Theoretical approaches of methods to delimitate rural and urban areas

Open access

Theoretical approaches of methods to delimitate rural and urban areas

The delimitation of rural and urban municipalities as well as the delimitation of contiguous rural areas has not been sufficiently resolved in either academic literature or legislative practice. In relation to the scale and size of their administrative units, different countries use very different methods for delimiting rural municipalities that are based on simple counts of the population, on a municipality's position in the system of public administration or on a combination of multiple socio-economic factors. For the delimitation of rural areas, the various EU member states utilize a method based on population density in relatively large NUTS III regions. This article discusses divergent approaches to the delimitation of rural municipalities, on the one hand, and the delimitation of contiguous rural areas, on the other. Concepts concerning the delimitation of rural municipalities, along with differing characteristics leading to the delimitation of rural municipalities for the statistical processing of large amounts of data or characteristics for subjective evaluations of a small group of units, are discussed using the example of Czechia's settlement structure. The article then focuses on the critical evaluation of methods used for the delimitation of rural areas and, on the basis of various tested variations, proposes a new method for delimiting rural areas in Czechia, using modified OECD criteria. Changes arising both from the significantly smaller units of observation, where instead of considering units at the NUTS III level - regions (kraj) in Czechia, we consider 384 administrative regions of Municipalities with Extended Powers (MEP), as well as from variable changes to the critical values of population density so as to better account for the Czech settlement structure. The article emphasizes the necessity of using different approaches in studying the delimitation of rural municipalities and rural areas, at various scale levels, and the inappropriateness of using the methods of delimitation for rural areas that are currently used for all EU member states, at the national scale.

ANDRLE, A. & SRB, V. (1988). Nová koncepce pojmů město a venkov a její význam pro geografii. Sborník Československé geografické společnosti 93(2), 103-115.

BERČÍK, P. & LOVECKÝ, P. (2004). Územní změny obcí v SR, Bratislava: Ministerstvo vnútra SR.

BITE, D., RASNACA L. & SAULAJA I., (2008). Employers in Rural Towns. In Majerová, V. (Ed.), Countryside - our world (pp. 223-232), Praha: Czech university of Life and Science.

BLAŽEK, B. (2005). Venkovy anamnéza, diagnóza, terapie, Praha: ERA group.

CLOKE, P. (1977). An index of rurality for England and Wales. Regional Studies 11(1), 31-46. Doi: 10.1080/09595237700185041.

CLOKE, P. & EDWARDS, G. (1986). Rurality in England and Wales 1981: A Replication of the 1971 Index, Regional Studies, 20(4), 289-306. Doi: 10.1080/09595238600185271.

CZAPIEWSKI, K. L. (2008). Sustainability and Success - a case study of Mazowie region. Europa XXI, 17, 45-54.

HAMPL, M. & MÜLLER, J. (1998). Jsou obce v České republice příliš malé? Geografie, Sborník České geografické společnosti, 1998 (1), 1-12. HOGGART, K. (1988). Not a definition of rural, Area, 20(1), 35-40.

HURBÁNEK, P. (2008). Recent developments in definitions of rurality/urbanity focus on spatial aspect and land cover composition and configuration. Europa XXI, 17, 9-27.

FÁZIKOVÁ, M. & LACINA, P. (2001). Teoretické a metodologické prístupy pre vymedzenie vidieckeho priestoru, Acta oeconomica et informatica 4(2), 34-38.

ILLNER M. (2006). Are Czech Rural Municipalities too Small? In Majerová, V. (Ed.), Countryside - our world (pp. 357-368), Praha: Czech University of Agriculture.

JOHNSTON, R. J. et.al. (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography, 4th ed., Oxford: Blackwell.

OUŘEDNÍČEK, M. (2002). Suburbanizace v kontextu urbanizačního procesu. In Sýkora, L. (Ed.), Suburbanizace a její sociální, ekonomické a ekologické důsledky (pp. 39-54). Praha: Ústav pro ekopolitiku.

PILEČEK, J., & JANČÁK, V. (2010). Je možné měřit sociální kapitál? Analýza územního diferenciace okresů Česka. Geografie, 115(1), 78-95.

PIZZOLI, E., & GONG, X. (2007). How to Best Classify Rural and Urban? In Lenders, S., Lauwers, L. & Kerselaers, E. (Ed.), Rural-Urban Delimitation. A Statistical Analysis Merelbeke: ILVA.

PERLÍN, R. (2003). Předpoklady rozvoje českého venkova. In Vávra V. (Ed.), Funkce politiky v agrárním sektoru a rozvoji venkova v nejdůležitějších typech regionů v období před a po vstupu do EU. Praha: Výzkumný ústav zemědělské ekonomiky.

PEZZINI, M. (2001). Rural policy lessons from OECD countries. International Regional Science Review 24(1), 134-145. Doi: 10.1177/016001701761013024.

PRYOR, R., J. (1968). Defining the Rural-Urban Fringe. Social Forces, 47(2), 202-215.

SEIDL, T. & CHROMÝ, P. (2010). Problémy integrace marginálního území do regionálního systému: přílad Vojenského újezdu Boletice. Geografie, 110(1), 44-63.

SARACENO, E. (1994). Recent Trends in Rural Development and their Conceptualisation, Journal of Rural Studies, 10(4), 321-330. Doi: 10.1016/0743-0167(94)90042-6.

WOODS, M. (1998). Advocating Rurality? The Repositioning of Rural Local Government, Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 13-26. Doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(97)00044-2.

European Countryside

The Journal of Mendel University in Brno

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.78

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.265
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.607

Cited By

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 95 95 29
PDF Downloads 31 31 12