Defining The Rural-Urban Fringe [PDF]

Citation preview

Defining the Rural-Urban Fringe Author(s): Robin J. Pryor Source: Social Forces, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 202-215 Published by: University of North Carolina Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2575150 Accessed: 12/09/2008 03:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.



http://www.jstor.org



202



SOCIAL FORCES



the development of status homogamy in this context. Fifty knowledgeable fraternity members and 44 knowledgeable sorority members ranked the 25 fraternities and the 11 sororities on a state university campus in the West South Central region. The agreement on these rankings among men is expressed by coefficients of concordance of .68 and .57. Among women the coefficients were .77 and .76. The rankings of the men also were correlated with the rankings of the women, yielding rho's of .97 for fraternities and .98 for sororities. Information about serious dating relationships was secured from reports of drops, pinnings, and engagements in the campus newspaper. These reports are relatively complete for fraternity and sorority members. Forty-seven percent of the sorority members and 20 percent of the fraternity members were dropped, pinned, or engaged. Of these persons, 82 percent of the women and 63 percent of the men were paired off with fraternity or sorority partners. Men from the higher-ranked fraternities were more likely to be involved with sorority members and their partners were more



likely to be from the higher-ranked sororities. The proportions of men dating independent women increased steadily from the highest- to the lowest-ranked fraternities. Unilike the situation among men where there were very few relationships with off-campus women, between one-sixth and one-fifth of the women at all status levels were involved in relationships with off-campus men. Most of these men probably were former students rather than nonstudents. When sorority women dated campus men, they overwhelmingly were involved with fraternity men and with members of the high- and middle-ranked fraternities. When the status ranks of seriously-dating Greek pairs were correlated, the correlations increased from dropped to pinned to engaged levels. Only the difference from dropped to engaged was statistically significant. Since the same pairs were not followed through time, no certain inference of change can be made. If change does indeed occur, it would seem to be a function of the selection-rejection process rather than a function of the interaction of pairs of individuals.



DEFINING THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE* ROBIN J. PRYOR Univer-sity of Malaya ABSTRACT This study is concerned with the rural-urban fringe as a complex transition zone on the periphery of growing urban areas in Western countries. Case studies of the fringe and related areas are reviewed, and a definition of the rural-urban fringe is suggested. Further, the urban fringe is differentiatedfrom the rural fringe, the former constituting the subzone of most rapid exurban invasion. Hypotheses are postulated regarding the residents, accessibility, and land and dwellings in the fringe, and suggestions for future studies are outlined in the conclusion. As a landscape phenomenon, the fringe varies L. Smith's discussion of the "urbanl fringe" around Louisiana in 1937 from city to city, and from one time to another. Around several cities in the Nethermarked the first use of this term signifying "the built-up area just outside the cor- lands a fringe is barely recognizable; Paris is somewhat similar to the U.S.A. in the interporate limits of the city."' mingling and scatter of land use, but there is a * The financial assistance and research supercloser dependence on public transport; London vision provided in the Department of Geography, is different again, because of its Green Belt, T



University of Melbourne, are gratefully acknowledged by the author. 1 T. L. Smith, "The Population of Louisiana:



Its Composition and Changes," Loulisiana Butlletini, 293 (November 1937).



THE RURAL-URBAN although there is some scattering of land use, and some villages are located within this belt. In general, Dickinson concludes that the modern European city "exhibits the same tendency to extend and explode" as the North American metropolis, "but not nearly to the same degree."2 Conversely, some American writers now question whether the urban fringe problern is disappearing, because "laws permit more cities to supervise zoning within a certain distance of their borders."3 Two features characterize the literature on urban fringe over the past 30 years: 1. The general absence of explicit references to the subject outside North America, although there have been studies, for example, in Sydney,4 Adelaide,5 Melbourne,6 and in London7 and Johannesburg.8 The relatively integral urban nature (rather than nonoccurrence) of the fringe around European cities emerges from Wissink's comparison of that continent with the American urban scene.9 2 R. E. Dickinson, The City Region in Western Etrope (London: Routledge Paperback, 1967). 3 E.g., R. E. Murphy, The Amterican City: An Urban Geography (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1966). 4 N. R. Wills, "The Rural-Urban Fringe: Some Agricultural Characteristics with Specific Reference to Sydney," Australian Geographer, 5 (1945), pp. 29-35; and R. Golledge, "Sydney's Metropolitan Fringe: A Study in Urban-Rural Relations," Australian Geographer, 7 (1959), p. 243 ff. 5 D. L. Smith, "Market Gardening at Adelaide's Urban Fringe," Economtic Geography, 42 (1966), p. 19 ff. 6 R. J. Johnston, "The Population Characteristics of the Urban Fringe: A Review and Example," Atustralian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 2 (1966), pp. 79-93. 7 R. E. Pahl, Urbs in Rure: The Mlfetropolitan Frintge in Hertfordshire (London: London School of Economics and Political Science, Geographical Papers No. 2, 1965). 8 G. H. T. Hart and T. C. Partridge, "Factors in the Development of the Urban Fringe North-West of Johannesburg," South African Geographical Journal, 48 (1966), pp. 32-44. 9 G. A. Wissink, Anmerican Cities in Perspective: With Special Reference to the Development of Their Fringe Areas, Sociaal Geografische Studies,



Hoogleraar aan de Rijksuniversiteitte Utrecht, Nr. 5 (Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum, 1962).



203



FRINGE



2. The confusion of terminiology and lack of clear delineation in case studies. The problem of evaluating and comparing cases is increased by (1) their range in time, as prevailing economic conditions influence the rate of growth and internal characteristics of the fringe; (2) the range in size of the urban center, from a small village to a metropolis or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, each with inherent differences in its fringe, according to the rate of growth, functions, and hierarchical relationship of the central place; (3) the variation in type and degree of zoning control of urban invasion beyond a city's corporate limits, so that London's modified Green Belt results in a very different form of guided "overspill" to Eugene-Springfield's "uncontrolled population expansion" ;10 (4) the differing social, economic and political contexts of the studies from different countries; ancd (5) the differing aims and interests of various research \vorkers. A REVIEW



OF RELATED



TERMS



Because of this diversity, a number of attempts have been made to clarify concepts, and to differentiate between commonly used terms. After reviewing some ten definitions, Kurtz and Eicher1 differentiate between "fringe" and "suburb"; Wissink12 defines 'fringe," "suburbs," "pseudo-suburbs," "satellites" and "pseudo-satellites"; Schnore13 distinguishes between "satellites" and "suburbs"; and a number of writers have described different types of suburbs, some of which could be synonomous with the "fringe" of anotlher research worker. Martin discusses satellite rural areas.14 Areal differentiations have also been made, clualitatively, within the fringe: the "urban 10 W. T. Martin, The Rural-Urban Fringe: A Study of Adjustmnent to Residence Location (Eugene: University of Oregon Studies in Sociology, No. 1, 1953). 11 R. A. Kurtz and J. B. Eicher, "Fringe and Suburbs: A Confusion of Concepts," Social Forces, 37 (October 1958), pp. 32-37. op. cit. 12Wissink, 13 Leo F. Schnore, "Satellites and Suburbs," Social Forces, 36 (December 1957), pp. 121-127. 14 W. T. Martin, "Ecological Change in Satellite Rural Areas," American Sociological Reviezo, 22 (April 1957), pp. 173-183.



SOCIAL FORCES



204 TABLE 1.



THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE: DEFINITION AND DELINEATION



Structural Content Definition



Functional Content



Delineation



Definition



Location



Census categories (direct or derived) e.g., non-village RNF, urbanized area minus central city Contiguous census units e.g., "first-tier counties"



Administration



Non-census areal units beyond control of central city e.g., school, voting districts.



Population density



Selected parameter e.g., 500 sq. mile



Zoninig



regulations



Dwelling age



Specific e.g., market gardens Mixed e.g., between limits of exclusively urban or rural land Valuation changes



Employment



Census categoariese.g., RNF Commuting zone beyond cetrtial city bouncdary



Population density



PIate of growth pei year or iiiter-censal



Utility services



Area not servedl by specific seivices



and urban) Lack of subdivision control



Social orientation



Rural location, urbalinorientation of social activity



Selected parameters e.g., proportion in recent inter-



"Transitioi,"



Undeigoiing chaingee.g., increase



"dynamism"



fringe" and the "rural-urban fringe" ;15 the "limited fringe" and the "extendled fringe" ;16 the "suburban fringe zone" and the "outlying adjacent zone" ;17 and inner and outer fringe American



Land use



Zoned mixed land use (rural



censal period



areas.18



Delineation



census



categories



permit



the differentiation of urban fringe, rural nonfarmn (RNF), and rural farm (RF) within the Chicago fringe,19 and "true fringe," "partial fringe," and "adjacent rural townlships" outside incorporated Detroit ;20 the area between the Melbourne MWetropolitanArea and Melbourne Statistical Division boundaries in 15 R. B. Andrews, "Elements in the Urbanl Fringe Pattern," Jou1rtnal of Land and Public Utility Economics, 18 (May 1942), pp. 169-183. 16 W. C. McKain and R. G. Burniight, "The Sociological Significance of the Rural-Urban Fringe: From the Rural Point of View," Rural Sociolog3, 18 (June 1953), pp. 109-116. 17 M. W. Reinemann, "The Pattern and Distribution of Manufacturing in the Chicago Area," Econ;oiomicGeography, 36 (1960), pp. 139-144. 18 Wissink, op. cit. 19 Q, D. Duncan and A. J. Reiss, "Suburbs and(l Urban Fringe," in Social Characteristics of Urban ities (Newx York: Jolhni Wk`iley and Rutral CGomminn & Sons, 1956). 20 R. B. Myers and J. A. Beegle, "Delineationi and Analysis of the Rural-Urbani Fringe," Applied Aiithiropology, 6 (Spring 1947), pp. 14-22.



in population density or vacant or urbaii land.



the 1966 Census of the Commonwealth of Australia provides a colmiparablecensus zone. The interest of human ecologists in the fringe lhas a(lded the undefined terms "rurban fringe" and



"irurl)baizationf"to the literature; and "slurb," the "slopped-over suburb," is a miiore riecent deviant



from objective DEFINITION



From



a review



terminology.2'



AND DELINEATION



of some 60 case studies



of



fringe areas, four major and six miiinorcomponents enmerge fromi previous (lefilmitions, together with a variety of delineatioln techlliques, and these are summarizedI in Table 1. To (late, integrated tllese ilo definition has successfully various components of the fringe with (1)



theories of urban invasion, andI (2) practical (lelineation techniques. It appears to the present writer that these aspects should be integratecl, anid a proposal for this is miiadebelow which will need to be validated quantitatively b)y future research. The heterogeneity wlhiclhwriters acknowledge as characteristic of the fringe may be, fromiiolne point of view, inconclusive in its very complexity, yet it is better viewed as distinctive 21 H. Parsons, "Slurb is (sic)," paper presenitedt at the 39th Congress of ANZAAS., Melbourln-e, 1967.



THE RURAL-URBAN



FRINGE



205



RURAL-URBANFRINGE X



URBAN FRINGE



RURAL FRI NGE



y



PERCENTAGEDISTANCE URBANTO RURALLAND 0 25 50 75 100 ///\



0/k\



o



//



\\'



lo



/



a/



/S4



/



/



/



/



X=BOUNDARY



OF BUILT-UP URBANAREA



Y=BOUNDARY



C ?