1. Lessons from Iowa's Small Towns: How Communities Can Thrive in Regional Networks
Kimberly Elman Zarecor, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Architecture
Iowa State University
David J. Peters, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology & Extension Rural Sociologist

2. Ostrava, Czech Republic
post-industrial (steel, coal mining), post-socialist
city was subject of Shrink Smart project in (Leipzig)

3. Application of Concept to New Research Question:
Why Are Some Small Communities Able to Protect Quality of Life as They Lose Population?
Research Terms:
Smart Shrinkage = population loss + upward trends in QoL
Decline = population loss + downward trends in QoL
Thrive = population increase + upward trends in QoL
Adverse Growth = population increase + downward trends in QoL

4. New paradigm:
Growth is not the only solution to improved quality of life, most rural communities are shrinking and will continue to get smaller.
Focus on improving life for residents to stabilize populations, economic benefits may or may not follow.

5. Research design Verification step
select and verify shrink-smart communities
develop knowledge base about quality of life in the communities
develop knowledge base about smartness
use data science to find proxy metrics to estimate poll results - both ISTP and pipelines are proxies for measuring quality of life
with results, apply for future funding to test methods in other states, larger communities
Verification step
analytical mapping & spatial analysis
interviews have included mayors, city clerks, members of school board, stakeholders in community groups, local press, bank employees, clergy, and law enforcement
focus groups in June (largely failed to attract attendees)

6. Map showing 99 Iowa Small Town Poll communities coded by QoL metrics:
shrink-smart
declining
thriving
adverse growth
no statistical significance

7. Map of Sheffield and
its regional network

8. The shrinkage problem in Iowa

9. How do you define “shrink”?
Faster than average population loss.
How do you define “smart”?
Faster than average gains in quality of life.
How do you define “small towns”?
Any municipality between 500 and 10,000 people, AND
not adjacent to a city of 50,000 or more in 1990.

10. Iowa Small Towns Project / ISU Smart & Connected Communities Project
Basics …
Every 10 years since 1994.
Focus on community change.
Funded by AFRI-USDA.
Sampling …
Housing units sampled by ZIP.
Response n~200/town.
Mail survey with 5 treatments.
RR3 73% 1994 & 42% 2014.
Selection of Towns …
Exceeding ±0.5 std dev.
and

11. Same shrinkage, different smartness.

12. Demographic and housing differences …
Smart and Vulnerable towns very similar…
Same population. Same percent change loss.
However, less densely populated (larger muni boundaries).
Smart towns are not near large metros, not near major highways, and not near natural amenities.
Elders matter …
Larger and growing shares. (24.2% with 1.7pt gain v. 21.7% with -1.3pt drop)
They can be a community resource!

13. Employment and income differences …
Year-round jobs AND short commutes …
Full-time & full-year jobs. (55.2% with 4.2pt gain v. 50.1% with -3.4pt loss)
Travel time to work. (19mins with 1min gain v. 26 mins with 5min gain)
More manufacturing jobs …
Goods-producing (32.4% with 6.5pt gain v. 26.3% with no gain)
Middle skill & wages, benefits, FTFY, suited to labor force.
Fewer low-end services jobs …
Retail trade, entertainment, accommodation, food, & personal srvs.
Low skill & wages, few benefits, PTPY.
… and because of this less poverty.
Low and stable poverty rates. (12.6% with no gain v. 16.6% with 3.8pt gain)

14. Social capital differences …
Stronger bonding social ties …
Close friends & relatives, more trusting & supportive.
Promotes strong attachment & identity.
Stronger and persistent bridging social ties…
Organizations work for all, new residents as leaders, tolerance, & more open to new ideas.
Promotes collective action (needs, resources, buy-in, longevity).
More linkages both inside & outside community…
More local memberships. Connects people to local power.
More memberships in outside orgs. Connects town to state/national powers.
One provides local resources, the other outside resources.

15. Civic engagement and community pride differences …
More engaged residents …
Half participated in project last year. (50.1% v. 43.1%)
Community supports projects; AND residents more involved in local decision-making.
Confidence!
Town is safer. (82.1 with 5pt gain v with no gain)
Town is better kept-up. (71.5 with no gain v with -9pt drop)
Town has more going for it. (66.8 with 2pt gain v with -9pt drop)

16. Primary Recommendations
Promote civic engagement and social capital.
More participation in local projects (time, money, etc).
Memberships in local clubs & organizations (local resources).
Memberships in outside state/national orgs (outside resources).
Bridging social ties, especially being open to new ideas.
Elders as a community resource.
They have the time, local connections, and resources for projects.
Problem is how to keep them. Importance of senior services.
Why are these primary recommendations?
Inexpensive to implement.
Actionable in near-term. Community has control.

17. Secondary Recommendations
Create jobs in manufacturing, construction, & mining.
Provides good jobs that fit the local labor force.
Middle skills-wages, benefits, FTFY, exporting sectors.
Economic security = active citizens = good QOL.
Eliminates social problems, but not population loss.
Why are these secondary recommendations?
Requires sizable funding.
Requires long-term planning.
Community has little control over national and global economy.

18. How does your community deal with shrinkage?
Discussion
How does your community deal with shrinkage?
What works to get people more open to new ideas?
How to get people to join local clubs?
How do you keep connections to state/national organizations?
What’s the key to recruiting manufacturing to shrinking towns? (Who’s willing to share secrets?)
What is missing?
What are the pitfalls?

21. http://scc.design.iastate.edu Kimberly Elman Zarecor, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Architecture
Iowa State University
David J. Peters, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology & Extension Rural Sociologist