We used to have bipolar urban and rural definitions. I believe these were very useful for urban and rural policies. However, nowadays we are discussing urban-rural continuum and integration between these areas. I wonder whether we need to leave all kinds of urban-rural definitions or we need to develop new definitions based on functional relations among urban, rural, transitional areas.
One possible answer is using the concept of the region to provide a larger framework that encompasses related (geographically and economically) more urban and more rural landscapes. Then you can talk about the function each plays in the overall regional economy and community. This also picks up suburbs.
Here in NZ the thinking is shifting towards planning at a landscape scale - ecological regions if you like
Among the main negative impacts of the bipolar urban-rural definitions, on many countries, we have segregated planning approaches and infrastructure, unequal standards of development and quality of life, etc. It has always been and fortunately now is better understood the concept of planning territories where the urban and rural have a common, shared, intertwined and interdependent space, people and resources. A much better approach is certainly planning strategies, policies, monitoring and evaluation of planning sustainable territories (urban and rural) within adequate regional frameworks.
Perhaps we should do away with urban-rural as a binary and call them all human settlements on a sliding and dynamic scale of size, facilities, functions etc. and as already mentioned, part of a region. The only problem that I see in this is that in most countries, ministries and government administrative departments have their own sectoral 'turf'. Any kind of re-classification/ re-visioning of territorial mosaics will require governance reforms to merge/ reorganise sectors, which might not be easy.
It'll be more useful to redefine the phrases rural and urban. Especially on the base of facilities they have. We call "rural" somewhere but have lots of facilities and opportunities like in big cities. We don't need to leave but urban and rural definitions (it'll not be easy) but re-define them.
The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) suggests that transformations in rural economies can be catalyzed by capitalizing on the increasing demand for food in urban areas, with a view to diversifying diets and creating new economic opportunities in off-farm agricultural activities.
This includes institutions that manufacture, refine, pack, transport, store, market or sell food, as well as companies that provide inputs such as seeds, tools, equipment, fertilizers or services such as irrigation, tillage or other services.
The report also noted that the growing demand from urban food markets currently consumes up to 70 percent of national food supplies, even in countries with large rural populations. This is why we need to redefine rural areas even if after a while
A redefinition of the rural/urban dichotomy might be necessary in developed countries where a reasonable level of integration has already been achieved. In Africa, rural conception includes cherished values that are not shared with the urban setting, making a redefinition much more difficult. It is therefore a question of relativity.
Yes, I agree . for us the definition of urban-rural needs to be developed at present, namely the functional relationship between urban, rural, based on local content
- Badges
- Science topic