rural is not defined but what it is not (as in non-urban or non-metropolitan); and, it is clearly not a residual category. nor is it simply tied to agriculture or other extractive industries (mining, fishing, forestry) although many rural areas are dominated by such activities -- but so are small areas home to manufacturing especially non-durables routinely tied to water power (as in old textile and shoe manufacturing). as well, there is often a marked homogeneity of population -- across multiple sociodemographic characteristics. much written on this subject that uses an interactional framework fr community, a theme different  and distinct from that tied to the community capitals approach. i would suggest looking at the interactional literature including the wokr of kaufman and wilkinson

 Rural has its definition in any country however, I think, it is a population center with dominant occupation of farming/ agribusiness. it may has good access to facilities but a remote area is a region /rural area with low availability because it is located far from metropolitan' or 'urban centers or without good roads and etc. A region also is larger than villages depending or our objective we may divide a large area ie., province, state and ... with specific means into some regions

This paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228657759_O_teorijskim_pristupima_ruralnom_prostoru) gives a theoretical overview on rurality.

Unfortunately, it is written in Croatian, but the main ideas can be found in Summary in English at the end of the paper.

Article O teorijskim pristupima ruralnom prostoru

I have spent a number of years traveling through "rural" areas of Bangladesh on various assignments, and this problem has occurred to me too. My general impressions are: (1) Population density has something to do with it. There are settlements in some rural areas that are very congested, usually poor households of course, people doing day-labor, household servants, and so on. They may not be long-term residents. Focusing on sanitation, we have found these kinds of settlements to have issues similar to those of urban slums. (2) Livelihoods are not all associated with agriculture. They may include fishing, brick-making, trading, or emigration to urban areas or even other countries, sending back remittances. Otherwise, I agree with the previous comments -- especially, that agriculture is a major part of the economy.

In Bangladesh people who work on water and sanitation have been focusing on what they call "hard-to-reach" areas, which you can call remote. The people in these kinds of areas have difficulty accessing urban-type resources (health services, for example) and markets. And government officers, NGOs, and others with information and resources tend to give these areas low priority, because they are physically difficult to reach. Reaching one Bangladesh "union" we worked in, for example, requires a one-hour trip over bad roads and a three-hour boat ride.

thanks for the comments so far. Interesting how definitions and conceptualisations change depending on context. Remote communities in Australia tend to be by definition a long way by road from the nearest service centre, or on islands. They are therefore small but not necessarily poor in economic terms. Some rural communities are remote but most are quite close to urban areas.

The Schools and Social Capital project in Scotland explored questions of rurality and the effects of place and space for rural communities. We found that rural communities are a particular example of the importance of understanding spatio-temportalities for access to particular forms of social capital. Rural communities can have strong social networks whereby norms can operate to exclude particular sections of society and lead to public and other services not being accessed. For example, a 'culture of self-reliance' prevalent in some rural communities, especially with regard to older people, which militates against their seeking assistance and access to welfare benefits entitlements. Also the exclusion of people who are 'different' or have acquired a 'bad reputation', suggesting that particular norms exist and are influential in rural communities.

Further discussion and details for Poverty and Social Exclusion in Rural Scotland (Edinburgh: Scottish Executive) in Arshad, Forbes & Catts (2007) in Scottish Educational Review (39.2, 127-137).

Thanks Joan, that's helpful

Good to come across your own work on trust and social capital. Will read it with interest. Thanks John.

rural is not defined but what it is not (as in non-urban or non-metropolitan); and, it is clearly not a residual category. nor is it simply tied to agriculture or other extractive industries (mining, fishing, forestry) although many rural areas are dominated by such activities -- but so are small areas home to manufacturing especially non-durables routinely tied to water power (as in old textile and shoe manufacturing). as well, there is often a marked homogeneity of population -- across multiple sociodemographic characteristics. much written on this subject that uses an interactional framework fr community, a theme different  and distinct from that tied to the community capitals approach. i would suggest looking at the interactional literature including the wokr of kaufman and wilkinson

Traditionally, rural and urban ways of life were quite distinct, with country dwellers engaged in resource-based primary production, and urbanites employed in the manufacturing or service sectors. Both groups lived close to their workplaces. Widespread use of automobiles after 1950, however, led to ‘time-space convergence’ (Janelle 1969), which extended urban commuting fields (a.k.a. ‘daily urban systems’ or labor market areas) well beyond the city’s built-up area, and greatly altered socio-economic characteristics within this ‘urban field’ (Friedmann and Miller 1965, Berry and Neils 1969, Russwurm 1976, Plane 1981, Stabler 1996). Lewis and Maund (1976) modeled the impacts in terms of migration flows: rural dwellers within commuting range of the city are no longer forced to out-migrate for employment, while concurrently many urbanites move into the countryside. The limit of this commuter zone is typically suggested as around one hour’s drive from major urban employment nodes, which underlines the importance of time use in the structure of modern rural areas. Piecemeal, low-density sprawl often extends well beyond the city limits into the rural-urban fringe (Wehhrwein 1942, Pryor 1968, Bryant et al. 1982, 2000), and large-lot housing development can significantly alter the landscape and social character of the more intensively exurbanized portions of the commuter belt (Lamb 1983, Dahms 1998, Millward 2000, 2002)

Statistics Canada defines larger towns and cities based on both the urban (built-up) area and the commuting (labor market) area (Bunting and Filion 2000, app. A). Urban area is defined as a contiguous area exceeding a population density threshold of 400/km2, while the commuter-shed is a contiguous area within which over 50% of the resident employed labor force (RELF) commute to the central ‘urbanized core’. Since the propensity to commute declines with travel distance and travel time from the city, neither the urbanized core nor commuter belt should be considered as homogenous zones.

Text above from Millward 2010 ( in Beesley, ed)

Thanks for this Hugh. Some good food for thought. In Australia the distinction between urban and rural is fairly clear. If I was to apply the commute time criterion to rural and remote I'd have to say they would be the same but they are not. I wonder if there is a similar distinction in Canada for the rural areas around cities and the remote territories?

John:

Statistics Canada , in addition to the above definition of census metropolitan areas (CMAs) and smaller census agglomerations (CAs) (both of which define labour market areas or commuter belts) also has definitions for "urban-influenced" rural areas. These extend even further out from the cities. Areas that are too remote to be considered as urban-influenced are classed as "remote rural."

Ah interesting, Hugh, thanks for that.

Thanks Alexia. Very useful.

Am sure you are familiar with ABS Remote Index.....and the socio-economic index...rural versus urban - is a about a phenomena - urbanisation, localisation - concepts of periphery/peripheral versus centre/centrality.....economic geography

Yes, Carl, I am. I guess one of my concerns is that the 'centre' tends to define the 'periphery' from its own perspective. In turn, the centre sees anything peripheral as disadvantaged, isolated and perhaps disconnected. The other concern is that 'rural' doesn't fit neatly into the ABS definitions, so when you try to contrast rural and remote they ABS doesn't see them differently. My contention is that rural is often quite different from remote, especially when you start talking about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308351610_Settlements_at_the_Edge_Remote_Human_Settlements_in_Developed_Nations

This book has an interdisciplinary approach to "remoteness". Definitions and conceptualisations vary in the variety of disciplines...

Good conversation - thanks for raising this question

Book Settlements at the Edge: Remote Human Settlements in Developed Nations

Kuhn, M - article attached gives a broader socio-economic perspective of the this phenomena

Thanks Gertrude. I'm a coauthor in one of the chapters and the introductory chapter does provide useful insights in theorizing remoteness. And Carl thanks for that great paper by Kuhn. The only problem I see with Kuhn in relation to rurality and remoteness is that it maintains that polarised view of centre versus periphery. Rural and remote share many of the characteristics that Kuhn describes as peripheral, but qualitatively there are different kinds of periphery that arent explained by these dichotamised characteristics.I'd imagine even in Europe there would be examples. Rural areas of Germany or France would be quite different from the arctic regions, I would imagine, and not just in terms of 'scale' of peripherilsation.

Hi John, 

The use of the term 'remote' is something I have spent a bit of time grappling with in my study, particularly as it relates to Indigenous communities. I lived in community as a teacher for five years and the term was used widely and often to describe the context of our work. I have found the term to be used arbitrarily as a marker of difference between urban centres and what are considered by some as isolated locations (in the geographical sense). By strict geographical definition these ascriptions may hold some 'truth'. If we are to reposition the conversation into fields of knowledge, however, the term becomes problematic. From different perspectives/positions (i.e. perhaps an Indigenous person living on custodial lands) the marker of 'remote' would be false and inappropriate, as the community would function as the epistemological and ontological epicentre for that person's daily life. From the position's we take up as non-Indigenous teachers/researcher/health care workers we can be in danger of constructing Indigenous peoples worlds using our own discursive systems. This may or may not be congruent with people's lived experience. 

Thanks for posting the question, this is a topic I find genuinely interesting.

Cheers

Tim

I can't agree more, Tim. I think similar dynamics occur in rural communities too, though the differences are perhaps more subtle I suspect, except in places where the epistemologies of one group interface with another, say for example in many communities of western new south wales. In the NT, an interesting example arises across Darwin Harbour in the mainly non-Indigenous community of Wagait, and the nearby Indigenous community of Belyuen. Belyuen is considered remote, while Wagait isn't really rural but its not really remote (I can see it from my place in Darwin), even though its classified as such by the ABS. Another one would be Katherine, which is definitely rural, but which is classified as remote.

The Wagait/Belyuen example is interesting! It must be a demography thing. I am curious to know what indicators bodies like the ABS use to determine what is classified as remote/urban/rural...?

Cheers 

TIm