Rural-Urban Fringe

Concept

    The concept of rural - urban fringe was propounded by R. J. Pryor in 1968. It is a zone of transition between the continuously built- up urban and suburban areas of the central city and the rural hinterland. The rural - urban fringe has also been defined as "the area of transition between well- recognized urban land use and the area devoted to agriculture.”

    In the context of India, the definition of the rural - urban Fringe maybe “The rural - urban fringe is an area of mixed rural and urban populations and land uses, which begins at the point where agricultural land use appear near the city and extends to the point where villages have distinct urban land uses or where some persons , at least, from the village community commute to the city daily for work or other purposes.”

    Rural-Urban fringe (R-U fringe) is a transitional zone and could be recognized recently on social grounds by the presence of rural and urban groups. But modern means of communications as well as means of movement of people and goods are making the social attitudes between the two groups of rural and urban practically much diffused.

Definitions

“The rural-urban fringe may be defined as the area of transition bet, well-recognized urban land uses & the area denoted to agriculture.”

-G.S. Wehrwein 

“They consider the urban fringes as the zone bet, the country & the city.”

-R.R. Mayers

“Rural-urban fringes is that area adjoining the inner fringe outward from the economic city in which there is an intermingling of characteristically agriculture/& urban land uses.”

-R.B. Andrews

We can also define Rural-Urban Fringe as:

• The nation of the fringe as a distinctive physical area or region of the city, primarily designated by characteristic land-use, associations.
• The nation of the fringe as that area where urbanization impinges on reality & therefore, where the process envisaged by worth, can best be observed & indeed, should be in operation. The rural–urban continuous should most effectively be studied within the confines of this geographical area. 

    The 1st refers directly to the physical characteristics of area.

    The 2nd to the social characteristics of the occupants.

Rural-Urban Fringe generally produces three distinct aspects as its constituent parts; (Figure. 1) – physical, social and economic:

• Fringe as a distinctive physical area or region of the city
• Fringe area where urbanization impinges on rurality to produce conflict between ways of life
• The impact of urban expansion on agricultural land

    Physical aspect is represented by an inner zone. The area is in an advanced stage of transition ‘from rural to urban uses. Another aspect is of social change in attitudes of the people of the outer fringe. Although primarily attitudes were rural, now with the impingement of urbanization, city influences have begun to infiltrate and social transformation takes place.

    Beyond the above stated two aspects, the third one constitutes economic transformation in the area forming ‘an urban shadow’. It is here that agricultural land is being transformed with the impact of urban expansion.

Characteristics of Rural-Urban Fringe:

    Walter Firey has discussed some of the characteristics of Rural-Urban Fringe while describing the Flinct city, Michigan, USA. These include:

1. There is a vast usurpation of agricultural land by residential tracts of the suburbs including commercial, educational uses, etc.
2. Industries have sporadically cropped up.
3. People of the fringe area are overburdened because of the heavy taxes incurred to manage urban amenities.
4. Land values have gone too high due to new constructions to be borne by medium-class population.
5. One could observe a social shift in the attitudes of people.

Fig.1 Hypothetical Model showing City-Countryside Infringement

    In India, Sudesh Nangia studied Delhi Metropolitan region (1976), and highlighted some of the chief characteristics of the R-U fringe around the metropolis. She pointed out that the fringe area extended over 212 sq. km and encompassed 177 villages within its fold. The zone is not concentric but polygonal in shape (Figure. 2).

    Its structural units include slums and squatter-settlements, built-up dwellings without any proper plan, mixed land uses, areas of agricultural production usurped by lot of industrial units, dispersed location of settlements suffering from urban facilities, and also it commands sewerage treatment plant and recreation centres as well.

Figure. 2 Rural-Urban Fringe of Delhi

Some Other geographer’s who studied Rural-Urban Fringe in India:

R.L. Singh studied R-U fringe of Varanasi and called it an extension of the city itself, actual and potential. According to him, “the R-U fringe is an area where most of the rural land is forced into urban uses prematurely.”

U. Singh studied urban fringe of ‘KAVAL’ towns and concluded that their fringe areas coalesced together inheriting all the evils of large conurbations such as horrible slums, appalling house and traffic congestion and long daily trip to work.

The British Countryside Commission organized a conference on the Rural-Urban fringe which revolved around five topics.

This is clear from the report that the major issues of urban fringe include:

1. Changing agricultural environment of R-U fringe
2. Competition and development pressures
3. Prospects of recreation in the urban fringe
4. Land-use relationships and conflicts
5. Interaction between policies in the urban fringe.

There are three main categories of Rural-Urban Fringe:

1. Generally, around the central-city limits for about two kilometres, an innermost ring of the fringe may develop. It contains small towns and urbanized villages. In case of metropolitan area, for example, the Greater Mumbai, the fringe may begin within the city limits.
2. The next level of the fringe area extends further for a distance of five kilometres or more around the previous one. It forms the middle zone of the fringe and includes non-municipal towns and urbanized villages.
3. The third category forming the outer zone includes the villages having little or no urban land uses. Nonetheless, they are linked with the city by their allied functions.

    The above categories are imperceptibly merged into each other and cannot be easily identified without closely examining their land uses in the concerned area. It is once again reiterated that for a proper demarcation of the inner and outer boundaries of the R-U fringe, a field survey of all the villages is a necessity.

Conclusion:

    On the basis of the discussion as stated above this can be concluded that the inner zone of R-U fringe is in the advanced stage of transition from rural to urban uses. The outer zone shows that gradual change is in the process and city influences have begun to appear. Beyond the outer zone is a diffused area where dispersal of some non-farm residences appears.

    At the city margins everywhere, the fringes contain a wide mix of land uses ranging from a variety of commercial developments to the city services and industries. Some of the cities of the Western world have their fringes turned into ‘unpleasant environment’ by junkyards, wholesale oil storage, sewage plants, etc.

    In India, urban fringe has become almost jumbled by coalescing of settlements inheriting all the evils of conurbations such as slums full of ‘jhuggi-jhonparis’, drainage less, unpaved narrow lanes and traffic congestion not far off the city centre.