A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Variations in the conceptualization and measurement of rurality: Conflicting findings on the elderly widowed
Abstract This paper argues that the nature of any observed distinctions between the rural and urban aged are a function of whether rurality is conceptualized in ecological or socio-cultural terms. Four measures of rurality are contrasted. Two measures, based primarily on ecological criteria, define rurality in terms of (1) current residence, and (2) duration of community residence. Two additional measures, based primarily on socio-cultural criteria, define rurality in terms of (3) place of residence at age 16, and (4) a self-definition as rural. While different kinds of rural populations are identified by each measure, a self-definition of rurality seems to capture proportionally more of those who are also rural on the other criteria. However, this is not the case when urbanity is defined using the same criteria. The practice of classifying elderly populations as urban or rural based on current residence alone identifies ‘urban’ individuals who are in fact largely urban on both ecological and socio-cultural criteria; a significant proportion of those identified as rural by ecological criteria do not, however, fit the socio-cultural definition. The implications of these findings are discussed in reference to a sample of 151 elderly widowed men and women. Very different patterns of variability between rural and urban widowed elderly emerge, depending on which definition of rurality is used.
Variations in the conceptualization and measurement of rurality: Conflicting findings on the elderly widowed
Abstract This paper argues that the nature of any observed distinctions between the rural and urban aged are a function of whether rurality is conceptualized in ecological or socio-cultural terms. Four measures of rurality are contrasted. Two measures, based primarily on ecological criteria, define rurality in terms of (1) current residence, and (2) duration of community residence. Two additional measures, based primarily on socio-cultural criteria, define rurality in terms of (3) place of residence at age 16, and (4) a self-definition as rural. While different kinds of rural populations are identified by each measure, a self-definition of rurality seems to capture proportionally more of those who are also rural on the other criteria. However, this is not the case when urbanity is defined using the same criteria. The practice of classifying elderly populations as urban or rural based on current residence alone identifies ‘urban’ individuals who are in fact largely urban on both ecological and socio-cultural criteria; a significant proportion of those identified as rural by ecological criteria do not, however, fit the socio-cultural definition. The implications of these findings are discussed in reference to a sample of 151 elderly widowed men and women. Very different patterns of variability between rural and urban widowed elderly emerge, depending on which definition of rurality is used.
Variations in the conceptualization and measurement of rurality: Conflicting findings on the elderly widowed
Matthews, Anne Martin (author)
Journal of Rural Studies ; 4 ; 141-150
1988-01-01
10 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
| UB Braunschweig | 1791
| TIBKAT | 1791
| British Library Online Contents | 2005
What Factors Explain the Decline in Widowed Women’s Poverty?
| Online Contents | 2020
| Online Contents | 2015