Population, territory and sustainable development

46
An analysis of the results obtained using this kind of gradient highlights the significant degree of
heterogeneity exhibited by rural territories. While, in some areas, the agricultural sector is the major
employer, in others, the services sector is also an important source of employment. A spatial continuity
pattern similar to the one derived from the land-use model developed by von Thünen (1826) also
emerges: the “urban–central” category is almost always adjacent to the “urban–peripheral” category,
which is, in turn, adjacent to the “urban–agricultural” category. Among the rural categories, the “rural -
remote” category is at one end of the spectrum and is consistently surrounded by the “transitional” rural
category. The urban and transitional agricultural rural categories are separated by a transitional category
whose hallmark is a high degree of population density.
This indicates that there are strong linkages between the different categories on the gradient.
However, given their different characteristics in terms of population density and economic activity, the
transition from one category to the next is not necessarily linear. Two non-linear transitions, in
particular, appear to be possible: from the “rural–transitional” to the “urban–agricultural” categories,
and from the “transitional” category to the “urban–peripheral” category. These gradients also make it
possible to identify middle-sized cities outside the central valley, along with their spheres of influence,
more clearly.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the application of this approach are that rural
territories typically have a low population density, that they are remote and that most of their economic
activities are in the primary sector. This approach also makes it clear how important it is to capture the
heterogeneity of rural areas, the interaction among different types of rural areas and between them and
urban areas, and the way in which these relationships change over time. And in order to do this,
dichotomous measurements need to give way to gradient-based measurements or rurality indices
(Rodríguez and Meneses, 2011).
2. Numerous settlements, disjointedness and the socioeconomic implications
A majority of the region’s rural population is scattered among a vast number of small settlements. These
settlements generally have a low population density and are separated from one another by considerable
distances. In addition, the access routes between them are poor.
The remoteness of rural settlements has to do with the travel times and distances separating them
not only from large urban centres, but also from one another, since their geographical locations and the
size of rural land holdings make it difficult to travel between or to them.
The results of the 2010 census in Mexico illustrate the number and diversity of rural
settlements that exist there. Slightly more than 10 million people live in 173,409 settlements with fewer
than 500 inhabitants each (see table IV.10). These figures are not very different from those gathered in
the 1995 population census, which indicates that somewhat more than 10 million people were living in
nearly 185,000 towns of fewer than 500 inhabitants each (CONAPO, 1999, pp. 91 and 93; Ruvalcaba,
2001, p. 8).