The structure and pattern of rurality in Nigeria

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to describe the rural structure of Nigeria on the basis of some indicators and internationally accepted methodology rather than just the population criterion that is presently used in the country. This is necessary because as is the case in most developing countries, this method of determining the rural structure does not make for comparison between countries. To achieve the aim, 14 indicators were selected from the 2006 Annual Abstract of Statistics and Factor Analysis employed to determine the structure, while the pattern was mapped by Arc View GIS 3.2a software. The factor analysis identified five underlying dimensions which explain 77.6% of the total variance that determine the structure of rurality in Nigeria. Based on the pattern of the factor loadings, five typologies of rural were identified. The research further shows that Nigeria is still dominantly rural. The implications of the findings and the need for concerted efforts on rural development in the country are highlighted.

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

“…Principal component analysis (PCA) is one of the most common methods used by data analysts to provide a condensed description and describe patterns of variation in multivariate data sets. Meanwhile, the PCA is a classic and widely used method in rurality studies (Cloke, 1977;Cloke and Edwards, 1986;Harrington and O'Donoghue, 1998;Ocaña-Riola and S anchez-Cantalejo, 2005;Madu, 2010;Prieto-Lara and Ocaña-Riola, 2010). As such, PCA was used in this study to summarize the information provided by the characteristics of the counties into a single rurality factor.…”

“…(Ballas et al, 2003;Baum et al, 2004;Bryden, 2002;Ilbery, 1998;Labrianidis, 2004). In line with the various perspectives of rurality, evidence abounds in literature that rural areas could be characterized by: specific open landscape; a relatively low population density; the greater part of the population being associated with agriculture and forestry; traditional life styles and habits; agricultural and forest-related use of land; a scarcity of built-up areas and settlement that is dispersed; and a preponderance of inhabitants considering themselves countrydwellers (Madu, 2010). This paper tries to establish a China's rurality index system based on international literature and the basic national conditions of China.…”

“…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).…”

“…The concept, measurement and application of rurality, which has been proved to be effective in somewhere else may provide a reference for China (Cloke, 1977;OECD, 1994OECD, , 1996OECD, , 2003Madu, 2010;Long and Zhang, 2012). 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).…”

“…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.…”