Exploring well-being disparities between urban and rural areas: A case study in the Stavropol Territory, Russia

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100114

Abstract

Abstract:

Rural areas are crucial for a country’s sustainable economy. New strategies are needed to develop rural areas to improve the well-being of rural population and generate new job opportunities. This is especially important in countries where agricultural production accounts for a significant share of the gross product, such as Russia. In this study, we identified the key indicators of satisfaction and differences between rural and urban citizens based on their social, economic, and environmental backgrounds, and determined whether there are well-being disparities between rural and urban areas in the Stavropol Territory, Russia. We collected primary data through a survey based on the European Social Survey framework to investigate the potential differences between rural and urban areas. By computing the regional well-being index using principal component analysis, we found that there was no statistically significant difference in well-being between rural and urban areas. Results of key indicators showed that rural residents felt psychologically more comfortable and safer, assessed their family relationships better, and adhered more to traditions and customs. However, urban residents showed better economic and social conditions (e.g., infrastructures, medical care, education, and Internet access). The results of this study imply that we can better understand the local needs, advantages, and unique qualities, thereby gaining insight into the effectiveness of government programs. Policy-makers and local authorities can consider targeted interventions based on the findings of this study and strive to enhance the well-being of both urban and rural residents.

Key words: Well-being, Sustainable development, Rural areas, Urban areas, Principal component, analysis (PCA), Russia

Anastasia CHAPLITSKAYA, Wim HEIJMAN, Johan van OPHEM. Exploring well-being disparities between urban and rural areas: A case study in the Stavropol Territory, Russia[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2024, 5(1): 100114.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Rotated component loadings for individual indicator based on PCA."

Dimension	Variable	PC				Squared factor loading scaled to unity sum up to 1.00
Dimension	Variable	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4	1	2	3	4
Economic well-being	Possession of wealth and luxury	0.14	0.11	0.18	0.79	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.34
	Special advantages by tax authorities	0.57	0.26	‒0.04	0.28	0.09	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Good transport system	0.25	0.11	0.51	0.35	0.00	0.00	0.12	0.00
	Citizen’s interests cared for by government	0.63	0.20	0.17	0.33	0.11	0.00	0.00	0.00
Education and work	Fair access to advanced education	0.34	0.20	0.25	0.53	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.15
	Having a fair chance of getting a job	0.20	0.10	0.19	0.77	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.33
	Decent living for the unemployed people	0.80	0.14	0.20	0.05	0.18	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Good standard of living for pensioners	0.77	0.04	0.24	0.12	0.17	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Affordable childcare for working parents	0.54	0.31	0.36	0.05	0.08	0.00	0.00	0.00
Social relationship	All relatives live here	0.11	0.40	0.06	0.11	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Trustworthy and friendly people around	0.20	0.64	0.12	0.19	0.00	0.14	0.00	0.00
	No possibility of going elsewhere	0.65	0.36	0.03	0.32	0.12	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Thinking of new ideas and being creative	0.32	0.36	0.47	0.28	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Following the traditions and customs	0.21	0.49	0.49	‒0.02	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Social life and social activities around here	0.31	0.24	0.63	0.19	0.00	0.00	0.18	0.00
	Social benefits or services	0.71	0.26	0.18	0.16	0.14	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Having an exciting life	0.12	0.26	0.76	0.21	0.00	0.00	0.26	0.00
	Internet access on multiple devices	0.25	0.23	0.60	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.16	0.00
Security	Living in secure and safe surroundings	0.18	0.67	0.27	0.12	0.00	0.16	0.00	0.00
Security	Housing and living environment	0.14	0.67	0.23	0.27	0.00	0.16	0.00	0.00
Health	Good provision of health care	0.34	0.28	0.06	0.57	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.18
	Quality of food	0.18	0.60	0.18	0.31	0.00	0.12	0.00	0.00
	Water and sanitation	0.13	0.60	0.28	0.32	0.00	0.13	0.00	0.00
	Opportunity for fitness and health	‒0.03	0.22	0.78	0.17	0.00	0.00	0.28	0.00
Environment	Good care for nature and the environment	0.03	0.61	0.18	0.27	0.00	0.13	0.00	0.00
	No harmful toxic production	0.18	0.68	0.22	0.00	0.00	0.16	0.00	0.00
	Care about climate change	0.63	0.03	0.10	0.10	0.11	0.00	0.00	0.00
Total eigenvalue		10.01	2.15	1.44	1.35
Proportion of variance (%)		0.67	0.14	0.10	0.09

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Comparison of well-being variables between rural and urban respondents based on the scores of Likert scale."

Dimension	Variable	Urban respondents		Rural respondents		P value
Dimension	Variable	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	P value
Economic well-being	Possession of wealth and luxury	2.50	1.41	2.10	1.29	0.01^**
	Special advantages by tax authorities	2.00	1.38	2.10	1.43	0.20
	Good transport system	3.00	1.39	2.50	1.47	0.00^***
	Citizen’s interests cared for by government	2.40	1.49	2.60	1.40	0.30
Education and work	Fair access to advanced education	2.70	1.50	2.40	1.41	0.01^*
	Having a fair chance of getting a job	2.50	1.42	2.20	1.38	0.10
	Decent living for the unemployed people	2.20	1.58	2.40	1.44	0.08
	Good standard of living for pensioners	1.90	1.47	2.10	1.36	0.24
	Affordable childcare for working parents	2.60	1.62	3.00	1.51	0.02^*
Social relationship	All relatives live here	3.40	1.68	3.90	1.41	0.00^**
	Trustworthy and friendly people around	2.90	1.46	3.20	1.47	0.12
	No possibility of going elsewhere	2.40	1.49	2.50	1.51	0.50
	Thinking of new ideas and being creative	2.80	1.58	2.90	1.60	0.49
	Following the traditions and customs	3.00	1.63	3.60	1.54	0.00^***
	Social life and social activities around here	2.70	1.58	2.90	1.47	0.17
	Social benefits or services	2.40	1.59	2.50	1.45	0.60
	Having an exciting life	3.00	1.52	3.10	1.49	0.55
	Internet access on multiple devices	3.30	1.49	2.90	1.47	0.02^*
Security	Living in secure and safe surroundings	3.20	1.44	3.60	1.53	0.01^*
Security	Housing and living environment	3.00	1.46	3.30	1.42	0.03^*
Health	Good provision of health care	2.50	1.36	2.20	1.27	0.02^*
	Quality of food	2.90	1.40	3.10	1.46	0.11
	Water and sanitation	3.00	1.48	3.10	1.44	0.78
	Opportunity for fitness and health	3.50	1.53	3.20	1.62	0.06
Environment	Good care for nature and the environment	3.10	1.53	3.00	1.60	0.56
	No harmful toxic production	3.00	1.58	3.40	1.65	0.03^*
	Care about climate change	2.10	1.65	2.00	1.38	0.27

Table 7

Fig. 1.

References 44

[1]	Afonasova, M.A., 2018. Problem of measuring the quality of life in rural areas of the Russian Federation. Economic Science. 11(77), doi: 10.23670/IRJ.2018.77.11.049 (in Russian).
[2]	Balandin, D.A., 2018. Theoretical aspects of rural infrastructure development. J. Econ. Theory. 3, 442-448.
[3]	Bentley Brymer, A.L., Toledo, D., Spiegal, S., et al., 2020. Social-ecological processes and impacts affect individual and social well-being in a rural western US landscape. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 38, doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00038.
[4]	Berry, B.J., Okulicz-Kozaryn, A., 2011. An urban-rural happiness gradient. Urban Geogr. 32(6), 871-883. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.32.6.871
[5]	Britannica, T., 2017. Encyclopedia Britannica. [2024-01-12]. https://www.britannica.com/place/Stavropol-Stavropol-region-Russia.
[6]	Burger, M.J., Morrison, P.S., Hendriks, M., et al., 2020. Urban-rural happiness differentials across the world. In: World Happiness Report. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
[7]	De Neve, J.E., Sachs, J.D., 2020. Sustainable development and human well-being. In: World Happiness Report. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. New York, USA.
[8]	Diener, E., Biswas-Diener, R., 2002. Will money increase subjective well-being? Soc. Indic. Res. 57, 119-169.
[9]	ESS European Social Survey, 2018. About the European Social Survey European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ESS ERIC). [2024-01-05]. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org.
[10]	FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2024. AQUASTAT Country Profile-Russian Federation. [2024-01-16]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#country/185.
[11]	Federal State Statistice Service, 2023. Stavropol Krai in Figures for 2015-2022. [2023-01-20]. https://eng.rosstat.gov.ru/ (in Russian).
[12]	Fikhtner, O.A., Shvedina, S.A., 2019. Sustainable Development Management of Rural Areas of the Region. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 341, 012034, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/341/1/012034.
[13]	Gerasimov, A.N., Gromov, E.I., Grigoryeva, et al., 2022. Prospects for the development of export-oriented agricultural production in the Stavropol Region. In: Popkova, E.G., Sozinova, A.A. (eds.). AgroTech. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-3555-8_9.
[14]	Gifford, R., 2014. Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65(1), 541-579. doi: 10.1146/psych.2013.65.issue-1
[15]	Gordeev, A.V., 2017. Agro-industrial COMPLEX AICP. The Big Russian Encyclopedia. [2023-06-22]. https://bigenc.ru/text/5047866?ysclid=l4q1t4e2xr778520248.
[16]	Helliwell, J.F., Putnam, R.D., 2004. The social context of well-being. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 359(1449), 1435-1446. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1522
[17]	Huffman, S.K., Rizov, M., 2018. Life satisfaction and diet in transition: Evidence from the Russian longitudinal monitoring survey. Agric. Econ. 49(5), 563-574. doi: 10.1111/agec.2018.49.issue-5
[18]	Huppert, F.A., So, T.T., 2013. Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 110, 837-861.
[19]	Ibragimov, A.G., Platonovsky, N.G., Mukhametzyanov, R.R., 2022. Socio-economic situation of the Russian rural population: Status and problems. Geo-Economy of the Future: Sustainable Agriculture and Alternative Energy, 345-353.
[20]	Igić, M., Mitković, P., DinićBranković, M., et al., 2020. Impact of climate change on rural development and rural built environment: Case study settlements within the Region of the Southern and Eastern Serbia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 410(1), 012007, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/410/1/012007.
[21]	Ioffe, G., Nefedova, T., De Beurs, K., 2014. Agrarian transformation in the Russian breadbasket: contemporary trends as manifest in Stavropol. Post-Sov. Aff. 30(6), 441-463.
[22]	Kahneman, D., Deaton, A., 2010. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107(38), 16489-16493.
[23]	Keniger, L.E., Gaston, K.J., Irvine, K., et al., 2013. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 10(3), 913-935. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10030913
[24]	Kluza, K., 2020. When rural boroughs turn into inner peripheries: A link between their socioeconomic characteristics and distance to large cities. Regional Studies, Regional Science. 7(1), 75-91. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2020.1733437
[25]	Meerstra-de Haan, E., Haartsen, T., Meier, S., et al., 2020. An initiators’ perspective on the continuity of citizens’ initiatives in rural areas. Rural Sociol. 85(1), 213-234. doi: 10.1111/ruso.v85.1
[26]	Mkrtchyan, G.M., Blam, I.Y., Kovalev, S.Y., et al., 2018. Impact of climate change on the subjective well-being of households in Russia. Regional Research of Russia. 8, 281-288.
[27]	Nefedova, T.G., Mkrtchyan, N.V., 2017. Migration of rural population and dynamics of agricultural employment in the regions of Russia. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. (5), 58-67 (in Russian).
[28]	Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S., Boylaud, O., 2008. Summary Indicators of Product and Market Regulation with an Extension to Employment Protection Legislation. [2023-09-08]. https://www.oecd.org/eco/eco.
[29]	Nigmatullina, G.R., Baibulatov, A.R., Gumerova, R.R., 2022. Directions of sustainable development of the economy of rural territories. Managerial Accounting. (1-3), 441-447 (in Russian).
[30]	Nissi, E., Sarra, A., 2018. A measure of well-being across the Italian urban areas: An integrated DEA-entropy approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 136(3), 1183-1209. doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1535-7
[31]	Ojala, M., 2012. How do children cope with global climate change? Coping strategies, engagement, and well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 32(3), 225-233. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.004
[32]	Oliveira, S., Zêzere, J.L., 2020. Assessing the biophysical and social drivers of burned area distribution at the local scale. J. Environ. Manage. 264, 110449, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110449.
[33]	O’Loughlin, J., Panin, A., Witmer, F., 2007. Population change and migration in Stavropol’ Kray: The effects of regional conflicts and economic restructuring. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 48(2), 249-267.
[34]	Pecl, G.T., Araújo, M.B., Bell, J.D., et al., 2017. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science. 355(6332), eaai9214, doi: 10.1126/science.aai9214.
[35]	Romanyuk, M., Lichko, K., 2019. About strategic planning in the Russian Federation. Economics of Agriculture in Russia. Timiryazev Agricultural Academy. 6, 100-105.
[36]	Ronen, T., Kerret, D., 2020. Promoting sustainable wellbeing: Integrating positive psychology and environmental sustainability in education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 17(19), 6968, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17196968.
[37]	Sørensen, J.F., 2014. Rural-urban differences in life satisfaction: Evidence from the European Union. Regi. Stud. 48(9), 1451-1466.
[38]	Steklova, T.N., Lescheva, M.G., Uryadova, T.N., et al., 2021. Critical Aspects of Developing Social Infrastructure in Rural Areas of the Stavropol Region in Russia. Cham: Springer.
[39]	Supule, I., 2020. Community school model: Is it an alternative for school closures in rural territories? East. Eur. Countrys. 25(1), 171-194.
[40]	Taherdoost, H., 2017. Determining sample size; how to calculate survey sample size. International Journal of Economics and Management Systems. 2, 237-239.
[41]	Thoits, P.A., 2011. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J. Health Soc. Behav. 52(2), 145-161. doi: 10.1177/0022146510395592 pmid: 21673143
[42]	Uryadova, T.N., Leshcheva, M.G., Steklova, T.N., et al., 2021. Economic Foundations for Developing Human Resources in the Stavropol Region of Russia. Cham: Springer.
[43]	Vorobyov, S., Bugai, Y., 2019. Factors of socio-economic development of rural areas. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 395(1), 012109, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/395/1/012109.
[44]	Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska, A., 2021. Rural areas endangered with depopulation as problem areas - the example of Poland. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu. 65(4), 158-170. doi: 10.15611/pn.2021.4

Parameter		Frequency in urban areas	Frequency in rural areas
Gender	Male	99±39.4	51±32.7
Gender	Female	152±60.6	105±67.3
Age	≤30 years old	121±48.2	60±38.5
	31-40 years old	29±11.6	12±7.7
	41-50 years old	52±20.7	45±28.8
	51-60 years old	25±10.0	16±10.3
	>60 years old	24±9.6	23±14.1
Civil status	Married or in a civil partnership	116±46.2	91±58.3
	Single, divorced, or widowed	122±48.7	60±39.3
	No response	13±5.2	5±3.2
Having children	Yes	134±53.4	109±69.9
Having children	No	117±46.6	47±30.1
Education	Incomplete secondary school	22±8.8	13±8.3
	Secondary school	32±12.7	28±17.9
	Upper secondary school or vocational training	83±33.1	59±37.9
	University	101±40.2	51±32.7
	Postgraduate	13±5.2	5±3.2
Occupation	Employee	139±55.4	83±53.2
	Self-employed	33±13.1	13±8.3
	Working for own family business	19±7.6	6±3.8
	Not applicable	60±23.9	54±34.6

Principal component (PC)	Extraction sums of squared loadings			Rotation sums of squared loadings
Principal component (PC)	Eigenvalue	Total variance	Cumulative variance	Eigenvalue	Total variance	Cumulative variance
PC1	10.01	37.09	37.09	4.44	16.44	16.44
PC2	2.15	7.98	45.07	4.20	15.56	32.00
PC3	1.43	5.31	50.38	3.43	12.70	44.71
PC4	1.35	5.00	55.38	2.88	10.68	55.38

PC	Cronbach’s alpha value
Society and economy	0.86
Ecology and security	0.86
Society and communication	0.81
Human capital and opportunities	0.78
All items	0.93