Wisconsin Divided Six Ways: A Review of Rural-Urban Classification Systems Rural Health Data CANVAS A program of: W I ORH Office of Rural Health Wisconsin Divided Six Ways: A Review of Rural-Urban Classification Systems FEBRUARY 2016 ABOUT CANVAS The Wisconsin Office of Rural Health’s Data CANVAS compiles, analyzes, and visualizes rural health data for actionable insight. Visit CANVAS online at www.ruralhealthdata.org. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CANVAS would like to thank Natalee Desotell, Student Intern Extraordinaire; Maria Radtke, Communications Specialist; and John Eich, Director of the Wisconsin Office of Rural Health, as well as Nancy Eberle, external reviewer, for their contributions to this report. AUTHOR Penny Black, Rural Health Epidemiologist. Questions regarding this report can be sent to pdblack@wisc.edu. ABBREVIATIONS CBSA FAR MSA MiSA RUCA RUCA ZIP RUCC UA UzA UC UIC URCSC Core-Based Statistical Area Frontier and Remote Metropolitan Statistical Area Micropolitan Statistical Area Rural-Urban Commuting Areas RUCA ZIP Code Approximation Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Urban Area Urbanized Area Urban Cluster Urban Influence Codes Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties Wisconsin Divided Six Ways: A Review of Rural-Urban Classification Systems REPORT SUMMARY The definition of rural used for policy and program decisions affects Wisconsin residents in very real and tangible ways. In addition to determining how much land and population are classified as rural, definitions affect how the demographic and economic makeup of Wisconsin communities are understood and handled in the context of policy and programmatic decision making. In this report, rural Wisconsin is defined using six commonlyused classification systems - maps, methodology descriptions, and demographic data illustrate the differences and similarities between systems and the implications for Wisconsin residents. Distinctions are made between metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural classes to illustrate that rural is more than just, “not metro.” REPORT CONTENTS Foundation 1 Core Classification Systems • Urban Areas 3 • Core-Based Statistical Areas 3 County-Based Classification Systems §§ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes 5 §§ Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties 9 §§ Urban Influence Codes 13 Census Tract-based Classification Systems §§ Rural-Urban Commuting Areas 17 ZIP Code-based Classification Systems §§ Frontier and Remote 21 §§ Rural-Urban Commuting Areas ZIP Code Approximation 23 Considerations 25 Information Sources 27 Appendices online §§ Wisconsin County Classifications §§ Wisconsin Census Tract Classifications §§ Wisconsin ZIP Code Classifications “The achievement of human knowledge is often hampered by the use of words without fixed signification.” John Locke, The Philosophy Pages1 F OUNDATION Definitions are important for understanding, communicating, comparing, and contrasting. Defining “rural” is important because, in addition to determining how much land and population are classified as rural, definitions affect the demographic and economic profiles of rural places by which many policy and program decisions are made. The purpose of this report is to increase understanding of six commonly-used definitions and to illustrate the implications of these definitions for Wisconsin and the people who live here. Rural-urban classification systems define rural in many ways but their intent is the same – to provide a structure for describing a complex and multi-dimensional concept. To understand these structures, a brief description of relevant geography and classification system composition is helpful. GEOGRAPHY Geography is defined by boundaries – legal, administrative, and statistical. These different types of boundaries are set by a variety of national, state, and local entities and may or may not directly relate to each other. Classification systems utilize geographies to define classes - county-based classification systems designate counties as rural or urban, census tract-based systems designate census tracts as rural or urban, etc. For the purpose of this report, it is most important to understand four types of geography: §§ COUNTIES are the primary administrative subdivisions of a State in which local government is provided. County boundaries stay within County boundary the State boundary. §§ CENSUS TRACTS are statistical subdivisions of a County and are Census tract boundary updated each decennial census by the US Census Bureau. Census tract ZIP code boundary boundaries stay within the County boundary. §§ CENSUS BLOCKS are the smallest geographic unit used by the US Census Bureau and are the building blocks for all US Census Bureau-defined geographies. §§ ZIP CODES are created by the US Postal Service and are not really a geography, they are lists of addresses; polygons representing ZIP codes are constructed from these lists. ZIP codes do not stay within County boundaries and in a few cases, do not stay within State boundaries.2 COMPOSITION The classification systems in this report were developed over the past 60+ years by a variety of organizations, to meet different needs, and to capture the changing landscape of population settlement; thus, systems reflect organizational priorities and expertise as well as period-relevant demography. It is important to keep all this in mind as we consider each system’s definition of rural Wisconsin as it is today. 1949 UA 1974 RUCC 1998 RUCA 1950 CBSA CBSA FAR RUCA RUCA ZIP 1993 UIC Core-Based Statistical Areas Frontier and Remote Rural-Urban Commuting Areas RUCA ZIP-Code Approximation RUCC UA UIC URCSC 2001 URCSC 1999 RUCA ZIP 2012 FAR Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Urban Areas Urban Influence Codes Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties VARIABLES USED TO DETERMINE CLASSES Classification systems assign geographic units to classes based on a variety of components (summarized in the table on page 2). Seemingly similar, these components, or, variables, are used in different ways, in different 1 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways RUCA score Commuting population size Population distribution Population size UA population size UA proximity CBSA population size CBSA adjacency CBSA designation orders, and with different sizes by each classification system. All of the variables are population-related either directly or indirectly, including proximity and adjacency, which are used to reflect separation, and commuting, which is used to reflect integration. UA CBSA RUCC URCSC UIC RUCA FAR RUCA ZIP COMPARING SYSTEMS Although systems use similar nomenclature, this should not be interpreted as meaning the same thing; e.g., “non-metro” in System A does not equal “non-metro” in System B. In addition, classes are developed using similar variables but these variables are applied in different orders and with different cut-offs. To illustrate, population size is often used to determine classes,* albeit with different population sizes and with different end-points; for example, one system uses a population of 10,000 to 20,000 for a class while another system uses 10,000 to 50,000. The range of class sizes is staggering and a good reminder that comparing across systems should be done with caution, if at all. When comparisons are necessary, classes, regardless of their size differences, are often combined to create an “urban” category and whatever is left over becomes a “rural” category. Since rural is more than not-urban, however, a slightly more nuanced approach was taken for this report by combining classes to create three categories: metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural. # of classes: Rural Micropolitan Metropolitan 2 4 FAR 7 3 UIC 11 5 5 RUCA 11 5 5 RUCA ZIP 2 3 1 4 RUCC 1 1 4 URCSC *Determining class size is a complex process; the purpose here is demonstrate the differences between system classes, not to detract from the rigorous methodology employed by system developers. The classification system descriptions in this report are meant to provide a high-level overview; more information about each system can be found by clicking on the link in the “Fast Facts” box. The maps are provided as a visual reference; for a list of specific designations, see the appendices, available online. Core classification systems are described first - those systems that all other systems are based on - followed by county-based systems, census tract-based sytems, and ZIP code-based systems. 2 URBAN AREAS AND CORE-BASED STATISTICAL AREAS Urban Areas Urbanized Area Urban Cluster Core-Based Statistical Areas Metropolitan Micropolitan Area not designated as a UA or CBSA 25 mi. CORE-BASED STATISTICAL AREAS URBAN AREAS Developer: US Office of Management and Budget Developer: US Census Bureau Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Website: Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Website: 3 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways URBAN AREAS AND CORE-BASED STATISTICAL AREAS Most rural-urban classification systems, including the six in this report, are based on two area designation systems: Urban Areas3,4 and Core-Based Statistical Areas5,6. Both of these systems were developed for the purpose of collecting, tabulating, and reporting Federal statistics. Core-Based Statistical Areas include areas designated as Urban Areas as well as areas not designated as Urban Areas, and thus, contain both rural and urban territories and populations. There are no counties in Wisconsin that are 100% urban, although Milwaukee comes close. There are, however, 13 counties that are 100% rural according to both classification systems. URBAN AREAS (UA) The US Census Bureau’s Urban Areas are made up of census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory that connects outlying densely-settled territory with the denselysettled core. Urban Areas have two explicit classes: Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters, and one impled class: Not Urban. Not Urban includes all areas not designated as an Urbanized Area (UzA) or Urban Cluster (UC). UzA UC Areas with a core of 50,000 or more people and a population density of 1,000 persons per square mile and may contain adjoining territory with at least 500 persons per square mile Areas with a core of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people and a population density of 1,000 persons per square mile and may contain adjoining territory with at least 500 persons per square mile Urban Areas are not restricted by state boundaries, however, because they are made up of census blocks, it is possible to identify the distribution of Wisconsin-specific population and land: 57% 29% 14% Urbanized Area Urban Cluster Not UA WI Population WI Land Area (mi²) 3% 1% 96% CORE-BASED STATISTICAL AREAS (CBSA) The US Office of Management and Budget’s Core-Based Statistical Areas are made up of counties that a) have at least 50% of their population in UAs; or b) have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000 located in a single UA. Similar to Urban Areas, Core-Based Statistical Areas have two explicit classes and one implied: Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Areas that contain a UA of 50,000 or more population Areas that contain a UA of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 Micropolitan Statistical Area (MiSA) population 73% 14% Metropolitan Micropolitan Not CBSA WI Population WI Land Area (mi²) 36% Core Classification Systems 13% 19% 45% 4 RURAL-URBAN CONTINUUM CODES 25 mi. 5 WISCONSIN DIVIDED SIX WAYS RURAL-URBAN CONTINUUM CODE DEVELOPER US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service RURAL-URBAN CONTINUUM CODE WEBSITE Rural-Urban Continuum Codes RURAL-URBAN CONTINUUM CODE COMPONENTS The Rural-Urban Continuum Codes were originally developed in 1974 and have been updated each decennial since. This classification system divides Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) into three metropolitan classes based on population size and six nonmetropolitan classes based on adjacency to Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and population size. Adjacency is defined as abutting a MSA and having at least 2% of employed persons commuting to work in the abutted county. Counties CBSA designation: MSA CBSA designation: Non-MSA Population size Population size Adjacency to MSA RURAL-URBAN CONTINUUM CODE CLASSES 1 MSAs with 1+ million population 2 MSAs with 250,000 to 1 million population 3 MSAs with less than 250,000 population 4 Urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent to a MSA 5 Urban population of 20,000 or more, not adjacent to a MSA 6 Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, adjacent to a MSA 7 Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not adjacent to a MSA 8 Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban population, adjacent to a MSA 9 Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban population, not adjacent to a MSA RURAL-URBAN CONTINUUM CODE QUICK STATS Rural: RUCC 8-9 Micropolitan: RUCC 4-7 Metropolitan: RUCC 1-3 3% 19% 24% 73% WI Population County-Based Classification Systems 18% 35% 46% WI Land Area (mi²) 36% 46% WI Counties 6 RURAL-URBAN CONTINUUM CODE DEMOGRAPHICS7 Class 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Counties (#) 7 8 11 7 20 6 8 5 Population 1,883,600 966,719 Land Area (mi2) 4,378.85 6,572.78 Population Density (# people per mi2) 1,306,374 585,817 627,299 173,382 108,585 55,095 7,878.36 5,403.54 15,971.51 3,761.67 5,617.90 4,573.23 166 108 39 46 19 12 430 147 Class 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Population <18 24% 23% 23% 23% 22% 21% 20% 18% Population 18-64 63% 65% 63% 63% 60% 60% 59% 58% Population 65+ 13% 12% 14% 14% 18% 18% 21% 24% Uninsured 10% 8% 9% 8% 11% 10% 11% 10% Uninsured <18 4% 4% 4% 4% 10% 6% 9% 5% Class 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Less than HS 10% 7% 9% 9% 11% 10% 11% 10% Some college 21% 20% 21% 22% 21% 23% 22% 24% Bachelors+ 31% 35% 24% 23% 17% 20% 17% 19% Unemployed 9% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 9% Below poverty 15% 12% 12% 11% 13% 12% 14% 15% There are no Wisconsin counties in RUCC 5. 7 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways This page intentionally left blank. COUNTY-BASED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS URBAN-RURAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR COUNTIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 25 mi. 9 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways URBAN-RURAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR COUNTIES DEVELOPER Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics URBAN-RURAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR COUNTIES WEBSITE Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties URBAN-RURAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR COUNTIES COMPONENTS The Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties is Counties often used to study associations between health and urbanization level of residence. Developed by the National Center for Health Statistics, this system divides CBSA designation: CBSA designation: Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) into four metropolitan MSA Non-MSA classes based on the population size and the principal city population size and two nonmetropolitan classes. Principal city is defined as the incorporated place with the CBSA designation Population size largest population within the CBSA. Principal city population size URBAN-RURAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR COUNTIES CLASSES 1 MSAs with 1 million+ population that: 1. Contain the entire population of the largest principal city of the MSA, or Large Central Metro 2. Have their entire population in the largest principal city of the MSA, or 3. Contain at least 250,000 inhabitants of any principal city of the MSA 2 Large Fringe Metro MSAs with 1 million+ population that did not qualify as Large Central Metro counties 3 Medium Metro MSAs with populations of 250,000 to 999,999 4 Small Metro MSAs with populations less than 250,000 5 Micropolitan MiSAs 6 Noncore Counties that did not qualify as a MSA or MiSA URBAN-RURAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR COUNTIES QUICK STATS Noncore: URCSC 6 Micropolitan: URCSC 5 Metropolitan: URCSC 1-4 13% 14% 45% 35% 44% 37% 73% 20% WI Population County-Based Classification Systems WI Land Area (mi²) 19% WI Counties 10 URBAN-RURAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR COUNTIES DEMOGRAPHICS7 11 Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 Counties (#) 1 6 8 11 14 Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 Population <18 25% 24% 23% 23% 22% 22% Population 18-64 64% 62% 65% 63% 63% 59% Population 65+ 12% 14% 12% 14% 15% 19% Uninsured 12% 7% 8% 9% 8% 11% Uninsured <18 5% 3% 4% 4% 5% 10% Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 Less than HS 14% 7% 7% 9% 9% 11% Some college 21% 22% 20% 21% 22% 21% Bachelors+ 28% 33% 35% 24% 22% 18% Unemployed 11% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% Below poverty 22% 8% 12% 12% 12% 13% 32 Population 950,527 933,073 966,719 1,306,374 776,361 Land Area (mi2) 793.12 3,585.73 6,572.78 7,878.36 10,853.56 773,817 24,474.29 Population Density (# people per mi2) 114 260 147 166 72 32 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways COUNTY-BASED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS This page intentionally left blank. 12 URBAN INFLUENCE CODES 25 mi. WISCONSIN DIVIDED SIX WAYS 13 URBAN INFLUENCE CODE DEVELOPER US Dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service URBAN INFLUENCE CODE WEBSITE Urban Influence Codes URBAN INFLUENCE CODE COMPONENTS The Urban Influence Codes are designed to capture differences in economic opportunities among counties. The UIC divides CoreCBSA designation: Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) into MSA two metropolitan classes based on population size and three micropolitan and seven “noncore” Population size classes based on adjacency to a CBSA and population size. Adjacency is defined as abutting a CBSA and having at least 2% of employed persons commuting to work in the abutted county. Counties CBSA designation: MiSA CBSA designation: Non-MSA/MiSA Adjacency MSA Adjacency CBSA to MSA pop size to CBSA pop size Population size Population size URBAN INFLUENCE CODE CLASSES 1 In large MSA (1+ million population) 2 In small MSA (less than 1 million population) 3 MiSA adjacent to large MSA 4 Noncore adjacent to large MSA 5 MiSA adjacent to small MSA 6 Noncore adjacent to small MSA and contains a town of at least 2,500 population 7 Noncore adjacent to small MSA and does not contain a town of at least 2,500 population 8 MiSA not adjacent to a MSA 9 Noncore adjacent to MiSA and contains a town of at least 2,500 population 10 Noncore adjacent to MiSA and does not contain a town of at least 2,500 population 11 Noncore not adjacent to MiSA and contains a town of at least 2,500 population 12 Noncore not adjacent to MiSA and does not contain a town of at least 2,500 population URBAN INFLUENCE CODE QUICK STATS Noncore: UIC 4, 6-7, 9-12 Micropolitan: UIC 3, 5, 8 Metropolitan: UIC 1-2 13% 14% 35% 45% 44% 37% 73% 20% WI Population County-Based Classification Systems WI Land Area (mi²) 19% WI Counties 14 URBAN INFLUENCE CODE DEMOGRAPHICS7 Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 Counties (#) 7 19 4 3 9 17 2 1 3 2 5 Population 1,883,600 2,273,093 319,073 66,771 Land Area (mi2) 4,378.85 14,451.14 3,686.73 2,405.26 452,811 450,897 32,149 4,477 79,119 31,910 112,971 6,287.86 13,281.01 1,332.09 878.97 1,682.06 1,317.03 4,456.84 Population Density (# people per mi2) 430 157 87 28 72 34 24 5 47 24 25 Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 Population <18 24% 23% 22% 22% 22% 23% 23% 19% 20% 21% 21% Population 18-64 63% 64% 64% 59% 62% 59% 59% 61% 60% 59% 59% Population 65+ 13% 13% 14% 19% 16% 19% 18% 20% 20% 19% 19% Uninsured 10% 8% 9% 10% 8% 11% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Uninsured <18 4% 4% 4% 7% 5% 12% 10% 4% 5% 5% 7% Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 Less than HS 10% 8% 10% 9% 9% 12% 12% 10% 10% 9% 10% Some college 21% 21% 22% 22% 22% 21% 21% 27% 23% 22% 23% Bachelors+ 31% 29% 22% 18% 22% 17% 15% 15% 18% 21% 20% Unemployed 9% 7% 8% 9% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% Below poverty 15% 12% 12% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 12% 16% 13% There are no Wisconsin counties in UIC 10. 15 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways This page intentionally left blank. Rural-Urban Classification Systems – Census Tract Geog Census Tract-Based Classification Systems 16 RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREA DEVELOPERS US Dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, US Dept of Health and Human Services RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREA WEBSITE Rural-Urban Commuting Areas RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREA COMPONENTS The Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) classification system was developed to identify places likely to have poor access to health services. RUCA codes divide census tracts into 21 classes and sub-classes based on population size, commuting population size, commuting destination Urban Area (UA) designation, and commuting destination population size - 10 classes based on primary (largest) commuting population, 11 sub-classes based on secondary (second largest). Census tracts Commuting population size Commuting destination UA designation UA population size RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREA CLASSES (SUB-CLASSES ON PAGE 20) 1 Metropolitan area core Primary commuting flow is within a UzA 2 Metropolitan area high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a UzA 3 Metropolitan area low commuting 10%-30% of the primary flow is to a UzA 4 Micropolitan area core Primary flow is within a large UC (10,000-49,999 population) 5 Micropolitan high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a large UC 6 Micropolitan low commuting 10% to 30% of the primary flow is to a large UC 7 Small town core Primary flow is within a small UC (2,500-9,999 population) 8 Small town high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a small UC 9 Small town low commuting 10%-30% of the primary flow is to a small UC 10 Rural Primary flow is to a tract outside a UzA or UC RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREA COMPONENTS 18% 11% 71% WI Population Census Tract-Based Classification Systems 20% 29% 5% Small Town & Rural: RUCA 7-10 Micropolitan: RUCA 4-6 Metropolitan: RUCA 1-3 59% 10% 12% WI Land Area (mi²) 70% WI Census Tracts 18 RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREA DEMOGRAPHICS7 Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Census Tracts (#) 820 131 20 95 39 10 85 38 14 142 Population 3,341,251 645,656 80,529 438,717 154,364 40,146 381,442 124,483 41,992 458,291 Land Area (mi2) 3,445.02 10,302.62 1,941.31 1,132.92 4,526.46 962.30 3,229.87 6,153.91 1,698.61 20,764.77 Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Population <18 14% 3% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% Population 18-64 37% 7% 1% 5% 2% 0% 4% 1% 0% 5% Population 65+ 13% 13% 15% 15% 16% 16% 17% 18% 18% 19% Uninsured 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% Uninsured <18 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Less than HS 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% Some college 12% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% Bachelors + 18% 3% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% Unemployed 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Below poverty 8% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 19 Population Density (# people per mi2) 970 63 41 387 34 42 118 20 25 22 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways RURAL-URBAN COMMUTING AREA CLASSES AND SUB-CLASSES Class Description 1 Metro area core 1.1 Metro area core 2 Metro area high commuting 2.1 Metro area high commuting Primary commuting flow is within a UzA Primary commuting flow is within a UzA; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a UzA 30%+ of the primary flow is to a UzA 30%+ of the primary flow is to a UzA; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a UzA 3 Metro area low commuting 10%-30% of the primary flow is to a UzA 4 Micro area core Primary flow is within a large UC (10,000-49,999 population) 4.1 Micro area core 5 Micro high commuting 5.1 Micro high commuting Primary flow is within a large UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a UzA 30%+ of the primary flow is to a large UC 30%+ of the primary flow is to a large UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a UzA 6 Micro low commuting 10% to 30% of the pirmary flow is to a large UC 7 Small town core Primary flow is within a small UC (2,500-9,999 population) 7.1 Small town core Primary flow is within a small UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a UzA 7.2 Small town core Primary flow is within small UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a large UC 8 Small town high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a small UC 8.1 Small town high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a small UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a UzA 8.2 Small town high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a small UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a large UC 9 Small town low commuting 10%-30% of the primary flow is to a small UC 10 Rural Primary flow is to a tract outside a UA or UC 10.1 Rural Primary flow is to a tract outside a UA or UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a UzA 10.2 Rural Primary flow is to a tract outside a UA or UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a large UC 10.3 Rural Primary flow is to a tract outside a UA or UC; 30%-50% of the secondary flow is to a small UC ion Systems – ZIP Code-Based Classification Systems 20 FRONTIER AND REMOTE 1 I ?l :9 1'Area not designated as FAR 25 mi. 21 WISCONSIN DIVIDED SIX WAYS FRONTIER AND REMOTE DEVELOPERS US Dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service FRONTIER AND REMOTE WEBSITE Frontier and Remote FRONTIER AND REMOTE COMPONENTS The Frontier and Remote (FAR) codes attempt to capture differences in degrees of remoteness at higher or lower population levels that affect access to different types of goods and services. This classification system is unique in that it does not classify urban areas. FAR levels are defined in relation to the time it takes to travel by car to the edge of nearby Urban Areas (UA). Distance is measured using ½ kilometer by ½ kilometer grid cells; the cells are then aggregated to ZIP codes. If 50% or more of the area’s population is located in grid cells designated as FAR, then the area is classified as FAR. 1/2 x 1/2 km grid cells Population size Drive time to UA UA population size ZIP Codes FRONTIER AND REMOTE CLASSES 1 Areas up to 50,000 population that are 60 minutes or more from a UA of 50,000 or more population 2 Areas up to 25,000 population that are: 45 minutes or more from a UA of 25,000-49,999 population and 60 minutes or more from a UA of 50,000 or more population 3 Areas up to 10,000 population that are: 30 minutes or more from a UA of 10,000-24,999 population, 45 minutes or more from a UA of 25,000-49,999 population, and 60 minutes or more from a UA of 50,000 or more population 4 Areas that are: 15 minutes or more from a UA of 2,500-9,999 population, 30 minutes or more from a UA of 10,000-24,999 population, 45 minutes or more from a UA of 25,000-49,999 population, and 60 minutes or more from a UA of 50,000 or more people FRONTIER AND REMOTE QUICK STATS8 Frontier and Remote Not Frontier and Remote 3% 14% 23% 97% WI Population 77% WI Land Area (mi²) 86% WI ZIP Codes FRONTIER AND REMOTE DEMOGRAPHICS ZIP code-level demographics are not available from the US Census Bureau. ZIP Code-Based Classification Systems 22 RUCA ZIP CODE APPROXIMATION DEVELOPER University of Washington WWAMI Rural Health Research Center RUCA ZIP CODE APPROXIMATION WEBSITE RUCA ZIP Code Approximation RUCA ZIP CODE APPROXIMATION COMPONENTS The RUCA ZIP Code Approximation assigns each ZIP code a census tract-based RUCA code based on the distribution of its population across RUCA codes. ZIP codes with 66.7% or more of the population of a census tract are assigned that census tract’s RUCA code. RUCA Code ZIP code population distribution RUCA ZIP CODE APPROXIMATION CLASSES (SUB-CLASSES ON PAGE 20) 1 Metropolitan area core Primary commuting flow is within a UzA 2 Metropolitan area high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a UzA 3 Metropolitan area low commuting 10%-30% of the primary flow is to a UzA 4 Micropolitan area core Primary flow is within a large UC (10,000-49,999 population) 5 Micropolitan high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a large UC 6 Micropolitan low commuting 10% to 30% of the primary flow is to a large UC 7 Small town core Primary flow is within a small UC (2,500-9,999 population) 8 Small town high commuting 30%+ of the primary flow is to a small UC 9 Small town low commuting 10%-30% of the primary flow is to a small UC 10 Rural Primary flow is to a tract outside a UzA or UC RUCA ZIP CODE APPROXIMATION QUICK STATS8 Small Town & Rural: RUCA ZIP 7-10 Micropolitan: RUCA ZIP 4-6 Metropolitan: RUCA ZIP 1-3 18% 25% 12% 70% 61% 14% 42% 46% 11% WI Population WI Land Area (mi²) WI ZIP Codes RUCA ZIP CODE APPROXIMATION DEMOGRAPHICS ZIP code-level demographics are not available from the US Census Bureau. ZIP Code-Based Classification Systems 24 C ONSIDERATIONS So what is the best definition of rural for Wisconsin? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this question; deciding how to define rural depends on the issue at hand, the geographic level of available data, and the relevant strengths and weaknesses of definition components. ISSUE AT HAND One of the most oft-overlooked steps in defining rural is identifying which aspects of rural are relevant to the issue being examined. It is important to use a definition of rural that takes into account those identified aspects9 in order to avoid spurious conclusions. For example, if the issue is access to healthcare, a rural definition that considers distance to health care services or availability of virtual health care services would be useful. If the issue is the effect of rurality on use of available health care service, a definition of rural that is able to differentiate between rural areas of different sizes and levels of remoteness would be valuable.10 AVAILABLE DATA The geographic level of available data determines the geographic unit of the rural definition. Demographic data is available at almost all geographic units of analysis, allowing for rich analyses and comparisons. Other data, however, is only available at county or larger levels. It is important to define rural using the smallest common geographic unit among all of the data that will be used. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Every definition of rural has strengths and weaknesses, most of which are rooted in the definition’s geographic unit.9 Strengths and weaknesses also stem from the variables used to create thresholds for levels10,11 and even thresholds themselves.12 See table, next page. IMPLICATIONS When it comes to metro vs. non-metro population and land, there is not a lot of difference between systems. When non-metro is parsed, however, the differences become more pronounced, most notably between county-based systems and non-county-based systems.* POPULATION** RUCC URCSC UIC 73% 73% 73% RUCA RUCA ZIP 71% 70% Rural Micro LAND AREA (MI2) RUCC URCSC UIC RUCA RUCA ZIP 35% 35% 35% 30% 46% 20% 20% 23% 45% 45% 26% 12% 14% Metro 171,200 24% WI residents 14% 14% 11% 12% 3% 14% 14% 18% 18% 1,027,200 WI residents 59% 61% In addition to total population and land area, there are differences in other demographic variables. For example, the percent of the rural population over the age of 65 is highest when the RuralUrban Continuum Codes are used, (22% vs. 13% when any other system is used 7) and the average median rural household income is highest when the Rural-Urban Commuting Areas definition is used ($46,000 vs lower $40Ks when other systems are used 7). These differences illustrate the importance of identifying a definition of rural that best fits the question one is trying to answer. 25 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways Characteristic Geographic Unit: County Strength §§ County boundaries remain stable over time §§ Many data sets are available at the county level Geographic Unit: Census Tract §§ Smaller unit of analysis allows for more precise results §§ Similarly, census tracts can reveal differences within larger geographic units §§ Smaller unit of analysis allows for more precise results §§ Useful when data is address-based Geographic Unit: ZIP Code Variable: Commuting §§ Commuting patterns can be an indicator of resources available, or not available, in a given area Variable: Proximity §§ Good measure of social and economic relationships §§ Can be an indicator of remoteness if used at a geographic unit smaller than county §§ Simple §§ Understandable Thresholds Weakness §§ The large size of counties can obscure differences within the county9 Most of Wisconsin’s counties classified as urban contain census tracts and ZIP codes classified as rural §§ County boundaries do not necessarily reflect settlement patterns13 §§ Data other than census is not usually collected by census tract §§ Census tract geography and terminology is unfamiliar to most people §§ Geographic area is contrived so boundaries may be ambiguous and non-contiguous13 §§ Subject to change by the US Postal Service aross time §§ Most demographic and population health data are not available by ZIP code §§ Does not take into account commuting distances and times, which can vary substantially by location §§ Only reflects employment-related commuting – does not include unemployed or retired §§ When used at the county level, this indicator causes counties that would otherwise be considered very rural to be classified as urban10 §§ Arbitrary, reflect preferences for round numbers12 §§ Can create artificial similarities and dissimilarities12 §§ Not independent of spatial scale12 FINAL THOUGHTS There is a great responsibility in defining rural, especially when used for policy decisions and program eligibility - the definition used may determine which Wisconsin residents benefit from a policy or program and which do not. Rural is more than “not metro” - it is a complex, nuanced concept, and should be carefully thought about when used for research, policy, and program purposes. Rural Wisconsin looks very different today than it did when many of the classification systems reviewed in this report were created. How rural is defined should take into account current characteristics and both separation and integration14 of rural and urban areas. *ZIP code-based systems were not included in the analysis of non-population and non-land area variables. **FAR is not included in the graphic because it does not classify urban areas. 26 I NFORMATION S OURCES 1. Kemerling G (2011) The Philosophy Pages. http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm 2. US Census Bureau. Geographic Areas Reference Manual. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/garm. html 3. US Census Bureau. 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria. https://www. census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html 4. Federal Register. Qualifying Urban Areas for the 2010 Census. Volume 77, No. 59. March 27, 2012. http:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-27/pdf/2012-6903.pdf 5. Federal Register. 2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Volume 75, No. 123. June 28, 2010. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fedreg_2010/06282010_ metro_standards-Complete.pdf 6. US Census Bureau. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Main. http://www.census.gov/ population/metro/ 7. US Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates via American FactFinder. http:// factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 8. Environmental Systems Research Institute. ArcGIS ZIP code shapefile - boundaries: December 2014, population: 2014. 9. Hart G, Larson E, Lishner D (2005) Rural Definitions for Health Policy and Research. Am J Public Health 95(7): 1149-1155. 10. Golding S (2012) Defining Rural for Wisconsin. http://worh.org/WisRuralAreas 11. Rolfsmeyer R (ed.)(2015) Rural Wisconsin Today: The status and trends of rural Wisconsin. 12. Waldorf B (2006) A Continuous Multi-Dimensional Measure of Rurality: Moving Beyond Threshold Measures. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, July 24-27, 2006. 13. Morrill R, Cromartie J, Hart G (1999) Metropolitan, urban, and rural commuting areas: Toward a better depiction of the United States settlement system. Urban Geography 20: 727-48. 14. Isserman A (2005) In the National Interest: Defining Rural and Urban Correctly in Research and Public Policy. International Regional Science Review 28: 465. COMING SOON Wisconsin Divided Six More Ways (working title), a report to be released by CANVAS later this year, will include definitions of rural Wisconsin using purpose-specific classification systems as well as alternatives to the commonly-used general-purpose systems in this report. 27 Wisconsin Divided Six Ways ?ll Rural Health Data CANVAS A program of: WISDRH Office of Rural Health