A typology of rural areas in Serbia

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to present a method to establish the typology of rural areas in Serbia. Initially the OECD rurality criterion was applied to define the rural areas in Serbia. Subsequently, relevant indicators were selected (demographic, geographic, economic, employment-related, human capital, agricultural, tourism and infrastructure) and used to define and distinguish relatively homogeneous rural regions, based on correlation analysis, factor analysis (VARIMAX method) and cluster analysis. Cluster analysis revealed six regions of different sizes and characteristics. Practical considerations reduced this to four types, resulting in a robust scheme which accurately reflects the heterogeneous nature of rural Serbia

Spatio-temporal pattern of China's rural development: A rurality index perspective

“…Especially, effective rural development policies must be based on an accurate classification of the essential characteristics of the regional types (OECD, 1994;Gülümser et al, 2008Gülümser et al, , 2009Madu, 2010). Such a frame work allows the identification of both needs and opportunities in the rural areas (Bogdanov et al, 2008). However, historically rural development and rural areas were intrinsically associated with non-urbanization and agriculture, which is not sufficient to describe today's complex reality (Isserman, 2005).…”

“…In general, the analysis of discourses over rurality is important on two levels: first, in obtaining more adequate explanations of social change by observing changes in attitudes and values regarding 'the rural' (Pratt, 1996); second, it is on a policy level, more knowledge on rurality allows for planning of more inclusive policies (Cloke, 1977;Zografos, 2007). Given this, continuous studies about the evaluation of rurality have been carried out in various countries and regions like England and Wales (Cloke, 1977;Cloke and Edwards, 1986;Harrington and O'Donoghue, 1998), Spain (Ocaña-Riola and S anchez-Cantalejo, 2005; Prieto-Lara and Ocaña-Riola, 2010), USA (Waldorf, 2006), Turkey (Gülümser et al, 2008(Gülümser et al, , 2009, Serbia (Bogdanov et al, 2008), Nigeria (Madu, 2010), China (Long et al, 2009a;Meng et al, 2013), and so on. It is believed that the index provides a useful tool which is able to give an insight not only into the static distribution of rurality, but also into the processes of rural change over time.…”

Methodology of typological classification in the study of rural settlements in Serbia

“…Rare attempts by domestic authors suggest that it is still difficult to quantify some input data, that the available indicator basis is still limited, that rich scientific background for coordination and cognitive experiences intersection of different disciplines are necessary, and that we only established a connection to a contemporary approach to the study of rural areas. Thus, in our literature, the methodological classification of rural settlements gradually shifted from a one-sided and simple, to a significantly more complex, systematic and applied one, in order to finally the multivariate approach (Bogdanov, Meredith, & Efstratoglou, 2008;Cartwright & Drobnjaković, 2014;Drobnjaković, 2019;Martinović & Ratkaj, 2015;Meredith, 2006, National Programme for Rural Development of the Republic of Serbia, 2011Njegovan, Pejanović, & Petrović, 2008;Zakić & Stojanović, 2006) to look at the typology of rural settlements (Table 5).…”

Spatial and functional structure of rural settlements in municipalities of Nis

“…Recognizing the diversity of rural areas is an important element of the rural development policy. For effective rural strategies and policies to be developed and implemented in rural areas, it is necessary to recognize these differences, identify their strengths and weaknesses and develop strategies which incorporate them (Bogdanov et al, 2008).…”