The debate of urban versus rural life sustainability has been extensive as it primarily stems from personal preferences. It is doubtless that the urban hinterland, which was once confined to a geographical zone, is a global hinterland today. Although it is widely believed that rural families live in wasteful single-family homes and rely on private cars while urban people reside in well-designed apartments and depend on public transportation, the prospects of the cities are particularly grim (Chambers and Conway, 1991). Let us forget for a moment the efforts that were taken by municipal authorities in promoting sustainability as rural activities, such as cultivation, trading, and artisanal work, pose fewer dangers to the environment (Chambers and Conway 1991). What is indeed conceivable is that rural living is more sustainable than urban life.

The rate of employment in urban areas is gradually sinking every year. While the manufacturing jobs in the United States tend to pay more than the other sectors, the industry has been letting go of employees in recent decades. Across the country, the rate of employment in this industry has declined by 29% from 2004 to 2015 (Hamm, 2013). On the contrary, rural employment has begun to improve from the past recessionary lows. Before 2014, the trend either depicted slow growth or decline. Since 2014, the employment rate has increased by more than 1% although the rate is still 3.2% below the pre-recession peak in 2007. Additionally, the rate of homelessness due to unemployment is more pronounced in urban areas. On average, in every 10,000 people, 29 are homeless in urban areas while the number drops to 14 in the countryside (Girardet, 2013). The urban areas comprise high-skilled individuals, such as scientists, executives, and engineers, in search of high-paying occupations. The lack of opportunity to practice these skills results in homelessness. However, the population in the rural areas is less skilled and mainly comprises analysts and technicians. Their propensity for employment is high as they can work in a range of industries. From this, I believe that rural areas provide more jobs than urban areas.

Waste generation has continually affected sustainable measures more in urban than rural areas. In 2006, the European Union reported an average United States citizen generates 764 kilograms of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year. It is worth noting that the larger the population, the higher the amount of MSW. Statistically, the United States census in 2010 revealed that 80.7% of the population lives in urban while the rest, 19.3%, is located in rural areas (Ciuta & Apostol, 2015). Reasonably, the amount of MSW is about four times more in urban than rural zones. Also, in line with this, MSW in the countryside is organic as it is primarily derived from agriculture while those in cities are mainly inorganic as it is a derivative of manufacturing processes. In a state such as Iowa, where 44% of the population is rural, the accumulation of particles in the air is higher in urban areas (Russell, 2009). This pollution is caused by particles from the combustion of gasoline, especially in diesel-powered machinery. The relatively large population in the countryside is not a factor because the rate of diesel combustion is 230% higher in urban areas. Hence, waste generation is another reason that justifies my claim.

One of the main distinguishing factors in urban life is vast inequalities in socioeconomic status, the presence of marginalized populations based on sex and gender, high rates of violence and crime, and prevalence of psychosomatic stressors that inhibit productive existence. In rural areas, in spite of adverse health behaviors, a majority of aspects of social life contribute to productive existence. These elements include solid social networks, shared life experiences, long-time social ties, reciprocity, norms of self-help, and high-quality life (Sassen, 2010). The community networks have helped to reduce crime and stigma. What is more, a prior review of rural and urban health gave rise to the “epidemiological transition” principle that occurs in highly-populated areas. According to the concept, with the onset of urbanization, the burden of diseases was expected to change from infections to chronic causes. In the olden days, deaths were mainly caused by violence, as well as infectious and degenerative diseases, as people did not live long enough to experience chronic causes such as diabetes and heart disease (Russell, 2009). Although the transition has already occurred (while the rural areas remain in the infectious era), it is meaningful to talk about a “double burden” of diseases, both infectious and chronic. As such, urban living leads to more social-related challenges than in rural setting.

“It is only in the country that we can know a person or a book” is the unspoken statement that our families in the rural areas reiterate (Hamm, 2013). We owe the sustainability of country life to our children and grandchildren, to ensure they enjoy these opportunities related to employment, social services, and appropriate waste management. Most importantly, we owe it to ourselves. It is important to answer one question to ourselves, ‘Will we be the last generation to prefer rural to urban life?’

Works Cited

Chambers, Robert and Conway Gordon R. 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296.https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/775/Dp296.pdf?seq.

Ciuta, Simona and Apostol Tiberius. 2015. Urban and rural MSW stream characterizations for separate collection improvement. Sustainability, 7(1), 916-931.

Girardet, Herbert. 2013. The urban environment. Pisces Foundation Website. piscesfoundation.org/the-urban-environment/. (10-21-2016).

Hamm, Trent. 2013. The city versus rural debate: Which is better place to live? The Simple Dollar Website. http://www.thesimpledollar.com/the-city-versus-rural-debate-which-is-the-better-place-to-live/. (10-21-2016)

Russell, McClendon. 2009. Urban or rural: Which is more efficient? Mother Nature Network Website. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/urban-or-rural-which-is-more-energy-efficient. (10-21-2016).

Sassen, Saskia. 2010. Cities are at the center of our environmental future. Cities and Climate Change, 2(3): 1-32.