamic and multidimensional nature of spatial boundaries (i.e., urban–rural and metro–nonmetro) that both separate and connect rural and urban areas in the United States. Metro–nonmetro and rural–urban boundaries are neither fixed nor impermeable.