Giving Compass' Take:
- A study in Iowa found that small rural towns are exposed to more significant health risks than statewide averages.
- How can rural philanthropists address public health issues through place-based initiatives? What are some of the challenges regarding rural healthcare options?
- Learn how to make better investments in rural health.
What is Giving Compass?
We connect donors to learning resources and ways to support community-led solutions. Learn more about us.
Vulnerable populations in small towns face significantly more public health risks than statewide averages, finds new research in Iowa.
Study leader Benjamin Shirtcliff focused on three Iowa towns—Marshalltown, Ottumwa, and Perry—as a proxy for studying shifting populations in rural small towns, in particular how the built environment (where people live and work) and environmental risks affect vulnerable populations there.
Shirtcliff, associate professor of landscape architecture at Iowa State University, wants to understand how small towns can prioritize investment into their built environment for vulnerable populations on the heels of declining economic resources due to population change.
The study found the three towns have significantly higher environmental exposures than state averages, including more exposure to diesel, air toxins, lead paint in older homes, and proximity to potential chemical accidents.
These risks are exacerbated for and increase physical and mental stress on populations with social vulnerability (minority status, low-income, linguistic isolation, below high school education, and populations under age 5 and over 64), which are also significantly higher in the three small towns than state averages.
With the growth of industrialized agriculture over the past few decades, small towns’ populations have shifted: “…what environmental justice advocates describe as a ‘double jeopardy’ of injustice where people with the fewest resources reside in low-income communities with high level of environmental risk and unable defend against social threats like racism,” write Shirtcliff and coauthors in the study in PLOS ONE.
Urban areas benefit from more green space, which would make it seem as if small towns surrounded by green landscapes would have greater benefits. That’s not always the case, Shirtcliff says, due to the routine application of pesticides, fertilizers, and other organic and inorganic toxins.
“There is a rural health paradox: These small towns may appear on the outside that they’re healthier and safer, but the reality is that the metrics cities use are not really compatible,” he says.
Read the full article about rural small towns by Chelsea Davis at Futurity.