A Comparative Evaluation of Indexes of Rurality--Their Policy Implications and Distributional Impacts. Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs Special Paper No. 22.

Autor/inn/en	Sinclair, Bill; Manderscheid, Lester V.
Institution	Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs.
Titel	A Comparative Evaluation of Indexes of Rurality--Their Policy Implications and Distributional Impacts. Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs Special Paper No. 22.
Quelle	(1974), (38 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Agriculture; Classification; Cluster Grouping; Comparative Analysis; Correlation; Definitions; Economics; Forestry; Measurement Techniques; Population Distribution; Research Methodology; Research Problems; Rural Areas; Michigan + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Landwirtschaft; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Eingruppierung; Korrelation; Begriffsbestimmung; Volkswirtschaftslehre; Forstwissenschaft; Waldwirtschaft; Messtechnik; Demographical distribution; Bevölkerungsverteilung; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Forschungskritik; Rural area; Ländlicher Raum
Abstract	Eleven indexes of rurality and their effect on the classification of Michigan's 83 counties were investigated. The indexes were based on different concepts of rurality: (1) percent of employment in agriculture, fishing, and forestry; (2) population density and distance to urban centers; and (3) economic conditions. Index rankings were compared to determine if a county's rank varied from one index to another. The two indexes most frequently associated with extreme ranks were then eliminated and a similar analysis performed. The average county still had adifference of 31 between its highest and lowest rank. Further classification into four discrete quartile groupings also revealed substantial difference in county classification depending on the index selected. Rank correlation analysis revealed that 55 pairs of correlations between indexes were significantly different from 0 at the .01 probability level. Index choice, then, did make a difference, since in selecting a particular index, rurality was explicitly or implicity defined. It was concluded that no one index could satisfy the needs of all potential users, since policy is usually problem specific and the rurality index used should also, therefore, be problem specific. (JC)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC