2024-01-10 浏览人数：170次
Recommended citation format for this publication:
Davis, J. C., Cromartie, J., Farrigan, T., Genetin, B., Sanders, A., & Winikoff, J. B. (2023). Rural America at a Glance 2023 Edition (Report No. EIB-261). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Photos are from Getty Images and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.
To ensure the quality of its research reports and satisfy governmentwide standards, ERS requires that all research reports with substantively new material be reviewed by qualified technical research peers. This technical peer review process, coordinated by ERS’ Peer Review Coordinating Council, allows experts who possess the technical background, perspective, and expertise to provide an ive and meaningful assessment of the output’s substantive content and clarity of communication during
the publication’s review.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, andinstitutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating d on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender ), sexual
orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all s apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require native means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)
720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program infor- mation may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found
online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and
provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program. intake@usda.gov.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
he U.S. rural population is growing again after a decade of overall population loss, with
growth of approximately a quarter percent from 2020 to 2022. This growth occurred
because rural in-migration was larger than declines in the natural rate (the number
of births compared with the number of deaths) of population growth. The rural population
is also experiencing declines in poverty. In 2021, 9.7 percent fewer nonmetropolitan coun-
ties experienced persistent poverty (20 percent or more of the population had poverty level household incomes in each of the last four decennial Census years) compared with a decade earlier. Still, more than half of extremely low-income nonmetropolitan renter households ex- perienced housing insecurity. This issue was particularly acute for American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic households. This report examines recent issues such as rural population and migration trends, poverty, housing insecurity, employment, and clean energy jobs. The
report finds that rural employment levels and annual growth rates nearly returned to those seen in the years prior to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Finally, highlighting an
emerging employment area of interest, approximately 1 percent of nonmetropolitan workers hold clean energy jobs.
Overview
The U.S. population residing in nonmetropolitan areas in July 2022 was 46 million people, or 13.8 percent of the U.S. population.1 The nonmetropolitan population grew approximately a quarter percent from mid-2020 through mid-2022, a period of renewed growth after declining or near-zero annual growth rates between 2010 and 2020. The increases in nonmetropolitan population resulted from gains in net domestic migration. These gains exceeded natural declines due to more deaths than births in the same period. Most nonmetropolitan
ies experienced net domestic in-migration, particularly ies located near large metroareas and in recreation and retirement destinations. However, 42 percent of nonmetropolitan ies decreased in popu- lation from net domestic out-migration.
The share of the nonmetropolitan population experiencing poverty or housing insecurity is a key indicator of population well-being. Of particular interest are nonmetropolitan ies that are experiencing persistent
poverty, defined as ies with poverty rates greater than 20 percent over the prior three decades (specific
definition provided on pages 10–11). Of the 270 nonmetropolitan persistent poverty ies in 2021, 55 are no longer persistent poverty ies compared to 2011. Only 26 became newly persistent poverty ies over the same period.
People living below the poverty line have a higher risk of housing insecurity. Over the 5-year period from
2015 to 2019, more than half of extremely low-income and one-quarter of very low-income nonmetropolitan renter households experienced housing problems. These problems include a severe housing cost burden,
1 Throughout this report, the terms “rural” and “nonmetro” are used interchangeably, as are the terms “urban” and “metro.” Unless otherwise stated, statistics are calculated using the 2013 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) metropolitan area definitions d on data from the 2010 U.S. Census. Of the 3,143 ies in U.S. States, 1,976 are nonmetropolitan and 1,167 are metropolitan. The exact number of ies in a category may
differ depending on data source used. For more on definitions of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, as well as related concepts such as urbanized areas and central ies, visit the USDA, Economic Research Service web page “What Is Rural?”.
2 Rural America at a Glance
lack of full kitchen or plumbing facilities, and/or dwelling unit overcrowding. Further, almost one-quarter of
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Hispanic (any race) nonmetropolitan households experienced severe hous- ing problems (as defined above), about 10 percentage points higher than for all other racial groups.
Jobs area major contributor to rural household well-being. Following nonmetropolitan job losses of 10
percent in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, nonmetropolitan household employment rebounded in 2021 and continued to recover throughout 2022 and 2023. By the first quarter of 2023, total nonmetropol- itan employment had nearly fully recovered, returning to 99 percent of prepandemic employment levels.2
Nonmetropolitan annual employment growth for 2022 was 0.5 percent, a return to a growth rate similar to those rates observed for the years prior to the pandemic. Similarly, the nonmetropolitan unemployment rate declined from 11.3 in 2020 to 3.8 percent in 2022.
More than 243,000, or 1 percent, of jobs in nonmetropolitan ies were in clean energy in 2021. In com- parison, around 239,000 nonmetro jobs were in coal, petroleum, and natural gas fuels. The U.S. Department of Energy defines clean energy in its 2023 U.S. Energy and Employment Report as jobs in the technologies that align with net-zero3 greenhouse gas emissions, including those in renewable energy and biofuels. The
nonmetropolitan clean energy employment share varied across U.S. States, ranging from less than one-half a percent in Arizona to 2.6 percent in Vermont. Of all States, Texas had the most clean energy jobs (15,000 representing 0.96 percent) in nonmetropolitan ies.
2 Urban employment returned to 100 percent of prepandemic employment by the second quarter of 2022.
3 Net-zero emissions refers to achieving an overall balance between greenhouse gas emissions produced, avoided, and removed from the atmosphere.
Nonmetropolitan Population Has Recently Grown
Due to Migration
The 46 million U.S. residents living in nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) areas in July 2022 made up 13.8 percent of the U.S. population. The COVID-19-related renewal of nonmetro population growth first seen in 2020–21 (July through June) continued at roughly an equal rate in the same period the following year (0.14 percent
and 0.12 percent growth, respectively), according to the latest U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census population estimates as shown in figure 1. This growth represents a large upward shift from a
0.09-percent population decline in the previous year (2019–20), which came at the end of a decade of overall nonmetro population loss. The population number in metroareas followed a different trend in 2019–20 and 2020–21, dropping from 0.42 to 0.16 percent growth between the two periods before returning to 0.42 per- cent in 2021–22.
Overall, population change in a given area can be subdivided changes due to net migration (the number of people moving in minus the number of people moving out) and natural change (the number of births mi- nus the number of deaths). The population numbers in nonmetroareas experienced COVID-19-related gains despite a population loss due to a natural decrease (more deaths than births), which shifted from -0.09 percent in 2019–20 to -0.33 percent in both 2020–21 and 2021–22. While hundreds of individual nonmetro ies have experienced more deaths than births for decades,a natural decrease for nonmetroareas (as a whole) is
a new phenomenon, first appearing in 2017–18. Given decreasing fertility rates for the United States overall and the aging of the nonmetro population,a natural decrease is likely a permanent fixture for nonmetroareas. Thus, future population growth in nonmetroareas as a whole will depend on retaining current residents and attracting newcomers.
4 Rural America at a Glance
Figure 1
Population change and components of change, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 2019–20, 2020–21, and 2021–22
Percent change | |
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5 |
2019–20 2020–21 2021–22 Period |
Note: The 1-year periods comprise July through June.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Fear of exposure to COVID-19 in metroareas and the subsequent increase in remote work contributed to a major shift in migration patterns.4 Net migration declined for metroareas (from 0.17 to 0.06 percent between 2019–20 and 2020–21), and a mirror-image jump in nonmetro net migration (from 0.01 to 0.47 percent)
occurred at the same time. As shown in figure 2, net migration can be further subdivided domestic net migration (occurring between areas within the United States) and international migration. In 2020–21,
more people moved from metro to nonmetroareas than in the opposite direction, resulting in a 0.07-percent decline in metro population and a 0.43-percent gain for nonmetroareas due to net domestic migration. Net domestic migration favoring nonmetro locations continued in 2021–22. The overall increase in net migration for metroareas in the past 2 years was due almost exclusively to a near tripling of international migration,
from a 0.12-percent gain in 2020–21 to a 0.34-percent gain in 2021–22. Figure 2 summarizes the changes in net migration, broken down by domestic and international components.
4 Nonmetropolitan net migration growth rates were negative from 2010 to 2016 and near zero from 2017 to 2020, as shown in figure 1 in USDA’s Rural America at a Glance, 2022 Edition.
Figure 2
Net migration change and components of change, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 2019–20, 2020–21, and 2021–22
Percent change | |
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5 |
2019–20 2020–21 2021–22 Period |
Note: The 1-year periods comprise July through June.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Population growth from domestic net migration was not evenly distributed across all nonmetro ies. In figure 3, for the two yearly periods of 2020–21 and 2021–22 (July through June in both periods) combined, 829 nonmetro ies (out of 1,976) continued to experience net domestic out-migration, with more than half of the ies losing more than 1 percent of their population. These included many high-poverty coun- ties in the South, some farming ies in the Midwest, and several isolated and sparsely settled ies in the West. The majority of ies with out-migration were located in the Great Plains, including in some
regions dependent on oil and gas extraction,5 which saw COVID-19-related downturns in production. Most nonmetro ies saw gains in population due to net domestic migration, with 481 growing by 2 percent
or more during 2020–22. These ies are located on the periphery of large metroareas and in recreation and retirement destinations such as the northern Great Lakes, the southern Appalachians and Ozarks, and the Rocky Mountains. d on previous research, this increase in “amenity migration” (people choosing locations to live d on quality-of-life factors) is not surprising given that baby boom retirement is reaching its peak, and remote work is allowing more locational freedom for working-age adults.
5 Such regions include the Williston Basin in western North Dakota and eastern Montana, the Oklahoma panhandle, southeastern New Mexico, and west Texas.
6 Rural America at a Glance
Figure 3
Net domestic migration rate, nonmetropolitan ies, 2020–22
Percent population change from net domestic migration Less than -1 (421 ies) -1 to 0 (408 ies)
0 to 1 (395 ies)
1 to 2 (272 ies)
2 or higher (481 ies) 口 Metro ies
Note: The figure shows the net domestic migration rate for each nonmetropolitan y for the period July 2020 through June 2022. The rate is defined as the difference between the number of people moving a y and the number moving out per 100 of the population of the y at the beginning of the period.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Changes in Metropolitan Areas in 2023 Caused a Small Reduction in Nonmetro Population
Most demographic and economic studies of rural conditions and trends (including this report) refer to con- ditions in nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) ies, which lie outside metropolitan (metro) areas, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Every 10 years, OMB identifies a new set of metroareas d on the most recent decennial census. While many nonmetro ies continue to lose population, oth- ers have grown large enough over the past decade to become reclassified as metro. Historically, this reclassifica- tion each decade has led to large nonmetro population losses. In the latest decennial announced by the OMB in July 2023, 72 nonmetro ies with 2,289,693 million people switched to metro status (dark grey on the map in figure 4). At the sametime, 52 metro ies with 2,127,332 residents switched to nonmetro status (dark yellow on the map). The net loss for nonmetroareas due to reclassification (162,361 people) is by far the lowest for any decade since 1950 when metroareas were first delineated. The change marks a historic downturn in urbanization during 2010–20 caused by a number of factors, including a much lower overall
population growth rate for the United States and lower levels of suburbanization through much of the decade.
Figure 4
ies changing metropolitan status, 2013–23
Stays nonmetro (1,894 ies) Nonmetro to metro (72 ies) Metro to nonmetro (52 ies) Stays metro (1,117 ies)
Note: Connecticut switched from ies to planning regions for the Census reporting between 2013 and 2023 and thus cannot be classified here.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
8 Rural America at a Glance
Recent Trends Suggest Progress in Reducing Rural Poverty
High poverty (poverty rate greater than or equal to 20 percent)6 area status, an indicator of low well-being
of area residents, is apersistent problem for some ies. For other residents, transitions and out of
high poverty happen in concert with macroeconomic cycles or major events—such as the Great Recession,
the 2010–19 economic expansion, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These transitions often reflect short-run, circumstantial poverty rather than a permanent change in areawide poverty conditions. Therefore, absolute
changes in poverty rates over a relatively short period can be misleading. Combining information about macro- economic cycles or major events with trend analysis offers greater insight whether poverty conditions are likely to improve, deteriorate, or stagnate.
An analysis of annual y-level poverty rate estimates for 2007 through 2021 indicates that the majority (86 percent) of all nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) ies experienced a downward trend in poverty over the 15-year period. The decrease in poverty rate was statistically significant (i.e., clearly declining) for 109 non-
metro ies. Poverty rates rose in 13 percent or 252 of all nonmetro ies, with a statistically significant increase in poverty rates for 26 of those ies. (The remaining 1 percent was stagnant or inconclusive.)
6 The poverty rate is defined by the Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive 14. The poverty rate is the ratio of the number of people whose income falls below the poverty line. The poverty line is defined by income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. For more information, see the Census Bureau’s “How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty” and USDA, ERS’s “Poverty Area Measures” websites.
Figure 5
Poverty rate trends for nonmetropolitan ies, 2007–21
Change in nonmetro y poverty rates
Inconclusive
No significant change Significant increase Significant decrease 口 Metro ies
Note: Significant change is d on statistical significance at the 90-percent level. “Inconclusive” represents low data reliability or missing data for one or more data periods.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) using U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates, 2007 to 2021 and nonmetropolitan y designations derived from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s 2010 Standards of Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
The downward trend in poverty rates for nonmetro ies resulted in a decrease in the number of persistent poverty ies as well. Persistent poverty ies for the period ending in 2007–11 are those ies with poverty rates equal to or greater than 20 percent in every decade, as measured by the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Decennial Census and 2007–11 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year period estimates. Persistent
poverty for the period ending in 2017–217 includes the 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census and ACS 5-year periods 2007–11 and 2017–21. These counties represent areas where poverty conditions have persisted for 30 years or more. In the period ending in 2021, there were 318 (combined metro and nonmetro) persistent poverty ies, compared with 353 for the period ending in 2011. Overall, there were 282 ies that remained persistently poor from one period to the next, 36 ies that entered persistent poverty
7 Estimates for 2020 are constructed using the 5-year period estimates published by the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS 5-year files pool together years of the survey to release data for detailed geographies.
10 Rural America at a Glance
status, and 70 ies that left persistent poverty status. Nonmetro ies comprise 84.9 percent (270
ies) of the 318 persistently poor ies for the period ending in 2021. This number includes 244
ies that remained persistently poor since the prior period, 26 persistent poverty entrants, and 55 leavers. The nonmetro ies that entered a persistent poverty area status are largely characterized by poverty among the resident Hispanic population, as well as re-entrants (previously left persistent poverty status and then returned) within historically poor areas such as central Appalachia.
These trends suggest that regardless of changing and often challenging macroeconomic conditions between
2007 and 2021, there was some progress toward persistent poverty reduction in nonmetro ies, including those where poverty has historically been intractable.
Figure 6
Change in nonmetropolitan y persistent poverty area status, 2007–21
Nonmetro y changes in persistent poverty status
Data not available
Not persistent poverty both periods Persistent poverty both periods
Persistent poverty entrant Persistent poverty leaver Metro ies
Note: Change in persistent poverty status is d on the comparison of persistent poverty y status for the period ending in 2007–11 (1980, 1990, and 2000 Decennial Census and 2007–11 American Community Survey) to the period ending in 2017-21 (1990, and 2000 Decennial Census and 2007–11, and 2017–21 American Community Survey). “Data not available” represents low data reli- ability or missing data for one or more data periods.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) using USDA, ERS’s Poverty Area Measures data product and nonmetropolitan y designations derived from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s 2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
Housing Insecurity Risk Is Greater for Some Rural Household Groups
Housing insecurity is an umbrella term that refers to housing-related problems that contribute to shelter
instability, poverty, and health concerns for individuals and families. This insecurity may include high housing costs relative to income, poor housing quality and housing shortages, overcrowding, lack of safety in the home and neighborhood, and homelessness. The threat of housing insecurity is particularly high for rural house-
holds with low income and historically underserved racial/ethnic population groups.
Housing cost as a percentage of household income is one of the most commonly used measures of housing
affordability. A household is considered to be cost-burdened if that cost percentage exceeds 30 percent and
severely cost-burdened if it exceeds 50 percent. Severe housing cost-burden is a high-risk indicator of shelter instability. Housing units characterized by substandard housing (lacks full kitchen or plumbing facilities) and overcrowding (more than one person per room) are associated with greater health and safety risks for residents than units without these characteristics. Renter households in the lowest income categories disproportionately experience these risks.
Over the 5-year period ending in 2019, more than half of extreme low-income (less than or equal to 30
percent of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s [HUD] area median family income [HAMFI]) nonmetro renter occupied households experienced one or more of four housing unit problems (se- vere housing cost burden, lack of full kitchen facilities, lack of full plumbing facilities, or overcrowding). The percentage shares were lower for all other nonmetro renter income groups and all nonmetro owner income
groups that experienced one or more of these problems.
12 Rural America at a Glance
Figure 7
Compared with homeowners, low-income renters in nonmetropolitan areas are more likely to expe- rience severe housing problems
Total
Higher income Moderate income Low-income Very low-income Extreme low-income |
| |||||
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent of housing units with severe housing problems |
Note: Income categories are d on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) area median family income (HAMFI). Extreme low income is <= 30 percent of HAMFI, very low income is 30.1 to 50 percent of HAMFI, low income is 50.1 to 80 percent of HAMFI, moderate income is 80.1 to 100 percent of HAMFI, and higher income is > 100 percent of HAMFI. Severe housing
unit problems are defined by the household experience of one or more of four problems: lacking complete kitchen facilities, lacking complete plumbing facilities, overcrowding (more than 1 person per room), or severe housing cost burden (monthly housing cost as a percent of household income exceeds 50 percent). Nonmetropolitan area status is d on U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s 2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, 2015–19.
Over the 5-year period ending in 2019, the share of housing units with severe housing problems for all other racial groups was about 10 percentage points lower than it was for the American Indian or Alaska Native (24.2
percent) and Hispanic (23.1
percent) groups. An understand- ing of these and other differences in housing insecurity risks can
help inform efforts to ensure that affordable, stable, and livable
housing is available to all people regardless of tenancy, income
level, and racial/ethnic identity.
Figure 8
Severe housing unit problems by race and ethnicity, total renters and owners, all income levels in nonmetropolitan areas over the 2015–19 period
Total
White
Black or African American
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native Pacific Islander Hispanic |
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percent of housing units with severe housing problems |
Note: All race categories are single race (alone), non-Hispanic; the Hispanic category includes any race. Severe housing unit prob-
lems are defined by the household experience of one or more of four problems: lacking complete kitchen facilities, lacking complete plumbing facilities, overcrowding (more than 1 person per room), or severe housing cost burden (monthly housing cost as a percent of household income exceeds 50 percent). Nonmetropolitan area status is d on U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s 2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehen- sive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, 2015–19.
Nonmetro Employment Resumed Slow Growth
and Unemployment Rates Reached Record Lows in 2022
The total number of rural residents employed had not yet recovered to prepandemic levels by early 2023.
Rural employment decreased 10 percent (from 20.2 million to 18.3 million employed) from the first to the
second quarter of 2020, as stay-at-home orders were put in place across much of the Nation in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Employment increased quickly in the third and fourth quarters of 2020 as stay-at-home orders were lifted, but employment remained 3 percent below the prepandemic levels of 2019 in rural areas. Following the rapid gains in late 2020, rural employment growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.4 percent in
2021 and 0.5 percent in 2022. As of the second quarter of 2023, rural employment stood at 20.2 million people, 1 percent below the prepandemic (fourth quarter, 2019) level of 20.4 million.
14 Rural America at a Glance
Figure 9
Quarterly employment change in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan ies: first quarter 2019 to second quarter 2023
Percent of Q1 2019 employment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
104
102
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86 |
Quarter/Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q1 = first quarter; Q2 = second quarter; Q3 = third quarter; Q4 = fourth quarter.
Note: Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan designations are d on the 2013 definition of metropolitan ies as determined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Data are seasonally adjusted.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program (August 2, 2023, release).
The impact of the pandemic on unemployment rates affected people in rural and urban areas differently and varied by educational attainment levels. Unemployment rates were slightly higher in rural areas (4.1 percent) than urban areas (3.6 percent) before the pandemic. However, that pattern reversed during the pandemic
when unemployment rates increased to 13.3 percent in urban areas and 11.3 percent in rural areas in the
second quarter of 2020. Unemployment rates remained higher in urban areas throughout 2020 and 2021 as the economy recovered. Urban workers ages 25 to 64 with less than a bachelor’s degree were particularly af- fected, as their unemployment rates remained 2.6 percentage points higher in 2021 than the rates were before the pandemic in 2019. In rural areas, the unemployment rate for workers with less than a bachelor’s degree
remained 1.2 percentage points higher in 2021 than in 2019. The unemployment rate for urban workers
with a bachelor’s degree or higher also remained 1.2 percentage points higher in 2021, while the rate for rural workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher was only 0.7 percentage points higher. The urban unemployment rate dropped below the rural rate once again in the second quarter of 2022. However, at 3.8 percent or less
throughout 2022 and early 2023, rural unemployment rates remained at their lowest point since before 1990.
The slow employment growth rate (0.5 percent) in rural areas in 2022 was similar to the rural growth rates in the years between the Great Recession of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic. From 2010 to 2019, the an-
nual average employment growth rate in rural areas was only 0.4 percent compared with 1.6 percent in urban areas. In fact, employment growth during this period was sufficiently low that, by 2019, rural total employ-
ment had still not fully recovered from the Great Recession. Overall, by 2023, the rural economy had mostly recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic and resumed the familiar employment growth rates from the 2010s.
Figure 10
Nonmetropolitan employment percent change by State, 2019–22
change by percent, 2019–22
NA |
Note: Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan designations are d on the 2013 definition of metropolitan ies as determined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington, DC have no nonmetropolitan ies and are therefore omitted from the analysis.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program (May 3, 2023, release).
Employment levels for rural areas of the United States had nearly returned to prepandemic levels by the
beginning of 2023, but the rural recovery varied regionally. The rural portion of Idaho had the largest increase in employment from 2019 to 2023, with an increase of 7.3 percent, while employment levels in the rural
portions of Maryland and Illinois decreased by more than 5 percent. Four of the 5 States with the highest
rural employment growth (Idaho, Utah, Montana, and Oregon) were also in the top 10 States with the most prime-working-age rural population growth during the period. The other State in the top five in employment growth, Alaska, had the largest decrease in rural unemployment rates during the period.
16 Rural America at a Glance
Clean Energy Jobs Are 1 Percent of Rural Employment
Recent Federal legislation (most notably the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022) provides funding and tax
benefits to promote the development and expansion of a domestic clean energy industry within the United States. Before this legislation, however, clean energy had already grown a large industry, creating millions of jobs and comprising about 40 percent of all
energy jobs (U.S. Department of Energy, 2022). This section analyzes the prevalence of these jobs in rural America.
This report uses the definition of net-zero aligned jobs (referred to here as “clean energy jobs”) from the U.S. Department of Energy’s U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER). This definition in- cludes jobs in “renewable energy; grid technologies and storage; traditional transmission and distribu- tion; nuclear energy; a subset of energy efficiency; biofuels; and plug-in hybrid, fully electric, and
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and components.” Due to the limited availability of y-level data,
however, information related to several notable
industries is excluded from this report, including various aspects of energy efficiency, geothermal
and nuclear electricity generation, traditional
transmission, distribution, and storage in renew- able energy, and plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles. Therefore, the numbers presented in this report underestimate the total number of clean
energy jobs in rural America, including data only on renewable energy, biofuels, and select efficiency and transmission and storage technologies.
In 2021, there were more than 243,000 clean energy jobs in nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) ies.8 9 This number represented more than 1 percent of jobs in rural America. Clean energy jobs in rural areas were well distributed across all States and regions. The rate of rural clean energy employment reached a high of 26 jobs per 1,000 total jobs in Vermont—with Hawaii, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nevada rounding out the top 5. Conversely, Arizona has the lowest rate of clean energy employment in rural ies, with less than 5 jobs per 1,000 total jobs—followed by Arkansas, New Mexico, Virginia, and Mississippi. Considering the num- ber of jobs rather than the employment rate, Texas led all States with more than 15,000 clean energy jobs in nonmetropolitan ies.
8 USEER reports “<10” jobs in ies when applicable. The U.S. Department of Energy aggregated nonmetropolitan jobs at the State and national level to avoid measurement error using the 2013 OMB definition of metropolitan/nonmetropolitan status d on the 2010 Census.
9 As discussed, the 243,000 clean energy jobs figure is an underestimate of the total number of clean energy jobs due to some omitted industries. USEER y-level data include an “Other Fuels” industry, which includes (among others) nuclear and geothermal energy. The authors estimate that there are approximately 24,000 jobs in rural America in this industry, although this category would include other energy sources that are not
considered clean energy.
Figure 11
Clean energy employment per 1,000 jobs in nonmetropolitan ies, 2021
Nonmetro clean energy
employment per 1,000 jobs
4–7.9
8–11.9 12–15.9 16–19.9 口 20+
NA
Note: Clean energy jobs include those from wind, solar, and hydroelectric electric power generation; corn ethanol, woody biomass, and other clean fuels; electricity storage; microgrid, smart grid, and other grid modifications; ENERGY STAR efficient lighting;
high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); and advanced insulation materials. Due to data limitations, jobs are omitted from other clean energy industries, such as geothermal, nuclear energy, traditional transportation, distribution, and storage for clean energy electric vehicles. Rural jobs are defined using the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions for
nonmetropolitan ies d on data from the 2010 Census. Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington, DC have no nonmetropolitan ies and are therefore omitted from the analysis.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2022 U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER) and total employment information from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
Clean energy job growth in nonmetropolitan counties differed significantly by industry. Solar jobs grew by almost 10,000 between 2017 and 2018 but declined the following year. In 2021, the solar industry had
29,400 jobs, below its peak of 34,200 in 2018 but aslight increase from 2020. Conversely, corn ethanol jobs remained relatively stable until 2020, when the industry experienced a steep decline due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, by 2021, corn ethanol jobs rebounded and attained a 5-year high of more than 19,500 jobs. Wind energy employment experienced little change in rural areas through 2020, staying consistently
near 11,000 jobs before increasing to 13,000 jobs in 2021.
18 Rural America at a Glance
Figure 12
Trends in solar, wind, and ethanol in nonmetropolitan ies, 2017–21
Total jobs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Solar and wind include the total of electric power generation (EPG) jobs in all nonmetropolitan ies in each respective
industry. Corn ethanol includes all jobs in nonmetropolitan counties attributed to corn ethanol fuels. Nonmetropolitan jobs are defined using the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions for nonmetropolitan ies d on data from the 2010 Census. Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the 2021 and 2022 U.S. Department of Energy’s U.S. Energy and
Employment Report (USEER) and y-level data from the 2018, 2019, and 2020 BW Research Partnership’s U.S. Energy and Employment Report.
Figure 13 shows how the share of clean energy jobs located in rural areas was similar to the rural share of total employment: 11.3 percent of all clean energy jobs in 2021 were in nonmetropolitan ies, compared with 11.7 percent of total jobs. Most clean energy industries employ a similar share of workers in rural ies.
For example, 11.2 percent of wind energy jobs and 10.8 percent of transmission, distribution, and storage jobs were in nonmetro ies. The solar energy industry skews slightly more toward urban areas, with just 8.8
percent of jobs located in nonmetro ies. Two industries that skew disproportionately toward rural areas are hydroelectric power (where rural ies employed approximately 16.9 percent of the industry) and corn ethanol (where 36.1 percent of jobs were in nonmetropolitan ies).
The proportion of clean energy jobs in nonmetro ies, although aligning closely with total employment, still lagged behind the share of traditional fossil fuel extraction and generation jobs in nonmetro ies.
For example, about 40 percent of coal jobs were in nonmetro ies. Similarly, rural ies employed 23 percent of petroleum fuel and 25 percent of natural gas jobs in 2021. The scale of nonmetro clean energy jobs is of a similar order of magnitude to those from traditional fossil fuel extraction for the industries included in the USEER—with more than 243,000 in clean energy jobs compared with about 239,000 jobs in coal, petro- leum, and natural gas extraction and power generation.
Figure 13
Percent of energy jobs in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan ies, 2021
Percent of jobs | ||||||||||||||||||||
100
75
50
25
National average = 11.7
0 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
Industry | ||||||||||||||||||||
TDS = Transmission, distribution, and storage.
Note: The horizontal black dotted line represents the total percent of jobs in nonmetropolitan ies in 2021 (roughly 11.68 per-
cent). Clean energy jobs include those from wind, solar, and hydroelectric electric power generation; corn ethanol, woody biomass, and other clean fuels; electricity storage; microgrid, smart grid, and other grid modifications; ENERGY STAR efficient lighting;
high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); and advanced insulation materials. Due to data limitations, jobs are omitted from other clean energy industries, such as geothermal, nuclear energy, traditional transportation, distribution, and storage for clean energy electric vehicles. Fossil fuel jobs include fuel extraction “fuel” jobs and electric power generation, as defined by the U.S. Department of Energy. Traditional TDS jobs (attributable to renewable and fossil fuel generation) are also excluded. Nonmetro- politan jobs are defined using the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions for nonmetropolitan ies d on data from the 2010 Census.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2022 U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER) and total employment information from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
20 Rural America at a Glance
Conclusion
Changes in rural America’s population, poverty, and employment over the last few years reveal three main
findings. First, the rural population is growing again following a decade of negative or near zero growth rates. This growth has been driven by domestic migration rural areas. Second, rural poverty has declined over the last 15 years in most rural ies, but not all, and the declines have been modest. Housing insecurity is an issue for low-income renters, a particularly acute problem for American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic households. Finally, rural employment has almost fully recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic and has
returned to modest annual growth rates similar to prepandemic levels. This report also found that 1 percent of nonmetropolitan employment is in clean energy jobs. Overall, recent results show positive developments in the rural economy.
