Population, territory and sustainable development

41
There has also been a change in the male/female composition of rural-to-urban migration flows.
Women used to make up a majority of these migrants, and this was reflected in the female selectivity seen
in regional migration up until the 1980s (Rodríguez, 2004). In almost all of the countries, however, the
preponderance of women migrants began to lessen in the years stretching between the 1980s and the
2000s. The figures from the 2010 census round do not confirm the continuation of this pattern, however.
B. RURAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
It is no easy task to describe and analyse rural settlement patterns in any depth because it is virtually
impossible to identify and list each and every one of the rural settlements in the countries of the region.
There are, however various approaches that can be used to take a close look at rural settlement patterns
and to gather evidence that will enable us to put together a clear picture of the situation.
1. An analytical approach based on density gradients
One of the ways to get around this urban/rural dichotomy is to understand rurality on the basis of a
gradient that runs from densely populated areas to more distant ones in which the population is more
widely scattered. With this approach, it is not the actual number of inhabitants that matters but rather an
area’s population density at a territorially disaggregated level (Candia, 2011; Rodríguez and Meneses,
2011; Chomitz, Buys and Thomas, 2004). The two main factors taken into account with this method of
measurement are population density and distance, which are of pivotal importance in the implementation
of action-oriented policies in rural areas (Candia, 2011). Population density influences the cost of
implementing public investment and social policy, while areas with low population densities may not be
attractive to private investment because of problems of economies of scale, distance costs and low
demand; in addition, remoteness has a bearing on the types of economic activities that will be developed
in a given area, since transport costs influence decisions about where to site a given type of production
activity (von Thünen, 1826; Candia, 2011; Dirven, 2007). Furthermore, the population density of areas of
a certain size, municipalities or even census districts does not necessarily equate with the level of
dispersion of the population, since there may be areas with the same number of inhabitants and the same
population density but whose population is distributed in a completely different way within that area.
The ways in which the different sections of the gradient are classified reflect the existence of
differing types of territories, ranging all the way from those that are definitely rural (e.g. dispersed rural)
to intermediate categories (concentrated rural, urban periphery) to those that are definitely urban
(metropolitan areas and, in general, urban areas with high population densities) (Rodríguez and Meneses,
2011). The criteria to be used need to be defined in such a way as to reflect the existence of various
different types of rurality that are constantly changing and interacting and to provide a picture of
integrated environments that share and interchange population groups, production complexes, services,
natural resources and institutions, some of which are entirely agricultural but that are nonetheless closely
linked to nearby cities and population centres. The purpose of developing these types of criteria is to
devise the most suitable analytical tools possible for guiding public and private policymaking as it relates
to investments, programmes and projects.