Chapter VI Sustainable Development of the Area

8/13/2019 Chapter VI Sustainable Development of the Area

1/52

Peri-urban and rural resources have been exploited for urban use throughout urban history.However, the rate and scale of resource depletion and degradation have recently becomeproblematic as the scale of urbanism has grown and as resource scarcity has increased. The mostbasic such resource is water, abstracted through reservoirs, treatment plants, and a piped reticu-lation system. However, the spread of boreholes and shallow wells in suburban and peri-urbanareas to support growing numbers of people (including a proportion utilizing many water-

intensive modern appliances living where there is no piped supply often lowers the water ta-ble below the level of tree roots, causing shade and fruit trees to die. !echarge during the rainyseason is commonly inade"uate to sustain such long-term pressure on the resource.#rban and peri-urban construction re"uires ever larger "uantities of sand, gravel and roc$s,commonly extracted from modest borrow pits or "uarries of varying size in the P#%. &om-pensation to local landowners varies but rehabilitation of exhausted sites remains rare. 'partfrom visual disamenity (a low priority to poor residents, surrounding areas can suffer dam-age from the actual "uarrying and as a result of heavy dust deposition. %f clays and other soilsare suitable for bric$ or cement ma$ing, the scale of operations will increase, and the prob-lems be exacerbated. ater may be abstracted for use in "uarrying) the re"uirements for ce-ment or bric$ ma$ing are heavy. Pools of water in abandoned wor$ings provide ready breeding

grounds for disease vectors. *ometimes such wor$ings are used as landfill sites for urbanrefuse (see below, which may fill the holes but can cause other problems unless the site is ap-propriately prepared and maintained (+, , /, /0.ood, reeds, and grasses are widely usedconstruction, fencing, and roofing materials.#nsustainable harvesting practices damage theenvironment, and loss of ground cover pro-motes soil erosion. 1verexploitation of partic-ular species contributes to the decline of birds,mammals, and insects dependent on them andcontributes to biodiversity loss.aste 2isposal and &ontaminationThe widespread location ofpolluting infras-tructure, such as refuse dumps and sewagetreatment plans, in the P#% imposesnegativeexternalities on local residents. These com-prise disturbance from large numbers ofdumptruc$s, sewage tan$ers, and livestoc$ trans-porters traversing $ey roads) smell and po-tentially disease-carrying vectors such as flies,mos"uitoes, and rodents) and contaminationof soil and groundwater by leachate because few such facilities are ade"uately designed andmaintained. The associated ine"uity and distributional issues are underscored by the generalabsence or gross inade"uacy of sanitary facilities and other services for peri-urban residents,who are mostly reliant on pit latrines (the inappropriate siting of which also often contributesto groundwater contamination, use of nearby streams or bushland, and unmaintained com-munal refuse dumps. 'll of these have negativeenvironmental implications.!ivers flowing throughma3or urban areas commonly emerge with a heavy pollution load,ranging from raw sewage tohousehold refuse and a coc$tail of industrial and chemical effluent, much of it hazardous to health.The lac$ of on-site industrial waste capture and treatment facilities, and4or the inade"uacy ofregulations and enforcement to avoid such contamination, arises through na$ed corporate self-

interest, inade"uate municipal or government capacity and often corruption of enforcementofficials. Peri-urban residents downstream of cities are thus forced to drin$ and utilize contaminatedwater, to eat and catch fish that may have unsafe levels of heavy metals and other toxins in theirbody tissue, and so forth. &ontamination levels are often many times higher than the respectiveorld Health 1rganization limits. %n extreme cases, people are forced to see$ alternative, in-evitably more costly water and protein sources or to suffer the health conse"uences (+, /,/5.#sually, the poorest households and members of the community, who are least able toresist the changes or to access alternative resources or livelihood activities, are the most vul-nerable. The evidence from a wide variety of situations also points to increasing wealth dis-parities and social differentiation among both indigenous residents and immigrants as peri-urbanization proceeds. P#%s become increasingly closely integrated with urban economies

and resource flows, albeit in changing ways and affecting different sets of people at differentstages. This underscores the urban footprint concept, namely the extent of the wider areare"uired to support a city and its people.


2/52

&16&7#*%16*This review has bro$en with convention by see$ing to explore environmental issues andproblems at the P#% or urban fringe in diverse contexts worldwide rather than 3ust in aparticular category of countries or geographical region. 6evertheless, in order to illustratesome of the differences and similarities between groups of countries defined in terms of histori-cal political economies, they have been assessed separately. However, this should not be ta$en

as implying that they constitute somehow internally coherent or homogeneous groupings.1n the contrary, their diversity is profound, and the connections across groups are increas-ing. 8oreover, despite that, the evidence surveyed shows that many processes, concerns, andproblems are similar, perhaps varying in extent, severity, and li$ely impact, if only becauseof the differing resource bases, median living standards, and institutional capacities. %n thefuture, such categorizations may be superfluous. 6ew technologies, e.g., aircraft re"uiringlonger runways and larger terminals, increase the land and infrastructural re"uirements ev-erywhere) the same applies to the spread of mobile telephone transmitters and elite andmiddle-class recreational land uses,such as golf courses in the urban fringe4edge city and P#%.7and-use conflicts and changes to traditional livelihoods are almost inevitable in suchwww.annualreviews.org 9 Peri-#rban :nvironmental %ssues /;

situations of flux and dynamic activity changes. &oncerns about the loss of often high-potentialagricultural land are universal, although the significance for local or national self-reliance andfor households affected may be very different. ' smallholder or farmer selling his land to ahousing developer in :urope or 6orth 'merica is in a very different position to a subsistenceperi-urban household in 'frica or 'sia having its family plot in communal lands sold from un-der it by the chief or village elders. 7andfill sites and sewage treatment wor$s occur everywhere)however, construction standards and maintenance levels vary considerably, with the great-est redress available to citizens with the greatest means and in countries where the standards are,ironically, highest.&apitalist globalization is weaving the world ever more tightly into an integrated systemdriven by profit see$ing. ithin this context,mar$ets, commodity flows, and human migra-tion operate and articulate at various scales and through diverse spaces. Previously sepa-rate areas with distinct identities and activit ymixes are becoming lin$ed through ongoing*imon use and modern technologies, and oftenless sustainable, 3ust as sustainability and the li$ely impact of global environmental change (?:&are beginning to feature more prominently on public agendas. ?iven the dynamic but urban-izing land-use mix and population structure in P#%s, these interface zones will contribute in-creasingly to ?:& over time, as well as experience its impacts. #rban footprints of all butthe smallest, most local service centers are actually increasing as resources are ac"uired fromever-larger areas, even globally. aste disposal also covers greater distances as it is differenti-ated and dumped or recycled. 'lthough unrecyclable and organic waste may go no further

than a peri-urban municipal landfill site or incinerator, scrap metal and old computers maycross the world for smelting and reclamation of valuable metals.%n view of the diversity of conditions prevailing within and between countries, strategies to


3/52

improve conditions will necessarily have to be designed for local appropriateness. &ertainly,no blueprint or off-the-shelf solutions will be wor$able. However, a few broad policy implica-tions can be derived from the available evidence and on the basis of the above review.@irst, each cityAs P#% needs to be included within the urban planning system because itforms part of the functional urban area and the urban ecological footprint. 8any large citiesand conurbations are hamstrung by the lac$ ofa strategic or integrated planning mechanism

that transcends their constituent local authority boundaries. 8oreover, the fact that P#%scommonly straddle a substantial number of urban and surrounding rural local authorities un-derscores the necessity of establishing such a integrated metropolitan planning system. Thiswould also facilitate the urgent challenge of addressing ?:& at the scale of functional urbanareas rather than 3ust the contiguous built-up zones.*econd, effective planning for such an extended geographical area will re"uire ade-"uate and appropriate levels of local authority and metropolitan capacity and resources. %nmany poorer countries, governance capacity is totally inade"uate. Third, and lin$ed to thesecond point, is that the P#%As dynamic nature demands a flexibility of planning mechanismsand institutions that is seldom evident even for the fully built-up urban area under any systemof governance. %n particular, a rather different balance between permissive and restrictive

planning and development control is needed.@ourth, fast-growing urban areas in many poor countries are characterized by conflictsbetween estern-derived and individualized land tenure systems and those of indigenousorigin, which have traditionally been based on communal principles. %nclusion of the P#%within the planning system may increase this complexity by including more communal landalbeit areas where individualization of tenure is occurring rapidly.@ifth, many urban mayors or governors and their administrations have little if any commit-ment to the P#% or concern for issues there. This reflects their urban orientation plus thelower concentrations of infrastructure, buildings, and voters in the P#% relative to coreurban zones. &hanging such attitudes is essential and might most effectively be achievedby means of practical and financial demonstration of the interrelationships between ur-ban and P#%s. @ollowing directly from this is the sixth and final implication, namely the im-perative of formulating and implementing sustainable strategies to address the often con-flicting resource and service demands of rich and poor people, who are commonly concen-trated in separate and highly segregated neighborhoods. 'lthough historically, P#% residentshave been relatively and4or absolutely poor, outmigration of wealthier people to constructlarge houses on cheaper land in the P#% often changes the socioeconomic profile of resi-dents, perhaps thereby adding BvoiceC to P#% constituencies.*#88'!D P1%6T*. #rban fringe4peri-urban interface (P#% issues are widespread nowadays but have dif-fering significance and importance according to various factors, including land tenure

systems, rate and scale of urbanization, availability of employment, standards of livingand median incomes, resources, and the capacity of local governance institutions.0. 'lthough generally considered a present-day phenomenon, new archaeological ev-idence suggests strongly that important P#%s4zones may have characterized ma3or(preindustrial cities in different world regions.5. %n western :urope and 6orth 'merica, counterurbanization during the late ;>s and;/>s focused attention on the urban fringe and beyond) more recent beltway4edge citydevelopments have changed the nature of pressures there and focused attention anewon land-use zoning and planning. :nvironmental concerns are less prominent in @rancethan the #nited Eingdom and 6orth 'merica.. &hinese urbanization and peri-urbanization has been unprecedented in rate, scale, and

distribution, combining mass migration with in situ rural urbanization and industrial-ization. The huge environmental costs of unbridled economic modernization are nowbelatedly receiving urgent official attention.


4/52

+. Eey P#% issues in poor and middle-income countries include the rate and scale of land-use and land-cover change, loss of agricultural land but also some new opportunitiesfor commercial mar$et-oriented cultivation of higher-value crops, unsustainable use anddepletion of both renewable and nonrenewable resources, and the environmental andhealth impacts of urban landfills and waterborne wastes.www.annualreviews.org 9 Peri-#rban :nvironmental %ssues

=. %ntensifying globalization is integrating traditionally rural, peri-urban, and urban spacesincreasingly closely, both within and also across national boundaries. 'lthough oftenstill sharp, similarities and differences in the nature of peri-urban environmental issuesaround the world appear to be becoming more comparable as urban footprints extend.The impacts of global environmental change will also be felt increasingly across thesetransition zones.@#T#!: %**#:*. *trategic4integrated urban planning is needed across numerous local authority bound-aries (including different categories of local authority.0. :nsuring that local4metropolitan government has ade"uate capacity and resources.

5. :nsuring that planning systems in contexts of dynamic change remain flexible.. &onflicts between different land tenure and planning systems need resolution.+. Political commitment to peri-urban4fringe issues is often regarded as marginal by therespective local authorities.. &onflicting resource demands of rich and poor people need to be addressed with sus-tainable strategies.

2efining PeriurbanF

#nderstanding !ural#rban 7in$ages and

Their &onnection to %nstitutional &ontexts

2avid 7. %a"uinta

6ebras$a esleyan #niversity

*ociology4'nthropology4*ocial or$


5/52

+>>> *aint Paul 'venue

7incoln, 6: =+>0/; #.*.'.

dliG6ebresleyan.edu

'xel . 2rescher

erderring ) /;>=+ @reiburg

#niversity of @reiburg4?ermany

*ection on 'pplied ?eography of

the Tropics and *ubtropics ('PT

'xel.2rescherGsonne.unifreiburg.de

'pril 0+, 0>>>

Portions of this paper were developed with support from the Partnership Programme of

the @ood and 'griculture 1rganization of the #nited 6ations (@'1. The results are part

of a spontaneously generated collaborative pro3ect carried out by the authors wor$ing on

the sub3ect of urban and periurban agriculture (#P'. 2avid 7. %a"uinta was sponsored

by The 7and Tenure *ervice (*2'' in cooperation with 6ebras$a esleyan #niversity

(#*'. 'xel . 2rescher was sponsored by The !ural %nstitutions and Participation

*ervice (*2'! in cooperation with @reiburg #niversity (?ermany. The views

expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not imply any official position on

the part of the @ood and 'griculture 1rganization or the #nited 6ations. 6o portions of

this wor$ may be reproduced by means electronic or otherwise without the expressedwritten consent of the authors.

Table of &ontents

%6T!12#&T%16

0 P:!%#!'6 '* ' &16&:PT

5 ' P:!%#!'6 TDP171?D '62 !:7'T:2 %6*T%T#T%16'7 &16T:IT* 5

5.


6/52

Typology of Periurban

5.. +

Jillage Periurban or Perirural (K!uralK places with KurbanK consciousness +

5..0 +

2iffuse Periurban (%nmigration from various places /

5..5

&hain Periurban (%nmigration from a single place

5..

%nplace Periurban

5..+

'bsorbed Periurban

5.0 /

7in$s between Periurban types

5.5 =

%nstitutional &ontexts ;

5.5. >

The (6etwor$ %nduced %nstitutional &ontext

5.5.0

'malgamated %nstitutional &ontext 0

5.5.5!econstituted %nstitutional &ontext

5.5.

Traditional %nstitutional &ontext

5.5.+

!esidual %nstitutional &ontext (Traditionalism

5


7/52

'PP7%&'T%16* '62 %**#:*

. 'n 'pplication of the Typology to 7and Tenure and Population 5

.0 %ssues !emaining +

%7%1?!'PHD ;

:6261T:* 0+

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

%ntroduction

%ncreasingly, policy ma$ers and researchers are ac$nowledging the potential role urban and

periurban environments play in alleviating food insecurity and enhancing the nutritional status of

urban poor and marginalized people (2rescher and %a"uinta ;;;. 's #P' itself has become

more prevalent, so too has our awareness of its potential and limitations. #nfortunately, research

and policy discussion surrounding #P' have been hampered byF

M a lac$ of participation and support from international organizations,

M often negative attitudes by elected policy ma$ers,

M inade"uate organizational structures,

M oversimplification of issues and relationships, and

M the failure to ade"uately define fundamental terminology involved in #P'.

There is also an increasing perception that rural, periurban, and urban environments operateas a system rather than independently and that rural development and urban planning are

necessarily lin$ed activities. 'ctivities or interventions in one arena have conse"uences inthe

other, often negative. 1n the other hand, creative policies can turn liabilities into resources and

bridge the ruralurban divide.

The term periurban is used fre"uently in the literature and in policy discussions, yet

definitions are largely situational and case specific. They provide little basis for a unified


8/52

understanding of what constitutes periurban. 1ur goal to provide some theoretical clarity

and practical utility to this problem by creating a typology of periurban. 1ur typology

identifies the institutional framewor$ and relevant networ$s in the different BtypesC of

periurban. Thus, development wor$ers can use this as a tool to identify the $ey

institutions in their area(s of interest.

0 Periurban as a &oncept

Today researchers from many disciplinary and paradigmatic perspectives use the term

periurban to describe contradictory processes and environments. :xamination of the literature

evidences a number of distinct patterns in the way researchers have addressed the it. (*ee

%a"uinta and 2rescher, ;;;. #nfortunately, a variable that is seen as definitional for some is

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

seen as an outcome of periurban processes by others. &onse"uently, the concept of periurban has

become trivialized and tautological, its analytical and practical utility severely compromised.

The concept of periurban emerged due to limitations in the dichotomy between rural and

0

5

urban. 8uch research has identified the inade"uacy of this simplistic dichotomy, some authors

even suggesting its analytical relevance is long past. 1thers have argued more specifically that

only the dichotomous construct has outlived its usefulness not the underlying distinction between

degrees of ruralness and urbaness (!ambaud ;/5.

!#P!% (;;= specifically criticizes the dichotomous basis of KurbanK and KruralK

definitions, arguing that many of the characteristics that define rural areas exist along a

continuum within which individuals, households, communities and institutions distribute


9/52

themselves. ' $ey feature of periurban environments is their dynamic nature, wherein social

forms and arrangements are created, modified and discarded. They are areas of social

compression or intensification where the density of social forms, types and meanings increases,

fomenting conflict and social evolution. hether we decide to accept a continuum model ora

model that employs a Ktypological setK is less important than the recognition that the spectrum of

change from rural to urban is discontinuous, KlumpyK, and multidimensional, and that itarises

from underlying social processes.

+

e begin the search for a comprehensive definition of periurban with the concept of urban.

:stablished theoretical definitions of urbanization4urbanism identify the following componentsF

M 2emographic component (i.e., increasing population size and density

M :conomic sectoral component (i.e., a primarily nonagricultural labor force

M *ocialpsychological component (i.e., consciousness of what it means to be urban

%n sociology the first two components are usually ta$en as the basis for defining urbanization

while the third is the core definition of urbanismthe social psychological reflection or response

to urbanization (@ischer ;=. The social psychological component essentially refers tothose

values, attitudes, tastes and behaviors that are seen to be characteristic of urban as opposedto

rural dwellers. :arlier notions of this component tended to be associated with KwesternizationK,

reflecting the ethnocentric thin$ing of the time (Holleman ;F50. 8ore recent writers ta$e a

more neutral view of the process (illiams, et.al. ;=5.

0

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

?iven that the above three components form the basis of the definition of KurbanK and given


10/52

that periurban includes some level of urbaness, then it follows that some variation of these three

components should underlie the definition of periurban. Holleman underscores this when he

directly lin$s periurban to the concept of a Kchange in mental orientation.K

%mportantly, what seems to be not essential to the definition of periurban is Kproximity to the

cityK. The fact that much periurban KplaceK is proximate to the city is substantively

important and instrumental to a comprehensive understanding of periurban, but it is

incidental to an elemental understanding of periurban. 's we shall elaborate, Kproximity to

cityK represents a further specification, which allows us to distinguish between KtypesK of

periurban, not to define periurban in the first place. 'dditionally, concentration ongeographic

location as a basis for defining periurban also undermines a clear understanding of therural

urban spectrum as dynamic, interactive and transformative.

The socialpsychological component is the one most often omitted from periurban

definitions. Det as some scholars and policy analysts have argued, ignoring this component

misses the reality of periurban, underestimates the prevalence of social change and misclassifies

/

the experiences of numerous people and communities in the real world. Typically, those

researchers arguing in support of including this component have also been the most critical

ofdefinitions that rely solely on proximity to the city (?roppo and Tosselli ;;/.

5 ' Periurban Typology and !elated %nstitutional &ontexts

#rbanization is a process of concentration and intensification of human life and activity. %t

is an uneven process that ta$es place in a physical environment. #rbanization is onepossible

outcome of the three fundamental population processesfertility, mortality, and migration. These

processes are in turn the result of individual decisions underta$en in a sociocultural, economic,


11/52

political and environmental context. 1ne conse"uence of urbanization is the uneven

incorporation of a variety of institutional forms into the larger cultural environments, identified as

urban, periurban and rural. %n particular, we identify five classes of institutional

arrangements

that arise within the complex continuum from rural to urban and that fall within the rangeof

phenomena that various scholars and practitioners have identified as periurban. :ach ofthese

institutional classes is connected to a specific periurban type and hypothesised to arise froma

specific demographic process (in parentheses underlying urbanization.

5

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

M Jillage P#F 6etwor$ %nduced N (*o3ourning4circulation4migration

M 2iffuse P#F 'malgamated N (2iffuse migration

M &hain P#F !econstituted N (&hain migration

M %nPlace P#F Traditional N (%n situ urbanization

M 'bsorbed P#F !esidual N (Traditionalism with *uccession4displacement

5.

Typology of Periurban

The importance of these classes of institutional arrangements is that they can help us identify

useful mesopolicy interventions. This is important in urban and periurban environments where

there is an intensification of conflict and a necessity for negotiating and resolvingcompeting

claims (e.g., in residential versus agricultural land use debates, or between competing customary

institutional forms and values and for implementing development plans. *uch conflicts occur at

all levels, including family, neighborhood, organizational, community, regional, and national.


12/52

The nature and complexity of this region of society, which combines elements of both KruralK and

Kurban,K is well established in the literature under terms li$e periurban, exurban, urban tract,

rurban, urban fringe, semiurban, and even suburban.

5.. JP#F Jillage Periurban or Perirural (K!uralK places with KurbanK consciousness

This category refers to areas that are geographically nonproximate to an urban area, yet are

experiencing substantial urbanism (i.e., social psychological dimension of urbanization. hile

such influences can accrue solely through mass media and the diffusion of consumerist

ideologies, they are more li$ely in developing countries to occur visOvis such processes asF

M The inflow of outmigrant remittances,

M 1utmigrant infusion of KurbanK ideas and modes of behavior,

M 1utmigrant infusion of non income resources, and4or

M 1utmigrant participationparticularly strategicin community decisionma$ing.

This is the category of place that is most often omitted in the consideration of periurban

environments. %n essence its designation as periurban rests on its social psychological

transformation rather than its geography or size. This transformation is itself posited toresult

from the demographic process of migration. However, rather than to focus on thegeographic

movement of the outmigrants, we emphasize the continuing lin$ages by which they effectthe

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

=

infusion of things urban into the village culture. %mportantly, these are environments which are

li$ely very stable yet capable of absorbing and accommodating Kurban valuesK. The mechanism

of accommodation rests on the stability of the community and the structured networ$ of

;


13/52

participation by outmigrants.

5..0 %P#F %nplace Periurban

These areas are proximate to the urban area and result from inplace (insitu urbanization.

That is, they are in the process of being absorbed whole, whether by annexation (actual expansion

of the city fringe or simple reclassification (reflecting de facto urban expansion. %n some

instances they become more urbanli$e under their own power through natural increaseand4or

rural inmigration. 8ore commonly, they are formed from periurban villages by a combination

>

of those processes combined with inmigration from the nearby urban area. hichever is the

case, because they are being absorbed KwholeK, such places tend to perpetuate and reinforce the

existing power structure and bases of ine"uality. To the degree that sufficiently large numbers of

inmigrants arrive from the city, oldtimernewcomer conflict is li$ely to emerge. :xclusive of

any new urban inmigrants, the residents of these areas tend to reflect the extremes of the local

power spectrumF

M those least li$ely to be opportunistic since they chose not to migrate earlier (e.g., poor)

M those most li$ely to benefit from customary or traditional arrangements and who had a

vested interest in remaining (e.g., the rich and4or powerful)

M those most embedded in and accepting of customary or traditional arrangements who hadlittle real opportunity to migrate earlier (e.g., women.

ecause of their lac$ of geographic displacement and the potential for increasing

oldtimernewcomer polarization, these environments should have the most intact and "uite

conservatively held customary and traditional institutions.

5..5 &P#F &hain Periurban (%nmigration from a single place

*ome areas proximate to the city undergo settlement visOvis a process of chain migration,


14/52

i.e., the geographic translocation of a village population to a specific locale in the urban

periphery. These migrants tend to be the most opportunistic (i.e., ris$ta$ing oriented members

of their original village population, hence most open to change. These areas have a high degree

of ethnic homogeneity and numbers sufficient for a critical mass. &onse"uently, traditionalor

+

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

customary beliefs and institutions tend to be carried to and reconstructed in the new environment,

0

integrating elements of the new surrounding urban institutions. This integration of urban

institutions happens to a greater extent for chain periurban than for inplace periurban areas.

This type of KcommunityK formation is similar to that described by Herbert ?ans (;0 as

leading to the creation of Kurban villagesK. %ndeed, chain migration is the master trend underlying

much international migration. :arly migrants or KpioneersK serve as auspices of migrationfor

later KsettlersK from the homeland. y providing temporary housing and information on the ways

of the new culture, the pioneers reinforce their status as landsmann. This process also reinforces

both the tendency to form enclaves and to reproduce adapted KtraditionalK institutions


15/52

migrants from urban areas. These areas are characterized by greater ethnic heterogeneity and a

greater density of varied beliefs about customary institutions and arrangements than chain

periurban environments. The institutional patterns here reflect much greater inclusion of KurbanK

forms than is the case for either chain or inplace periurban.

2iffuse periurban environments have a greater potential than chain periurban environments

for both conflict and for negotiating new institutions that are more KurbanK oriented. *uch areas

of settlement may arise from a KstagedK occupation, whereby unoccupied land is settled bythe

landless acting in a coordinated ta$eover at a time specific (e.g., de *oto ;=;. These areas may

also arise from spontaneous processes of migration over a period of time, whereby people from

5

diverse origins


16/52

5..+ 'bsorbed Periurban

The final category of periurban refers to areas proximate to or within the urban context that

have been so for a considerable period of time. The defining characteristic of these locations is

the maintenance of customary or traditional institutional arrangements which are derived from the

culture of original settlers4residents who have long since ceased to be the numeric ma3ority in the

area. These areas derive from either inplace periurban areas or from chain periurban areas.

1ver time either of these periurban types can undergo the compositional processes of succession

and displacement while on the macro level being evermore absorbed into the urban environment

administratively, politically and socialpsychologically.

%n short, the original settler culture group is replaced through either residential succession or

through diffusion due to differential migration along ethnic4cultural lines. Det, some important

customary arrangements (i.e., institutions of the original group remain in place now supported by

KnewcomersK. These vestigial arrangements are supported through a combination ofritualism,

power4dominance relations and reification by arrangements in the formal4modern sector.They

have a strong conservative effect in the form of adherence to KtraditionK for traditions sa$e rather

than an adherence to traditional principles because they are functional for the community.

5.0

7in$s between Periurban types%n our pursuit of a definition for periurban we also have had to explore the larger "uestion of

the relationship between rural and urban environments. 1ne observation that is well established

in the literature is that rural outmigrants generally do not go directly to large cities. !ather, a

series of moves are involved, called step migration, wherein rural migrants move first to villages

or small towns and successively to more urban environments. ' second observation in the

literature is that migration does not sever all


17/52

/

her4his community of origin and family.

Ta$en together these two points underscore the importance of conceptualizing the periurban

environment as a dynamic, transformative, and reciprocal arena lin$ed at the macro level not only

/

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

by economic activities and geography but also significantly by the social fabric of individual and

=

family networ$s. Thus, the periurban environment is dynamic exactly because of the flow of

migrants and the density and heterogeneity of activities present. %t is transformative because it

changes the migrants and the migrants change it. %t is reciprocal not only becauseindividual

migrants and the social environment influence each other, but also because the individuallin$s

between donor areas and the receiving areas continue to induce change in both directions at the

;

aggregate and institutional levels.

These comments suggest a further elaboration of the five periurban types discussed above.

There are two K$indsK of lin$s that we identify at the macro levelF lin$s that persist across space

in the face of geographic displacement) and lin$s that persist across time. @%?#!: captures thedynamics of both types of lin$s. The lin$s can be conceptualized in terms of the periurban types

themselves or in terms of the institutional contexts that they imply. e include both conceptual

schemes in @%?#!: , and elaborate the institutional contexts in the following section.

%n the diagram horizontal arrows represent lin$s across space. These lin$ages are the direct

result of migrationeither chain or diffusewhich operates so as to create individualized

exchange networ$s across space. The accumulation of this individual social capital lin$s


18/52

geographically distinct areas into a larger exchange networ$. 'lternatively, vertical arrows

represent lin$s across time. These lin$ages result from the passage of time in a givenarea,

0>

allowing for the accumulation of demographic, social and institutional change.

The upper portion of @%?#!: is shaded to isolate that portion of the model that is primarily

concerned with the transformative effects of migration from that portion primarily concerned

0

with changes over time. Thus, the five periurban types are embedded within the broader rural

urban dynamic. @rom this vantagepoint two interacting subsystems are identified. 6otethat

@%?#!: depicts only the principle flows and mechanisms of change.

5.5

%nstitutional &ontexts

Having created a typology of periurban, we must now translate this into a tool with social

and analytical relevance. These institutional contexts, identified at the start of section 5, appear in

parentheses in @%?#!: for each periurban type. y institutional we mean the broadrange of

cultural meaning and social organization that encompasses customary and informal relations. y

context we mean the essential institutional features and structural constraints implicit in each

=

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

element. %n Table we summarize the institutional contexts and characteristics associated with

each element in the periurban typology.

e also include a general assessment of the relationship between each institutional context

and existing stratification systems. This is important since as *on3e and *tulhofer (;;+ point

out horizontal institutions encourage cooperation among social actors, while vertical ones erode


19/52

cooperation. Thus, institutions embodying stratification will tend to erode cooperation.

However, since most institutions include elements of both a horizontal and a vertical nature. e

suggest extending the distinction between horizontal and vertical institutions to include horizontal

and vertical elements within an institution. %n this way institutions are not seen as entirely

KbeneficialK nor KdetrimentalK but rather KbeneficialK for some subgroups (hence engendering

their cooperation and support for institutional maintenance and KdetrimentalK for other subgroups

(hence undermining cooperation and the overall solidarity of support for a given institution.

5.5. The (6etwor$ %nduced %nstitutional &ontext

'ssociated with village periurban environments is the networ$ induced institutional context.

:nvironments of this type are tradition oriented and in most respects loo$ li$e ruralvillages.

Population size and density are relatively low and many residents are involved with agricultural

production. The $ey differentiating factor is the socialpsychological orientation of the

population. 2ue to the outmigration of some residents, urban attitudes and values are introduced

to the community. This process of diffusion or induction is driven by circulation and so3ourning

of the outmigrants and in general by their maintenance of individual exchange networ$swith

their village.

2espite the introduction of urban attitudes and tastes via the outmigrants, the institutions of

the village remain traditional in orientation and stable. 6ew ideas, induced by outmigrant

influence, are absorbed slowly into the traditional context, often through a process of redefinition.

!edefinition of the situation allows for the perpetuation of Bideal cultureC in the face of

adaptation to the needs of the situation. Thus, for example, village tradition may call for land to

be owned, controlled, and wor$ed by men. However, a shortage of young males due to migration

selectivity may lead to a redefinition whereby land is still nominally owned by men but is now in

fact controlled and wor$ed by women. *uch a situation may involve the shift from real decision

00


20/52

ma$ing by men to mere symbolic male approval of decision ma$ing by women.

;

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

:ven though change is effected, the traditional institutional structures remain largely intact.

ecause the BurbanC ideas are brought in from outside the village and because it is not

geographically close to the urban area, the demand for change is relatively low. ecause of the

long term stability of the traditional system it has a high resistance to change and thus

incorporates change slowly into itself. *on3e and *tulhofer (;;+ attribute this stability to

deeply internalized and shared informal norms that they call Ksociocultural capital.K They argue

that institutions built on deeply internalized, proven norms will be stable, change in small

evolutionary ways, and resist violent, exogenous change. &hange increases the opportunities for

egalitarianism and the erosion of the gender and age stratification systems, albeit incrementally.

5.5.0 'malgamated %nstitutional &ontext

2iffuse periurban environments are formed by the influx of migrants from a variety of

geographic and cultural sources. These environments lie nearby urban areas and also serveas

migration endpoints for urban outmigrants. 6ew migrants to these areas are generally concerned

with survival needs. Their compositional heterogeneity necessitates the formation of a collective

identity if they are to obtain needed services from formal urban institutions. Their heterogeneityalso re"uires them to negotiate solutions to survival and collective identity because they cannot

rely on simple tradition. %n fact, conflicting cultural traditionsinternally and externallymay be

a chief obstacle to functioning with the nearby urban environment.

These are environments that have a high need for change due to their proximity to the city.

The influx of new migrants, the demands of coping with the nearby urban sector, and the need to

overcome cultural barriers re"uire that resistance to change will be low. The very selectivity of


21/52

migration, whereby the BinnovatorsC are most li$ely to have migrated, supports this low

resistance to change. These environments are most li$ely to spawn democratic orconsensus

based change and institutions. Therefore, they are environments, which have the greatest

opportunity for egalitarianism and erosion of traditional stratification systems. *olutions

generated in this environment have to meet the needs of the modern sector and often incorporate

wage labor as a significant economic component. Det, the relative lac$ of formalinstitutions

initially means the solutions tend to be novel. *uch emergent institutional forms are an amalgam

of the various customary traditions and modern sector forms. The chief re"uirement for

these

new systems is that they achieve some negotiated legitimacy from the participants4residents. Qust

>

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

how they will negotiate it is itself a re"uired first step in the process of creating the new

institutions.

5.5.5 !econstituted %nstitutional &ontext

This institutional context exists when an area proximate to the city becomes an endpoint of

chain migration. %n these environments the dense concentration of migrants with similar cultural

origins leads to the recreation of the institutional forms that existed in the village. This recreation

is never exact) therefore, we use the term reconstituted. This reconstruction of collective cultural

identity is defensive in posture as the new migrants attempt to reestablish the familiar amidst the

alien. %t is exacerbated by the challenge of dealing with urban formal institutions.

's with amalgamated institutional contexts, the need for change is high due to proximity to

the urban environment. 1n the other hand, resistance to change is higher in this case because of

the defensive nature of the reconstituted institutions, which have been organized along traditional

or customary lines. e classify the resistance to change as medium here to reflect the tradeoff


22/52

between the conservative force of the reconstituted institutional form and the liberalizing force of

migration, which selects for innovators in the population. Thus, change will reflect the old but

include some urban4modern components, particularly those which ma$e efficient use of the

formal sector or allow for effective lin$ages to the modern sector. %n terms ofstratification

systems this institutional context reinforces those types that existed in the traditional system.

However, the exact form of the stratification system may change.

2ue to the way these environments are formed, individuals in them tend to remain lin$ed to

their places of origin. &irculation and remittance flows are li$ely to remain high. Thus,

these

environments will have a continuing impact on the Kmore ruralK components of theexchange

networ$, fostering further migration, introducing urban attitudes and values and possibly

initiating commercially valuable economic exchanges between locally produced goods and urban

mar$ets and products.

5.5. Traditional %nstitutional &ontext

The processes of growth and annexation, combined with inmigration, create inplace

periurban environments. #nli$e chain periurban environments, which have benefited from ris$

ta$ing immigrants, these environments are populated by the converse of migrationselectivity,

namely those least li$ely to have migrated out of the traditional environment. These

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

environments generate traditional institutional contexts. hile proximate to the city, they have

longterm stable institutions that respond to the inmigration of KothersK


23/52

institutional environment. Det, this same environment creates a high resistance to change. Thus,

institutional adaptation is slow and there is great potential for conflict that becomes increasingly

polarized in the form of oldtimernewcomer conflict. 's the existing sta$eholders attempt to

protect KtraditionK visOvis defensive insulation, the $inds of adaptations that emerge are li$ely to

be inefficient in terms of facilitating access to the modern urban sector. This process leadsto

heightened conflict over control of the institutional system and is met with increasing oppression

along traditional stratification lines.

!emittance flows and circulation are of reduced importance in this context since the

environment itself is mostly intact. Thus, the impact of this environment on more rural areas is

more limited than for other periurban types. There are more formal institutions in this

environment but not necessarily of an KurbanK type.

5.5.+ !esidual %nstitutional &ontext (Traditionalism

!esidual institutional contexts are created when others have replaced the original culture

group though a process of residential succession and displacement yet left in place a set of

arrangements whose roots lie in the culture of the original residents. The institutional context is

upheld through ritualism or traditionalism (i.e., rigid adherence to custom simply fortraditions

sa$e even when the basis for the tradition no longer holds or because members of the original

culture group still control the local power structure, precluding access by newcomers and

rewarding compliance. These environments are actually a part of the city) that is, they have been

physically absorbed by the city. However, we classify them as periurban to emphasize that the

roots of the institutional arrangements lie very much in the periurban rather than the urban

environment. 8uch li$e village periurban environments loo$ rural, so too do absorbed

periurban environments loo$ urban. 'nd 3ust as it is primarily the social psychological

dimension, which differentiates village periurban environments from rural ones, so too doesit


24/52

differentiate absorbed periurban environments from urban ones. ' ma3or characteristic of this

periurban environment is the presence of both traditional and formal institutions.

0

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

ecause absorbed periurban environments lie within the urban environment, there is a high

need for change exerted politically by urban formal institutions. The residual institutional

structures themselves are maladapted to change and ultimately will lose their legitimacy as they

fail to meet the needs of the residents. 6onetheless, there is high resistance to change and slow

adaptation until the community reaches a crisis of legitimation. 't this point conflict will be high

and li$ely revolutionary (whether generated internally or implemented coercively from outside by

the government.

#nder residual institutions much change is simple compliance, whereby there is an outward

acceptance but a private re3ection of the demands of the formal sector. This compliance leads to

a different legitimation crisis < one in which the formal sector authority is undermined within

the smaller absorbed periurban environment. Thus, attempts to eliminate or alter the

stratification system implicit in the residual institutions will be met with resistance. The result is

increased support for the maintenance of the traditional stratification system and heightened

re3ection of the modern sector.

'pplications and %ssues.

'n 'pplication of the Typology to 7and Tenure and Population

's an illustration of its utility, we apply our typology to the areas of land tenure (more

specifically inheritance rules and population dynamics (more specifically population aging.

The top panel of Table 0 summarizes the relationship between inheritance rules and the various

periurban environments. hile there are many ways to thin$ about the range of resources


25/52

available for inheritance, we consider here only the simple division into land and nonland wealth

transmission. 1n this basis inheritance rules in JP# environments are primarily oriented toward

issues of land while the rules in 2P# and 'P# environments are more oriented toward issues of

nonland wealth transmission.

&P# and %P# environments are much more li$ely to involve a blend of the two types of

resources but for different reasons. &P# because the chain networ$s which facilitate migration to

the area also facilitate the accumulation of land resources. %P# because the persistence of

customary institutions rests upon the ability of elders to control the resources in the community N

foremost being land. However, proximity to the urban wage labor mar$et for both &P# and %P#

5

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

means that members of the community will increasingly also accumulate nonland wealth

05

resources that may be transmitted to the next generation.

The need for clear and specific rules for inheritance is especially high in environments where

land is the fundamental basis of wealth. Thus, JP# and %P# environments have a high need for

clear rules of transmission. 'P# environments also have a high need for clear rules, but rather

than deriving from the centrality of land this need derives from their proximity to theurban

context and its prevalence of urban formal institutions. 1n the other hand, in 2P# and&P#

environments the high concentration of poverty, general lac$ of formalized access to landand

paucity of formal institutions means the need for inheritance rules is much lower.

%nheritance rules are most clear and consistent in those areas where their need is high and the

cultural context relatively homogeneous and connected to the past (JP#, %P# and 'P#. %n &P#

environments they will be only somewhat clear due to the emergent nature of the cultural norms


26/52

in the amalgamated context. They will, however, be clearer in &P# than in 2P# environments

where the diversity of residents and cultural forms more li$ely creates a highly idiosyncratic

pattern of inheritance rules.

7egitimacy refers to the breadth of acceptance of a phenomenon in the population. !ules

and phenomena rooted in broadly shared internalized norms will have a high degree of

0

legitimacy. %n our example the legitimacy of inheritance rules should be broad and customary

derived in JP# and %P# environments. %n the &P# case legitimacy is also customary-derived

but less so, owing to the greater cultural heterogeneity present. %n 2P# environments the

legitimacy of inheritance rules is low since it derives from a shifting combination of

heterogeneous customs and modern institutional demands.

*tructured ine"uality is greatest in those contexts that are most traditional in orientation.

This is particularly true along age and gender lines. Thus, structured ine"uality is high for JP#,

%P# and 'P# types and low for 2P#. e classify structured ine"uality as moderate for&P#

due to the blend of traditional and modern culture.

&onflict is present in all environments, but it varies in amount and source. e see conflict

emerging along structured ine"uality lines as more li$ely in JP#, 2P# and &P# environments,

whereas in %P# and 'P# environments the conflict is more li$ely to emerge surrounding

the

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

interface between customary and formal institutions. This latter conflict we see as more

normative and broad in its impact, thus, heightened.

e have included a second example of population aging in the bottom panel of T'7: 0 for


27/52

illustrative purposes only and do not elaborate on it here. *imilar analyses can be carried out for

any policy area that is distributed across the ruralperiurbanurban spectrum.

.0

%ssues !emaining

8any issues remain concerning the indicators and thresholds differentiating !4P#4# system.

M hat population densityR

M hat population sizeR

M hat percentage of the labor force in nonagricultural activitiesR

M hat measures of urbanism and social psychological transformationR

There also remain "uestions as to how to KcodeK the various categories. @or exampleF

M %s a parttime periurban farmer with offfarm labor income in the agricultural labor forceR

M %n households with multiple wor$ers how is the household coded when one family

member wor$s in agriculture and the other(s wor$ in the wage labor sectorR

M How is labor for subsistence consumption to be regarded in the schemeR

Luestions also remain regarding the institutional contexts related to policy ma$ing.

M 're the contexts always lin$ed to the periurban types in an isomorphic fashionR

M 2oes change within each context operate as hypothesizedR

M 2o all stratification systems (i.e., gender and age within a given institutional context

experience the same forces of erosion and support and to the same degreeR

M How extensively do we need to elaborate the system of sta$eholders in each environmentin order to create a useable tool for policy analysisR

These are 3ust some of the difficult operational "uestions, but raising them does not

compromise the utility of the theoretical framewor$. 1ur framewor$ < albeit incomplete < is

still a useful conceptual tool for as$ing policy "uestions about why interventions wor$ in some

areas and not in others. %t provides clues as to how to modify interventions and increase

the

li$elihood of success.


28/52

+

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

@%?#!:* '62 T'7:*

@%?#!: F Periurban Typology with %nstitutional &ontexts

! # ! ' 7

!

Jillage

Periurban

(6etwor$

%nduced

&hain

Periurban

(!econstituted

#

T

%

8

:

!

'

7

#

!

%nPlace


29/52

Periurban

(Traditional

'

6

'bsorbed

Periurban

(!esidual

8%?!'T%16

2iffuse

Periurban

('malgamated

# ! ' 6

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

T'7: F &haracteristics of %nstitutional &ontexts by Periurban Type

P:!%#!'6 TDP:

%6*T%T#T%16'7

&16T:IT

&H'!'&T:!%*T%&

7%6E:2 '&!1** *P'&:

Jillage P#

2iffuse P#

7%6E:2 '&!1**

*P'&: '6241!

1J:! T%8:S


30/52


31/52

Principle

Primary stimulus

for change

Primary

mechanism

limiting or

effecting change

6eed for &hange

!esistance to

&hange

Pace of

'daptation

7i$elihood for

2isruptive

&onflict

&haracteristics of

&hange

8ost 7i$ely

Types of

'daptations

%mpact on

*tratification

*ystems

Traditional

(i.e., existing

structures


32/52

:xistential and

tradition oriented

(maintenance of

ideal culture via

redefinition of

adaptation

6ovel solutions

which maintain the

appearance of

tradition and meet

modern sector

needs

?reater individual

access with formal

maintenance of

system

%nterface with

urban formal

institutions

!econstituted

structures

organized along

traditional lines

High

8aladaptive

adherence to


33/52

tradition

%nterface with

#rban inmigrants)

urban formal

%nterface with

institutions) 7oss

urban formal

of traditionalist

institutions

legitimacy

Traditional !itualized

(i.e., existing structures

structures

8oderate High

8oderate High High

@ast 8oderate *low Jery slow

8oderate 8oderate High High

:xperimental) Tradition oriented Polarized between 't best external

democratic or incorporating traditional and compliance only

consensus based) some urban modern sectors

function oriented components

6ovel solutions *olutions which 8ore opportunity 8aintenance of

which meet ma$e inefficient for egalitarianism) system, possibly in

modern sector use of the formal :rosion of system new forms

needs and create a sector

new basis for


34/52

legitimacy

*olutions which

ma$e inefficient

use of the formal

sector due to slow

pace of change in

high need situation

Heightened

conflict over

system) %ncreased

oppression

*olutions imposed

from the outside

formal sector

*trong support for

maintenance of

system

&hain periurban is lin$ed across space as a receiving area for migrants coming from rural andJillage periurban areas. %t is

lin$ed through time to 'bsorbed periurban areas insofar as succession4displacement producesritualism in institutional

maintenance.

SS @ormally spea$ing, 'bsorbed periurban types lie within the city. %ts roots lie in the periurbanzone with %nplace periurban

and Jillage periurban. Thus, we include it as a form of periurban to underscore this temporallin$age.

S

/


35/52

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

T'7: 0F %mplications of Periurban Types and %nstitutional &ontexts for *elected 7and Tenure,

Population and :nvironment %ssues

P:!%#!'6 TDP: (%6*T%T#T%16'7 &16T:IT

7%6E:2 '&!1** *P'&:

%**#:4'*P:&T

Jillage P#

(JP#

(6etwor$ %nduced

2iffuse P#

(2P#

('malgamated

7%6E:2 '&!1**

*P'&: '6241!

1J:! T%8:S

&hain P#

(&P#

(!econstituted

7%6E:2 1J:! T%8:

%nPlace P# 'bsorbed P#

(%P# ('P#

(Traditional (!esidual

7and TenureF

%nheritance rules

8ostly 7and 8ostly 6onland 7and 6onland 7and 6onland 8ostly 6onland


36/52

High 7ow 7ow High High

&lear %diosyncratic *omewhat &lear &lear

road customary 7ow customary &ustomary road customary *ome

High 7ow 8oderate High High

7ow 7ow 7ow High High

%ne"uality %ne"uality %ne"uality Tradition4modern Tradition4modern

Proportion

!esources %nvolved

6eed

&larity

7egitimacy

*tructured %ne"uality

&onflict 7evel

&onflict asis

High increasing 7ow %ntermediate

*trong by middle

aged

*trong by elders *trong by elders middle aged

Productive roles 8any *ome *ome *tatus of aged Highlegitimate 7ow %ntermediate &ontrol

8oderate 8oderate&onflict 7ow 2iffuse by non 8oderate High

elderly

@ew (child care

subsistence P#'

7ow

8oderate


37/52

PopulationF

'ging

@ew (child care

subsistence #'

7ow

High

*even Premises #nderlying this or$

. !ural, Periurban, and #rban form a lin$ed system (!4P#4#an uneven or lumpy,

multidimensional continuum.

0. %n terms of migration and urbanization periurban environments play a mediating role between

rural and urban.

5. Periurban environments are places of social compression and dynamic social change.

. The potential for food production and its relationship to food security must be evaluated

across the entire !4P#4# system.

+. #nderstanding the nature and operation of the system re"uires a focus on the underlying

dynamic processes rather than the Kfixed states.K

. :ffective policy interventions rest on interdisciplinary understanding, which incorporates

physical, biological and sociocultural paradigms.

/. The Bsocial footprintC of urbanization manifests differently in the urban, periurban and rural

context but is only understandable when addressed in view of a lin$ed system (!4P#4#.=

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

%7%1?!'PHD

'nderson, ilbert 7. (;. The &ountry TownF ' *tudy of !ural :volution. 6ew Dor$F

2oubleday, Page &ompany.


38/52

'refeen, H.E.*. (;=5 K&hanging 'grarian structure in angladeshF *himuliaF a study of a

periurban villageK, 2issertation 'bstracts %nternational, '. ;=, (>F5>, 2issl, *yracuse

#niversity, ;=5, 000 p.

'rrighi, ?. (;/>. K7abour supplies in historical perspectiveF ' study of he proletarianization

of the 'frican peasantry in !hodesiaK, Qournal of 2evelopment *tudies, (5F;/05.

aud, 8. (;;. K@amilies and migrationF Towards an historical analysis of family networ$sK,

:conomic and *ocial History in the 6etherlands, F=5>=.

ettison, 2.?. (;+=. KThe social and economic structure of a sample of periurban villages,

lantyre7imbe, 6yasalandK, !hodes 7ivingston &ommunications, 6o. 0, 7usa$aF !hodes

7ivingston %nstitute, ;+ p.

igsten, '. (;;5. KThe circular migration of smallholders in EenyaK, Qournal of 'frican

:conomies, +(F0>.

irley, 8. H. and E. 7oc$ (;;=,BHealth and Periurban 6atural !esource ProductionC) in

%ntegrated io*ystems in Uero :missions 'pplications) Proceedings of the %nternet &onference

on %ntegrated io*ystems) :ditorsF :ng7eong @oo Tarcisio 2ella *enta)

httpF44www.ias.unu.edu4proceedings4icibs) %nternational Health %mpact 'ssessment ?roup,

7iverpool *chool of Tropical 8edicine, Pembro$e Place, 7iverpool 75 +L'. :mailF

8hbGliv.ac.u$V

reman, Q. (;;>. K7abour 8igration and !ural Transformation in &olonial 'siaK,

&omparative 'sian *tudies, 6o. +, 'msterdamF @ree #niversity Press.&adene, Philippe (;;>, K#sing the *pace around #rban 'reasF ' !egional ?eography of

&onflictK, Wtude rurales, 6o. =;F05+0/.

&hapman, 8. and !.8. Prothero (;=+. KThemes on circulation in the Third orldK, in !.8.

Prothero and 8. &hapman, (eds., &irculation in Third orld &ountries, 7ondonF !outledge.

&lauss, *. (;; K2ie o$onomische edeutung der @rau im landlichen !aum estafri$as und

ihre *tellung im :ntwichlungsprozess (The economic importance of women in est 'frican


39/52

rural areas and their role in the development process,K estafri$a zwischen autochthoner Eultur

and 8odernisierung. :in 'fri$a!eader, ed. 2iarra, p. 000, 'achener eitrage zur

vergleichenden *oziologie und zur &hina @orschung 6o. /, @ran$furt.

;

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

&lough P. (;;, KPlanning and *ustainable 8anagementF ' !e:xamination of the Peri#rban

ProblemK, !eview of 8ar$eting and 'gricultural :conomics, 2ec., (5F0//0=;

&1'? (;;;, K#rban and Periurban 'gricultureK, &ommittee on 'griculture, @ood and

'griculture 1rganization.;;4>, @ifteenth *ession, Qanuary.

&ran$shaw, 1wen (;;5, K*"uatting, 'partheid and #rbanisation of the *outhern

itwatersrandK, 'frican 'ffairs, ;0(5F5+.

&ribier, @ranXoise (;/5. KThe *econd Homes of #rbanites in the @rench &ountrysideK, pp.

=0> in Wtude !uralesF revue trimestrielle dhistoire, gYographie, sociologie et Yconomie

des campagnes, 6o. ;+>, ParisF 8outon &o.

&rowley, :ve and Eirsten 'ppendini (;;;, !ural PovertyF Population 2ynamics, 7ocal

%nstitutions and 'ccess to !esourcesK, Paper presented at the Thematic or$shop on Population,

Poverty and :nvironment held at @'1, !ome, 1ctober ;;= and posted Qanuary

httpF44www.fao.org4'%&:6T4@'1%6@14*#*T2:J4pdirect4pre>>;.htm

2rescher, '.. and 2avid 7. %a"uinta (;;;. K#rban and Periurban @ood ProductionF ' newchallenge for the @ood and 'griculture 1rganisation (@'1 of the #nited 6ationsK, %nternal

report, !omeF @'1, / p.

2ra$a$is*mith, 2. (;;0. K@ood production and undernutrition in Third orld citiesK,

Hunger 6otes =40F +.

:gziabher, 'xumite ?. (;;. K#rban @arming, &ooperatives, and the #rban Poor in 'ddis

'babaK, pp. =+> in @eeding PeopleF an :xamination of #rban 'griculture in :ast 'frica,


40/52

1ttawaF Pyar 'li 8emon et al. %2!& oo$s.

@'1 (;;=. K?uidelines for 6ational @ood %nsecurity 'nd Julnerability %nformation and

8apping *ystems (@%J%8*F ac$ground and Principles,K &ommittee on orld @ood *ecurity,

Twentyfourth *ession, @ood and 'griculture 1rganization, !ome, 0+ Qune, &@* ;=4+,

httpF44www.fao.org4unfao4bodies4cfs4cfs04=+>>e.htm

@ischer, &laude (;=. The urban experience, *econd edition. *an 2iegoF Harcourt race, 5/

p.

@ischer, &laude (;//. 6etwor$s and placesF social relations in the urban setting, 6ew

Dor$F @ree Press 00; p.

@orde, 2. (ed. (;+. *ocial %mplications of %ndustrialization and #rbanization in 'frica

*outh of the *ahara, #6:*&1.

@reemann, 2onald . (;;. ' &ity of @armersF %nformal #rban 'griculture in the 1pen

*paces of 6airobi, Eenya. 8ontreal and Eingston, &anadaF 8c?illLueens #niversity Press.

0>

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

@riedmann, Qohn (;;. B8odular &itiesF eyond the !ural#rban 2ivideC, :nvironment and

#rbanisation ;(F0;5.

@riedmann, Qohn and &lyde eaver (;=0. orld &ity @ormationF 'n 'genda for !esearch

and 'ction, 7os 'ngeles, &aliforniaF #niversity of &alifornia Press.?ans, Herbert Q. (;0. The urban villagers F group and class in the life of %talian

'mericans, 6ew Dor$ F @ree Press, ;0, 5/ p.

?ardner, E. (;;5. K2eshbideshF *ylheti images of home and awayK, 8an, 0=(F.

?raham, 2ouglas H., %rae aptista 7undin de &oloane, 'ntonio @rancisco, illiam 6all, 8indy

al$er, Paul Qen$ins (;;, KPeriurban aseline !esearch !esultsF 8aputo, 8ozambi"ueK,

@inal !eport to #*'%2 8ission 8aputo, 8ozambi"ue, ashington, 2.&.F #*'%2, /0 p.


41/52


42/52

@ormal %nstitutions,K @'1, forthcoming.

Qulliard (;/5. K#rbanization of the &ountrysideK, pp. +; in Wtude !uralesF revue

trimestrielle dhistoire, gYographie, sociologie et Yconomie des campagnes, 6o. ;+>, ParisF

8outon &o.

7and :n"uiry &ommittee (;. The 7andF The !eport of the 7and :n"uiry &ommittee,

Jol. %% #rban, 7ondonF Hodder and *toughton, /0= p.

8andel, !. (;;>. K*hifting centres and emergent identitiesF Tur$ey and ?ermany in the lives

of Tur$ish ?astarbeiterK, in 2. :ic$leman and Q. Piscatori (eds., 8uslim travellers, 7ondonF

!outledge.

8athews, Qames. *. (;, The Periurban fringe of '$ron, near &opley, 1hio. 8.'. Thesis,

Eent *tate #niversity, 0 p.

8athieu, 6icole and Qean&laude ontron (;/5. KThe Transformations of !ural *paceF

Problems of 8ethodK, pp. 5/+; in Wtude !uralesF revue trimestrielle dhistoire,

gYographie, sociologie et Yconomie des campagnes, 6o. ;+>, ParisF 8outon &o.

8ayer, P. (;. Townsmen or Tribesmen. 1xford #niversity Press.

8c2owell, &hristopher and 'r3an de Haan (;;/. K8igration and *ustainable 7ivelihoodsF '

&ritical !eview of the 7iteratureK, %nstitute of 2evelopment *tudies or$ing Paper, P+,

righton #EF #niversity of *ussex, 0= p.

8c?ee, T.? (;=5. K7abour mobility in fragmented labour 8ar$etsF The role of circulatory

migration in ruralurban relations in 'siaK, pp. / in H.%. *afa (ed., Towards a Political:conomy of #rbanisation in Third orld &ountries, 2elhiF 1xford #niversity Press.

8oissidis, 'ntonis and 8arie 6oelle 2u"uenne (;;/, KPeri#rban !ural 'reas in ?reeceF The

&ase of 'tticaK, *ociologia !uralis, 5/(0F00=05;.

8ougeot, 7uc '. (;;. #rban @ood ProductionF :volution, 1fficial *upport 'nd *ignificance

(with special reference to 'frica*ignificance 1f #rban 'griculture, K#rban 'griculture is 6ot

for the 6eophyteK, %nternational 2evelopment !esearch &entre (%2!&,


43/52

httpF44www.idrc.ca4cfp4rep>=[html

8oustier, Paule, (;;;. K2efinitions and boundaries of periurban agriculture in subsaharan

'fricaK, httpF44www.cirad.fr4publications4documents4agricultperi4en4*erveng0>.htm, &%!'2

@7H1!.

6elson, Q.8. (;/. K*o3ourners versus new urbanitesF causes and conse"uences of temporary

versus permanent cityward migration in developing countriesK, :conomic 2evelopment and

&ultural &hange, 0F/0+/.

00

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

1:&2 (;/;, 1rganisation for :conomic &ooperation and 2evelopment, B'griculture in the

Planning and 8anagement of Periurban 'reas, Jolume F *ynthesisK, Paris, ; p.

!ambaud, Placide (;/5. KJillage and #rbanizationF *ociological ProblemsK, pp. 50 in

Wtude !uralesF revue trimestrielle dhistoire, gYographie, sociologie Yconomie des

campagnes, 6o. ;+>, ParisF 8outon &o.

!#P!% (;;=. K2efining !uralF 2efinitions of !ural 'reas in the #.*.K, in !ural Policy

&ontext, The !ural Policy !esearch %nstitute, httpF44rupri.org4ruralcontext4defining4urbanareas.html

*anyal, . (;=. #rban &ultivation in :ast 'fricaF Peoples !esponse to #rban Poverty. @ood

:nergy 6exus Programme. To$yoF #nited 6ations #niversity.

*awio, &.Q. (;;5. K@eeding the urban massesR Towards an understanding of the dynamics ofurban agriculture and land use change in 2ar es *alaam, TanzaniaK, ?raduate *chool of

?eography, &lar$ #niversity, orcester, 8', #*', Ph2 thesis.

*chlyter, '. (;;. Twenty Dears of 2evelopment in ?eorge, Uambia. *toc$holmF *wedish

&ouncil of uilding !esearch.

*?#'4#62P (;;/, KThe !oundtable of Top 7ocal ?overnment 1fficials on #rban

'gricultureK organized by the *?#', sponsored by %2!&, and facilitated by T#'6 and #8P


44/52

7'& at the *econd %nternational &ollo"uium of 8ayors on ?overnance for *ustainable ?rowth

and :"uity, #62P, #nited 6ations, 6ew Dor$ &ity

*on3e, Jelimir and 'le$sandar *tulhofer (;;+. K6ot *o 2angerous 7iaisans between

*ociology and :conomicsF Toward a *ocioeconomic 8odel of %nstitutional &hangeK, !evi3a Ua

*ociologi3u, 0(5F=;0>0.

*oto, Hernando de, (;=;. The 1ther PathF the invisible revolution in the Third orld

\translated by Qune 'bbottV, 6ew Dor$F Harper !ow, 0/ p.

*tahl, Henry H. (;/5. K#rbanization and !ural 7ife in !omaniaK, pp. 0;5>5 in Wtude

!uralesF revue trimestrielle dhistoire, gYographie, sociologie et Yconomie des campagnes,

6o. ;+>, ParisF 8outon &o.

*tarosta, Pawel (;;5. K%nstitutional &onception of &hanges in !ural 7ocal &ommunitiesK,

Przeglad *oc3ologiczny, >(F+//.

*tevenson, &hristopher (;;, B8ar$et Production of @ruits and Jegetables %n the Peri#rban

'rea of 2ar es *alaam, TanzaniaK, 'ugust, #rban Jegetable Promotion Pro3ect, 8inistry of

'griculture and &ooperative, 2ar es *alaam. \&iting original source as %lbery cited in

8wamfupe, 2.?., (;;, &hanges in 'gricultural 7and #se in the Periurban Uone of 2ar es

*alaam, Tanzania. Ph2 2issertation, #niversity of ?lasgowV

Th]nen, Qohann Heinrich von (==. 2er isolierte *taat in eziehung auf 7andwirtschaft

und 6ational^$onomie, !ostoc$F ?.. 7eopolds #niversitatsbuchhandlung, =0=5.

05%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

Th]nen, Qohann Heinrich von (;. %solated state \an :nglish edition of 2er isolierte *taat,

translated by &arla 8. artenbergV, 1xford, 6ew Dor$F Pergamon Press, 5> p.

Tricaud, P.8. (;==. #rban 'griculture in %badan and @reetown, @ood:nergy 6exus

Programme. To$yoF #nited 6ations #niversity.


45/52

#.*. &ensus ureau (;;;a. 'bout 8etropolitan 'reas, #.*. &ensus ureau,

httpF44www.census.gov4population4www4estimates4aboutmetro.html

#.*. &ensus ureau (;;;b. 'ppendix 'F 'rea &lassifications,

httpF44www.census.gov4td4stf54append[a.html_#!'6 '62 !#!'7

Jele, 8. (;/=. Krural village and periurban settlementF a casestudy of circulation from the

&entral Province,K 1ccassional Paper, %nstitute of 'pplied *ocial and :conomic !esearch, 6o.0,

0+ p.

Jennetier, P. (;. K7a vie agricole urbaine O Pointe 6oireK, &ahiers d1utre 8er, 4+5F >

=.

hisson, 8.?. (;=. KTsweletsweleF @rom *ettlement to &ommunity in a Peri#rban 'rea of

the &is$eiK, #rban 'nthropology, 5(05F05/0+;.

illiams, Qac$ @., *tanley 2. runn and Qoe T. 2arden (;=5. Korld #rban 2evelopmentK,

pp. 50 in *tanley 2. runn and Qac$ @. illiams (eds., &ities of the orldF orld !egional

#rban 2evelopment, 6ew DourF Harper &ollin Publishers, %nc.

illiams, 7.. (;;>. 2evelopment, 2emography, and @amily 2ecision8a$ingF The

*tatus of omen in !ural Qava, oulderF estview Press.

inoto, Qoyo and ?erhardus *chultin$ (;;. K%mpact of #rbanization on 'gricultural

*ustainability and !ural 7ife in est Qava, %ndonesiaK, 8ichigan 'gricultural :xperiment

*tation, 7ansing, 8%, !esearch !eport ++, 'pril, ++ p.

irth, 7ouis (;5=a. The ?hetto. &hicagoF #niversity of &hicago Press.irth, 7ouis (;5=b. K#rbanism as a way of life,K 'merican Qournal of *ociology, F50.

0

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

:6261T:*


46/52

Throughout the paper we use #P' to refer collectively to agricultural productionincludinghorticulture,

floriculture, animal husbandry, forestry and fisheriesin both urban and periurban environments.

0

@or example, Hewitt argues that rural itself is not a Ksingle category but a complexcontinuum...from more rural to

less ruralK and varying extensively Kbased on ( proximity to a central place, (0community size, (5 population

density, ( total population, and (+ economic4socioeconomic factorsK

5

Qulliard (;/5 argues that the urbanization of the countryside (i.e., the integration of ruralinhabitants into new

economic and social relations with towndwellers can be interpreted either as the obliteration of thecountryside or

as the cooperation of rural and urban inhabitants, resulting in the disappearance of the town4countrydichotomy.

*tahl (;/5 examines !omania and concludes that disparities between towns and villagesare disappearing, not

because villages are becoming towns but because they no longer suffer from social and economicunderdevelopment.

These changes are arising from a combination of urbanization, deruralization (i.e., urbanism as wehave defined it

herein, and modernization (of agricultural techni"ues and formation of farming cooperatives

which alter both thecomposition of the rural population and the structure of the agricultural family.

+

e start with KurbanK because it has exercised an intellectual hegemony in the minds ofresearchers.KThe category

`ruralA is a residual category based on whatever population happens to be left over after`urbanA areas have been

defined.... %t does not effectively represent the diversity present in nonurban areas.K (!P!% ;;=


47/52

This is not to imply that the Kmental attitudeK of the periurban dweller is identical to that of theurban dweller or

that it automatically excludes significant elements of the Krural mental attitude.K 2reschers

own experience from

7usa$a suggests that periurban is "uite rural but the production is directed to the urbanenvironment. %n fact, it is this

very range of KattitudesK which we argue underlies the variation in periurban types we introduce inthe next section.

/

Holleman (;F555 underscores the importance of this socialpsychological component when

referring to Bthe

very nature of periurban settlement in that to a ruralderived but urban oriented people, it appears tooffer the

best of two worlds.C (:mphasis added.

=

's 8c2owell and de Haan (;;/F; point outF K8igration studies is not 3ust aboutmovement, but also the

interconnectedness of place of origin and place of destination.K 8andel (;;> "uoted in?ardner (;;5F adds

that Kmigration is essentially a series of exchanges between places.K

;

!ambaud (;/5 hints at this process when he defines urbanism as the creation and modeling of aspace where a

group can express itself. He points out that this process always too$ place at the village level butthat the form it

previously too$ is being changed or copied and deprived of its functions by urbanization. Thus,village urbanization

is to be seen as only part of town development. Presumably, outmigrants are then the agents of thisbroader form of

urbanization which is introduced to the village.

>


48/52

These areas seem closest to those advocated by @riedmann (;; as appropriate foci fordevelopment. His

theoretical model of modular urbanization envisions towncentered, selfgoverning agropolitandistricts and calls for

the development of highdensity rural or periurban areas to raise living standards andincrease employment

opportunities. He suggests that agropolitan districts would preserve the integrity ofhouseholds and village

communities, thus reducing the scale of migration to cities and the social costs inherent to urban-based development.

&adene (;;> examines this conflict process in the rural peripheries of ten large @renchcities. Here urban

newcomers construct private houses on formerly agricultural lots, while the agricultural activity ofthe area generally

remains dynamic. He identifies three types of conflictsF territory management, usage ofcommunal space, and

urbanization of communal space. However, not all such interaction results in conflict.:arlier wor$ in @rance by

&ribier (;/5 showed that relations between the owners of second (i.e., country homes and localresidents depends

upon the socioeconomic situation of the former and the traditions of hospitality of the latter.

0

1bservations of *chlyter (;; show that this is also reflected in the settlement pattern ofillegal s"uatter

compounds. This pattern seems to be derived from rural settlement but the scale was enlarged andthe social content

was different. His interviews clearly indicate that people did not try to reconstruct theircommunities of origin but

were aiming for what they saw as an urban life style.

5

@or example &ran$shaw (;;5 studied the rapid growth in *outh 'frican s"uatter settlements andfound that they


49/52

had not resulted from the uncontrolled 'frican urbanization that followed the abolition of influxcontrol (pass laws.

%nstead the primary impetus came from the displacement of wor$ers from periurban farms. hensmall settlements

of displaced farmwor$ers started to grow, news spread, and displaced urbanites began tosee$ refuge in these

settlements as well.

0+

%'L#%6T'42!:*&H:!

2:@%6%6? P:!%#!'6

hisson (;= describes one example of this process. Tsweletswele is an informalsettlement in the &is$ei

KhomelandK of *outh 'frica. %t is comprised of a large number of rootless people, most of whomare uns$illed and

illiterate, who have come from many places for many reasons, who have no legal right to stay, andwhose presence is

inconsistent with the regional planing of the &is$ei authorities. Det this amorphous settlement wastransformed into

an ordered community by the development of various social and cultural elements.:conomic activities, $inship

lin$s, and rituals have generated relationships and a communal spirit. However, care shouldbe ta$en in applying

these results elsewhere due to the uni"ue conditions in *outh 'frica both under apartheid and after

its collapse.+

Thus, not only do the institutions and networ$s vary by periurban type but their relative importanceto community

development varies systematically as well. This is an important point for developmentwor$ers. %t argues for the

clear a priori identification of institutions that need to be promoted in each type of environment.


50/52

There are some lin$s between the notions underlying our conceptualization of 'P# and thedepiction by 8ayer

(; of the red Ihosa in :ast 7ondon as Bthe `incapsulatedA traditionalist whose entire urbantenure, regardless of

length, is devoted to a single aimF to gather the financial means for an ultimate, undisturbedretirement at his rural

home in the society whose morals and values he has never forsa$en.C (8ayer as cited in Holleman;F550

/

Holleman (; refers to this as the Bdualistic basis of existence, both `ruralA and `urbanA.C Hisevidence from

*waziland shows Bthat in the urban sector alone nearly half of the adult male population considers ithas substantial

roots in the rural area....The same tendency is clearly revealed among the periurban males,but in this sector the

proportions of those with a dual home basis are very much smaller than in the urban sector.C

=

Jele (;/= describes an example from the &entral Province of Papua 6ew ?uinea.@ocusing on the role of

circulation between the rural village, a periurban settlement (either chain or diffuse periurban in ourlexicon, and the

city of Port 8oresby, Jele argues that contemporary circulation is not simply an extension ofhistorical movements

but has emerged in its present form as a result of the introduced influences of education, wageemployment, better

communication and urbanization.

;

&onsider the complicated relationships in est 'frican cultures that lin$ geographicenvironments through

gendered family relationships. Here migration of many young men to the cities has oftenleft women wholly

responsible for all fieldwor$ and family maintenance. Det despite the fact that 'frican womenprovide => of the


51/52


52/52

themselves and their dependants, without necessarily committing themselves to a permanenturbanized

existence....\TVhe physical development of these urbanized settlements has on the whole been sohaphazard that there

is in the ma3ority of cases no certainty about the rights pertaining to the individual plots upon whichthese structures

have been built.C (p. 55> BTherefore, whatever value may be attached to urban homeownership asa factor in the

process of urbanization in *waziland at the present time, it does not appear to interfere with theretention of strong

ties with the rural home area.C (p. 550

0

%t is also possible for a phenomenon to be legitimate if it is endorsed by those in a populationcharged with ma$ing

and enforcing rul

Documents

Chapter VI Sustainable Development of the Area