The difficulty companies have in adapting to change is incredibly well documented, but the same difficulties faced by towns and cities much less so.  The problem is significant however, not least as recent political events have highlighted the tremendous difficulties faced when towns lose their lustre and fall on hard times.

A recent study from Iowa State University explored how some towns seem to manage this decline more successfully than others.  The researchers analyzed 99 communities via the Iowa Small Town poll to try and understand what distinguishes towns who manage to ‘shrink smart’.

The poll collects data from 99 towns from across Iowa, each of which had populations of between 500 and 10,000 people in 1990.  The data suggests that towns fall into one of four categories:

• Smart shrinking towns are losing population but gaining in quality of life measures.
• Declining towns are losing both population and quality of life.
• Thriving towns are gaining in both population and quality of life.
• Adverse growing towns are gaining in population but losing in quality of life.

“Instead of seeing population loss as a problem, we need to start looking at it as a process that needs to be managed,” the researchers say.

Smart shrinking

The researchers, who collected survey data about each town since 1994, before then conducting a series of interviews and site visits to the towns, were able to identify a number of key qualities that enabled towns to provide a good quality of life to residents, even if the overall population was shrinking.

For instance, the exemplar towns generally had residents who were more civically engaged with stronger social networks.  Such towns were also more trusting, supportive and tolerant, which helps them to attract both public and private investment, creating a welcoming atmosphere for newcomers and forging bridging social capital.

What’s more, the more successful towns tend to have a strong core of community members who are dedicated to improving their towns, and they can effectively mobilize others to do the same.

“Population in these towns will continue to go down because of factors outside the community’s control,” the authors say. “All of these towns are there because of 19th-century family farms, and they’re part of a 100-year changing economy. It’s not about reversing population loss; it’s about working within that context to stabilize and improve quality of life.”

Economic differences

Whilst the social differences identified above are key, the research also highlighted some economic factors that seem to distinguish more successful towns.  The towns better able to manage their situation tended to have more residents working full-time in jobs with solid, steady wages.  This contrasted with towns where most jobs were in service or leisure-related jobs.

The researchers believe that the wide geographic spread of the towns analyzed suggests that the factors identified are indeed key, as opposed to the proximity of towns to certain urban amenities.

“Focusing on social infrastructure doesn’t cost a lot of money, but it does require leaders and a community that is willing to follow its leaders,” the authors say. “The results of our work are for any small town, whether they’re gaining or losing population.”

The next stage of the research is to utilize data science and visualization to better understand the factors supporting smart shrinkage and to further develop strategies that can be deployed by towns and communities.