Population, territory and sustainable development

30
Box IV.1 (concluded)
In addition, since the cut-off levels are low and since density or remoteness are not used as criteria, many population
groups that live in what are essentially rural areas (with a scattered population) are classified as residing in urban
areas. None of the countries uses population density or the distance from towns as explicit criteria either, even
though they are often associated with the economic and geographical dividing lines between urban and rural areas
(Rodríguez and Meneses, 2011). This classification of the ways in which urban and rural areas are defined therefore
fails to settle the controversy, since, once a country has chosen one or more parameters, it must then make other
decisions about the specification of its indicators and cut-off points which will have very important operational
implications (Rodríguez, 2002). When numerical or political/administrative criteria are used, the corresponding
indicators are obvious, but in other cases, such as when, for example, criteria based on locational factors and
production activity are used, then the selection may become a subject of heated debate. Thus, no matter what
definition is used, difficult decisions have to be made about where to set the cut-off points (Rodríguez, 2002).
Reservations about the accuracy of measurements of rural areas have led to the proposal of some alternative
methods. More recent approaches focus on setting aside this kind of demographic definition of rurality and replacing it
with one in which rural areas are viewed as territories, as a spatial category that is chiefly defined on the basis of
population density, remoteness and economic activity (Dirven, 2011). Rural territories are then seen as being characterized
by low population density, remoteness and a predominance of primary economic activities. This territorial approach also
focuses on discerning the heterogeneity of rural areas, of the interactions among them and between them and urban areas,
and the way that these relationships evolve. In order to achieve this, it becomes necessary to make the shift from
dichotomic measurements to gradient-based measurements or rurality indices, such as the following:
(i) A combined density/economic-activity gradient: A different approach to estimating “rurality” is to use a
combination of population density and the share of agricultural employment. Density is determined by
measuring the population in the next-smallest administrative division after municipal districts (minor
administrative divisions) --referred to as “areas of analysis”-- using census microdata and digital census
maps. Economic activity is incorporated at the lower level, which is generally the level of the units used to
collect census data. This is the level at which small areas in which at least 35% of the economically active
population (EAP) is employed in agriculture are identified. These areas are then aggregated at the level of
areas of analysis. This makes it possible to determine, for each area of analysis, what percentage of all small
areas have at least 35% of their EAP employed in the agricultural sector. Candia (2011) takes a somewhat
different approach by combining information on population density and agricultural employment with the
level of unmet basic needs (UBN) in the different categories of areas of analysis. This yields two important
findings: (a) the extent of unmet basic needs increases as population density decreases; and (b) the extent of
unmet basic needs increases as the percentage of the EAP employed in agriculture rises.
(ii) A multi-variable rural-urban gradient: Saborío and Rodríguez (2008) use geographic information
systems (GIS) and satellite imagery restitution tools developed by Arce and Samudio (2008) to
construct a rurality gradient that merges environmental information, information on land use,
geographical data (distance to roads and towns) and economic information (the share of employment
accounted for by agriculture). They first develop a rurality index that combines information on land
use and remoteness. This information is then synthesized into a rural-urban gradient which is then
supplemented with information on the employment status of the economically active population. This
gradient-based approach marks a departure from the idea that rurality is something that transitions
linearly into urbanity. Furthermore, since poverty is not a variable that is included in any of the original
indices, it also leaves behind the idea that “rural” can be equated with “poverty” or “backwardness”.
Nonetheless, as will become evident in the discussions presented in this chapter, the persistence of social
inequalities associated with the urban-rural dichotomy used in censuses and surveys is a powerful argument for its
validity, and it will therefore be used in this study as well.
Source: Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE) - Population Division of ECLAC, on the basis of Jorge
Rodríguez, “Distribución espacial de la población de Latin America and the Caribbean: Tendencias, interpretaciones y
desafíos para las políticas públicas”, Población y desarrollo series, No. 32 (LC/L.1831–P), Santiago, Chile, Economic
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2002. United Nations publication, Sales No. S.02.II.G.137;
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), “Urbanization prospects”, Demographic
Observatory, No. 8 (LC/G.2422-P), Santiago, Chile, 2009. United Nations publication, Sales No. E/S.10.II.G.57; A.
Rodríguez and J. Meneses, “Transformaciones rurales en Latin America y sus relaciones con la rural population”, paper
presented at the Expert Meeting on Population, Territory and Sustainable Development, Santiago, Chile, 16-17 August
2011; M. Dirven, “El empleo rural no agrícola: tendencias, interpretaciones y políticas”, paper presented at the Expert
Meeting on Population, Territory and Sustainable Development, Santiago, Chile, 16-17 August 2011.