Urbanization

The inner city areas of many Global cities have an image of decay with poverty, pollution, crime, overcrowding, poor housing conditions and unemployment. Such problems are more prevalent in inner-city areas than in other areas of the city. Deprivation has been caused by old industries closing down and increasing the unemployment levels which are not tackled due to the old workers not being skilled enough to work in these new factories or line of jobs. This happens more in MEDC’s compared to LEDC’s where overpopulation and urbanization have cause the problems in the inner city.

Counterurbanization has been another problem within MEDC’s as it has left houses derelict and the people would rather commute than live in the inner city. This has then led to out of town shopping centers being set up. In MEDC’s the inner city initiatives for reversing the decline of the inner city started back in 1945 with comprehensive redevelopment. This program involved large-scale clearance of old terraces in order to provide space for new housing and inner city environmental features. Over twenty years 1. 5 million properties wee knocked down in the inner city.

Elswick and Kenton in Newcastle were two areas embarked for comprehensive redevelopment. Existing residents were moved either into new towns of Cramlington or to extensive council houses estates built in areas such as, Byker. Many local authorities followed identical planning and soon the landscape of the inner city was transformed with huge concrete and glass tower blocks separated by flat expanses of grass. At the time these high-rise flats were a great success architecturally however the policy failed due to redevelopment underachieving demolition. This gave a housing shortage and vast spaces of derelict land.

This policy that lasted till 1967 also failed to tackle the social and economic problems. 1968 saw another scheme come into action; the Urban Aid programme gave grants to local authorities to expand services in deprived areas and to establish community development projects using self help. This scheme was a great deal more localized and it was unfortunate that the economic downturn limited the funds and therefore by 1977 the scheme had finished. The next year the new towns policy was abandoned in an effort to stop decentralization of people and businesses.

For the first time inner cities were officially declared problem areas. In 1988 Margaret Thatcher introduced the “Action for cities” policy. From 1991 onwards-Local authorities were able to bid for funds for specific urban projects. An example is Sunderland; the money was used to redesign parts of the city center with a new shopping precinct. And bus station. A single government department, the end of the 1990’s had created the Urban Regeneration Agency. In Greater Manchester 4. 5 hectares of the city were destroyed with 30,000 homes left damaged form the bombing of World War II.

By the end of the war 70,000 homes were deemed unfit for living mostly in the high density Victorian inner center. The plan for Manchester was launched in 1945 with the aim of clearing all Victorian housing. Following the repair of the war the Manchester Slum Clearance Programme restarted in 1954. Over five years 7500 properties were demolished mostly in the Miles Platting area. In 1961 the policy of comprehensive development took place with the clearance programme expanding in four main areas: Hulme, Beswick, Longsight and Harpurhey.

Over 55,00 new houses, a mixture of low and high rise were built to replaced the cleared terraces reducing the housing density and population by up to 50% in some areas. The Hulme area was a typical Victorian area of Manchester and was tightly packed with terraces. Conditions were overcrowded and polluted with few housing having toilets. After the demolition of the terraces, shopping facilities were introduced in three areas. By 1972 the redevelopment of Hulme was completed with 5,000 new houses being built.

Problems did arise with new properties leaking and then the heating bills were too high for the residents and many found the accommodation inappropriate. This area fell into a spiral of decline with growing unemployment, drugs and violence along with eh deteriorating environment. The Hulme city challenge was launched in 1992. This plan involved building of 3000 new homes, shops, roads, offices and community facilities to replace existing properties in a 60-hectare area. The funds of i??200 million came from the government, local authority and private finance.

Manchester faced other problems form the closure of the nineteenth century industries that left 24,000 jobs unavailable between 1974 and 1984. Plans included 2000 new houses and 375,000 square meters of industrial and commercial floor space to provide 10,000 jobs. In 1988 central Manchester was given n UDC to regenerate 200 hectares of land and buildings in the southern part of the city center. This area included six conservation areas, over ninety listed buildings, three universities, the Granada Studios Tour and the Museum of Science and Industry. However these were the areas of contaminated land, derelict warehouses, mills and canals.

The IDC ended in 1996 and in the eight years of operation invested i??420 million. Urban deprivation in the LEDC’s have been tackled in many ways however there have been schemes that have proven to be a lot more successful than the others. In Chennai there has been a rapid increase in population due to the rural to urban migration and the high birth rates. About one third of the population lives in the slums, mostly shantytowns. The planning solutions began with the building of four to six storey blocks however these largely failed due to high maintenance and lack of uptake as the tenants would be unable to afford the rent.

If the rent were reduced the scheme would lose money. After this initial failure The Board took up a new idea of upgrading the slums. The aims set were providing one bath and one toilet per ten families; one public fountain per twenty families; one street light per forty meters of road and one pre school per two hundred families. Other initiatives required self-help financing after an initial investment had been made either by the World Bank or welfare organizations. These schemes encouraged greater community involvement.

Some of the start up loans were gave to families to build their own homes. Site and service schemes were implemented with finance provided for the acquisition of land; purchase of building materials, road building and the provision of basic services such as, water and sewage. New owners were then responsible for building the property on their allocated land. The upgrading after that often led to the sale of homes to higher income groups. The generated some money for the poor families and allowed the Board to re-invest in new schemes.

An area in the southern outskirts of Chennai was the location for a site and services scheme known as Velacheri. It provided fourteen hectares of land to house 2,640 families many of whom were being forced out of Chennai. Waiting for the new residents building their homes would have caused a delayed the rail building so contractors were used to begin the building of properties. Along with the roads, water supply, streetlights and many other services. These services did face problems with many being left unfinished and extra floors being added without regulation.

Some families sold their home for profit and the poorest were unable to afford these houses. These are some example of the initiatives being taken in order to solve the problem of urban deprivation. However there have been many other schemes and one of the most successful was that of the Favelas in Brazil redevelopment that won several prizes such as, the famous Habitat Award from the United Nations. These have been more successful as it didn’t break up the families and kept the community spirit and the families could continue to access their place of employment.

The similarities between the initiatives of the MEDC and LEDC worlds that have been undertaken for there reduction of urban deprivation are not all that similar. This is due to the fact that the MEDC’s have more finance so there are able to use other schemes to tackle their problems. Also the fact that the problems they face are of a different cause. In the LEDC’s it tends to be shanty towns are therefore have to look to house these people unlike the MEDC it not so overcrowding but unemployment due to the decline of the Industrial Revolution and recently Counterurbanization has left old Victorian buildings derelict and an eye-saw.

Two article that are referred to In this paper from handbook include: Problems of arbitration In the CB – Traffic Congestion” and “The Problems of urban Life Today’ . These articles take into account the issues in relation to urban life these days. People are Increasingly moving Into cities from villages to make better livelihood and enhance the standard of life. This process of migration from rural to urban areas is called arbitration. Consequently, the urban areas are growing in their sizes.

The pace with which arbitration is taking place, it will urbanize 64% of the developing oral and 86% of the developed world up till 2050 as per a report published In The Economist (2012). This shows that the process of arbitration Is taking place continuously and it is widespread. The elements which attract people towards urban areas are Increased number of health facilities, abundant resources, various entertainment facilities, multiculturalism, better employment opportunities, increased number of education opportunities, quicker transportation modes, etc.

However, there also exist various problems despite these varied nature of advantages associated with urban life. These problems exist as much in magnitude as do the facilities or advantages of urban life. This can be so estimated that although the issue of transportation is resolved due to increased number of public transportation and personal vehicles but this has given rise to other problem which Is the problem of congestion. The cycles which are already crowded with Increased number of people moving into them are getting more crowded due to these congestion issues.

This issue has equally been highlighted both in the BBC report of 2014 and by Powell (2013). Powell (2013) enlisted a number of problems in his article and stated that problems eke air pollution, over crowdedness, waste of factories, living cost and rate of crimes are all adding up to the difficulties In the urban life. The report by BBC (2014) took Into account various problems associated with arbitration and discussed each one of them in detail and their impact.

The report highlighted the ever increasing problems of housing particularly after the accession of UK to European union, the issues about sewerage, congestion problems, life standard in cities as compared to outer parts of cities, etc. Many of these Issues are not referred to In the article Ritter by Powell (2013). The reality of urban life can be quite daunting despite the perks which are usually associated with it. The report by BBC (2014) observed that those who lived in central London were prone to fall ill more than those people who lived in outer London boroughs.

Such Illnesses barred people from working. Furthermore, the unemployment rate in central parts of the city was higher as compared to the 1 OFF The report also highlighted the increasing demand for more houses for increased number of migrants particularly of European descent due to Britain’s accession to European Union as a member state. The Union guarantees free movement of persons, capital, services and goods within the member states. This has brought in a number of people from other member states to London particularly the ones from Poland since it became part of Union.

By 2030, the demand for more houses will reach around 3 million. The government in response has to provide additional homes and decide whether the development would take place on Brownfield or Greenfield. The development on former is advantageous in the sense that it already provides a Mathew developed structure which makes it easier to renovate the structure for living purposes with fewer additional costs. The advantage of developing Greenfield is of bringing arbitration and its benefits to rural areas.

However, little if any structure is available in Greenfield unlike Brownfield. The concept of sustainable cities is also gaining grip these days. These cities are the ones which are intended to be self-sufficient and are environment friendly in their operations. The main advantage of such cities is that they do not affect the environment much as compared to other urbanize places. Lehman, 2010) BBC (2014) report gave account of four cities which are turned into echo-towns with Whitehall Borden being one of them.

The aim behind developing such cities is to lessen the impact of city life on environment by ensuring lesser carbon footprints, encouraging energy conservation, employing renewable resources, cycling and walking or using public transport more than the individual cars, employ at local level, Resultantly, the city which will emerge will not only be self-sufficient but will also be environment friendly. It will have a lesser impact on the environment from one should to the community level. That is why the British government awarded GAP 10 million worth of grant to Whitehall Borden city.

This shows that the government is encouraging environment friendly communities with the increase in arbitration so that the environment can be preserved. This also shows that due to increased pace of arbitration; environment is at stake which has compelled government(s) to encourage echo-friendly towns. Hence, the dangers posed by arbitration are manifold Just like the advantages and has equal number of issues as has the perks. The articles referred to gave account of such issues which encircle the increased pace of arbitration. These issues are widespread and are major.

Such issues can affect the health of the people which is clear from the graphs shown in the BBC (2014) report which showed that people living in central parts of London were prone to develop illness more than the rest. Therefore, people in urban areas are more vulnerable and open to risks than the ones in rural areas. However, there is still a solution to this issue which is to develop environment friendly towns. The introduction and development of such towns will References Powell, Christopher (2013): The Problems of Urban Life Today.

Aim: In this piece of coursework, my aim is to investigate if small villages can become suburbanised over time, and what factors will affect this. For this investigation, we have chosen to look at Pirbright, a small village just outside of surrey.

Hypothesis: Is Pirbright a Suburbanised Village?

To prove the hypothesis I will need to find out:

* Where is Pirbright located?

* What is it like?

* How has it changed over the years?

* What are the reasons?

* What are the consequences of these changes for the long-term residents, the businesses and the new comers?

Methods Of Research:

In order to find answers to these questions and to prove the hypothesis I used various methods of research these will be:

Questionnaire – We made up our own questionnaires in groups of four. The reason we thought this would be a good idea was so that we could get opinions from people who have been living in Pirbright and learn more about these people. We surveyed 10 different people and we tried to ask various types of people such as pensioners, young students and adults. In order to do this we asked at different times of the day.

Walk To Investigate Services And Shops – We walked around Pirbright to investigate the different types of services they had to offer.

Walk To Investigate Land Use And Location – We also walked to and around Pirbright to investigate the uses of land and the layout of the village.

Environmental Quality Survey – This was a survey that had already been prepared for us. This helped us to decide whether or not the village was an attractive place to live. We completed the survey in different parts of the village.

Research – I will find out any other information from resources such as the Internet.

What is a Suburbanised Village?

A Suburbanised village is a village that people from nearby towns and cities have moved into, gradually changing the character of the village and making it more urbanised. A suburbanised village change its functions from being a rural agricultural village to being a suburb of a town. Suburbanised villages can sometimes also be called commuter settlements or dormitory towns, this is because the village is used by residents who live and stay there to travel to work in nearby towns or cities. Since the 1980’s people have been moving out of major cities such as London, -Reading and Guildford to get away from things such as crime, pollution and traffic congestion in cities. This is called counter urbanisation.

The characteristics of a suburbanised village are;

* Housing becomes more expensive leaving local people not being able to afford them. We would expect to find new houses built for newcomers, as well as old farmhouses that have been modernised for rich city commuters.

* The need for more houses and extra services is required to cater to the needs of the newer residents

* There are more newcomers than original residents; this can cause social problems within the village.

* Cars, noise and litter cause more pollution than before.

* The village is expanded to house more residents.

* More cars cause congestion.

* The village is forced to change to become more modern; this can also result in it becoming damaged.

* People move to rural villages that are commuting distance from their place of work, so a suburbanised village must have access to railway and motorway links.

* Newcomers will shop in cities and out of town shopping centres, so we would not expect to find medium or high order shops.

People move into villages for many different reasons, these are;

* People find towns and cities to be polluted, unattractive and very congested.

* Wealthy commuters can afford to buy bigger and more attractive houses in villages and since transport links have improved these people can still easily commute to work in the city.

* Retired people prefer to enjoy they leisure time in a peaceful and quieter environment.

* People find it to be safer in villages.

* There are newer houses being built, these sell for cheaper than they do in cities and towns.

How can location affect the sub urbanisation of a village?

The location of a village can be affected by its location. If a village were located near a large city, it would be easier to make use of the services provided in the city. This would be useful because there will be more services in the city such as hospitals, large shopping centres or a wider ranger of schools.

If a village were located far away from a city it would be harder for the village residents because they would have to do with the only services provided in the village as it would be hard to get to the city. This would be inconvenient because usually there are not many services in a village.

If a village were located near good roads that lead into the city it would be easier for people to get to the city, there probably would be a bus or some sort of public transport that would lead into the city.

If a village is isolated with poor transport links it would make access in and out of the village difficult. This not only means that if would be for village residents to get to a city but also that visitors would find the village hard to get to.

If a village is located on hilly land it would be difficult to build new buildings whereas if the village was built on flat land it would be easier to improve the village with new buildings and services.

Where is Pirbright?

The village that we are studying is called ‘Pirbright’ it is located in Surrey, southeast England (see map below). Pirbright is located near Guildford, Bracknell, Woking, Farnborough and Camberley. The roads that connect these towns to Pirbright are A322, A3214, A320 and A323. These roads are good for commuters because they can travel to and from work in different towns quite easily. If they do not have cars then there are good rail links into other close by towns. There is no train station in Pirbright however the closest one is in Basingstoke. It takes approximately one hour to travel from Pirbright into central London. From the map below I can see that Pirbright very close to London and also to other cities, where good jobs are available.

The land that Pirbright is built on is mainly countryside and there are many woodlands and open fields in and around the area. The land is mainly greenery and some areas are quite steep. The land is fertile, which makes it good for farming. There are also good communications in Pirbright.

Map 1: Southeast England

What is Pirbright like?

Pirbright is a very attractive, yet small village. The population is approximately 3644 people, this has changed drastically over the past hundred years when there was only a few hundred people living in Pirbright. It has a large green in the centre of the village (see picture 1). The grass is always short and well kept. There are no signs of vandalism or litter. Around the green there are a few phone boxes and three bus stops, one going towards Woking and the other two going towards Guildford. The bus stops are connections to Guilford, Woking and other surrounding towns.

There are a few shops around the green as well; these include a newsagent, a butcher, an antique shop and two pubs; The White Hart and The Royal Oak. There is a large pond and a children’s playground on the green as well. Pirbright formally contained a post office, which was then forced to shut down because of robbery. This shows that the crime rate in Pirbright has increased. A mobile library visits Pirbright once a week.

Picture 1: views of the green

The church in Pirbright is called St Michael’s church (see picture 2) and is around the green. There is only one school in Pirbright, Pirbright County Primary. It is only a primary school for five to eleven year olds. This means that when children are ready for high school they will have to travel to a nearby city or town. Most children travel to Guildford and Woking, as these are the closest and easiest to town to get to.

Picture 2: St Michael’s church

Many attractive houses surround the green (see picture 3). These houses are mainly built before the 1940s. The houses are bigger in comparison to the sizes of housing in London, and are also much cheaper. An average three-bedroom house would cost approximately �385,000.

The houses have extra garden space, bigger drive ways and more space to build extensions because the houses are spread out from each other.

Picture 3: Houses around the green

Below is a land-use map, to show the services available in Pirbright, and the ages of the houses.

People in Pirbright

We visited Pirbright on a typical mid-week afternoon to find out about the types of people that live there, we found out this information by asking people to fill out a questionnaire that we had designed. These are the results we came back with. I also did some extra research to find out facts and figures of Pirbright.

People’s opinions on Pirbright

WHAT LEISURE ACTIVITIES ARE THERE IN THE AREA

Tennis

Karate

Golf

Cricket

Bowles

Dance

WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT PIRBRIGHT?

Quiet

Friendly People

Plenty For Children To Do

Peaceful Area

Countryside

Good Community

WHAT DO YOU DISLIKE ABOUT PIRBRIGHT?

Does Not Have a Post Office

Is Not Sociable

Services and Shops

WHAT SERVICES ARE USED IN THE AREA

WHO DO THEY CATER FOR?

Newsagent

Everyone in the village, most people use the newsagent everyday.

Pubs

Used mainly by adults, as a place to relax.

Antique Shop

Used by the wealthy residents, once only a few times a year.

Butcher

Used to provide food for all residents, used once a week.

Mobile Library

Used by anyone that wants it.

Public Transport

Used mainly by the retirees and students travelling to high school.

Public Park

Used by everyone in the village.

Village Hall

Used for meetings and clubs etc. dance clubs.

Comparing Pirbright in 1871 to Pirbright today

From the two maps I can see that Pirbright has drastically changed over the past 30 years. There was much more open space in 1871 but now a lot of that land has been used to build things such as houses and other services. The area that Pirbright occupies has expanded; more houses are being built so the village has had to expand to cater for the extra people. The land use has changed from mainly being farmland to having lots of houses and other buildings built on it. From the map of 1871 I can see that there were only a few houses whereas most of Pirbright is covered by houses now. More services have been added in Pirbright for example there used to be only one pub in 1871 but another one has been built now. Overall Pirbright has grown over the years and the open land has been used to build houses on.

Conclusion

After analysing the statistics and information about Pirbright I have come to a conclusion that all the evidence shows that Pirbright has become a suburbanised village. In 1915, we would have expected people to have jobs such as farmers, woodcutters, small village owners, ground keepers for private estates, housemaids and stable workers. The sort of people that would want to live there now are upper-class people as they do not usually have to work, retired people as they do not have to work either and people whom do not want to live in London, but still be based near London. The facts that point to the conclusion that Pirbright has become suburbanised are:

* The population has greatly increased over time and is continuing to do so. Shown by the census figures.

* The village has become larger. Many of the old houses are in the centre of the village and the newer ones have been built on the outskirts. This proves that new houses are being built for commuters and other residents wishing to move to Pirbright. This is shown in the land use map.

* Most residents are middle ages and are high-skilled professionals – this proves that they are commuters as Pirbright does not offer and high-skilled professions. This is shown in the data that I collected on the field trip.

* The home of most residents are detached or semi-detached. This proves that they are expensive and can only be afforded by wealthy commuters.

* Most village residents own their own homes or are currently buying. This shows that the average Pirbright resident can afford houses; this is because mainly commuters live in Pirbright.

* More then half of the residents own their own car. This also proves that a lot of commuters live in Pirbright, as they need a car to travel to work.

* Most residents take their car to work, not public transport.

* Most of the residents have lived in the village for 30 to 40 years.

* The village is gradually becoming more modernised. The newcomers are transforming the village.

* There are no high order shops, meaning residents have to visit a town or city for shopping centres.

* Houses are becoming more expensive. The value is increasing as more people want to live in Pirbright and wealthy people can afford them.

All these facts that I have stated link back to my theory on suburbanised villages, Pirbright has successfully gained nearly all the characteristics of a suburbanised village. Pirbright has gone from being a unknown small hamlet, to becoming a modern and attractive growing villages used mainly by commuters and retired people. I have found the main reason people move from large towns and cities into Pirbright is because it is a quiet and peaceful area. The long term residence will live closer to the village centre and the newer residence will be living on the edge as this will be where the new houses will be built.

Evaluation

I feel that this piece of coursework has greatly widened my knowledge of suburbanised villages. I did not thoroughly understand it at the beginning however after undertaking the research about the changes in Pirbright I have come to understand how and why small villages change their function to become urbanised.

I feel I have done well in this coursework as I did a lot of research and used many new ICT skills that I have leant. I could improve the coursework by getting a broader range on data, I visited Pirbright on a working day therefore I did not get enough information about residents who may have been at work that day. To improve this now I would visit Pirbright on a weekend and carry out my research then.

However overall I believe I have created a good report on how and why Pirbright has become suburbanised.

Executive Summary

McDonald’s is a signature restaurant chain serving 58 million customers each day all over the world through its 31000 restaurants in 119 countries. This report views the various internal and external factors affecting the McDonald’s prior to that the report gives a brief introduction about McDonald’s, its evolution and the way it entered the Indian market. Evaluation of the response McDonald’s is giving to the internal and external factors has been calculated through the Internal Factor Evaluation matrix and External Factor Evaluation matrix.

We have used the I/E matrix and the Grand strategy matrix to formulate strategies. We formulated two possible strategies i. i. expansion in the market and product development. The strategies that we formulated using the above stated matrices have been evaluated by using the Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix to know which strategy is more viable. Furthermore, the report provides an insight into the organizational purpose of the McDonald’s. Current strategies and recommendations include the analysis of the strategies that McDonald’s is using to hold and maintain its competitive advantage.

Introduction McDonald’s is the largest burger fast food chain which has its operations in 119 countries. It serves around 58 million customers every day through its more than 31,000 restaurants (McDonald’s, 2009). McDonald’s was started by two brothers Dick and Mac McDonald’s in the year 1940. Ray Kroc became the first franchisee as he opened a restaurant in Chicago. Restaurant became so popular among the masses that in just four years the number of McDonald’s restaurants reached 100. QSCV i. e.

Quality, Service, Cleanliness and Value became the motto of the company and the execution of the same is one of the primary reasons why McDonald’s is what it is today. In 1961, Ray Kroc payed $2. 7 million to Dick and Mac McDonald’s and acquired all the rights reserved of McDonald’s. McDonald’s was growing at such a fast speed that in 1963, 500th restaurant was opened. In 1965, McDonald’s went public and in 1967 first restaurant across the borders of USA was opened in Canada and since then McDonald’s has never looked back.

Presently McDonald’s has its restaurants in 119 countries of the world (McDonald’s History, 2009). McDonald’s got the approval to enter in the Indian market in the year 1991 itself but it took 5 years to study the market, needs of the people, adjust the menu according to the culture and to build a strong supply chain. McDonald’s finally entered India in 1996 as it opened its first restaurant in New Delhi. McDonald’s is a joint venture in India, which was signed in April 1995 and is managed and owned by Mr. Amit Jatia (MD of Hardcastle Restaurants private Ltd. who heads the operations in South and West India and by Connaught Plaza restaurants Private Ltd. which looks after the operations in North and East India. There are 158 restaurants in the whole country today (About McDonald’s, 2009). McDonald’s has always believed in thinking global and acting local. Before entering into the Indian market McDonald’s made to changes in its menu as in India beef and pork items cannot be offered because of the religious sentiments of the people so they had to be eliminated from the menu.

Thus, making India the first country where McDonald’s does not serve beef and pork in its burgers. External Environment External factors are the factors which do not exist within the realm of business itself and on which business has no control at all. We have used the EFE Matrix to conduct an external strategic – management audit (Annexure-1 shows the EFE matrix). The total weighted score of McDonald’s is 3. 04 this shows that it is performing with regards to the external factors in a very good manner.

According to Technopark report in 2009 the food industry in India stood at $13 billion and estimates say that by the end of 2011 the fast food industry alone will grow to $6. 3 billion (Economic Times, 2010). The Technopark report also says that within the organized food service which is growing at a furious pace of 20% per annum the quick service restaurants are the fastest growing. This forms a huge opportunity for McDonald’s and it is determined to grab that opportunity with both the hands as it is planning to open 180-190 more restaurants in the country by the year 2015 (Financial Express, 2009).

McDonald’s is determined to expand its market share in the industry which is growing at a fast pace. The other reasons which are triggering this expansion are the high youth population in the country and rise in urbanization and per capita income. These reasons develop the new opportunities for McDonald’s. Population living in the urban areas has also increased to 28% in 2004 and is expected to be increase by another 12% by year 2025 (Indian Demographic Scenario,2025, 2009). In urban areas the number of dual income households is increasing.

Thus females, like their husbands, spend time away from home which has marked the way the females use to mange family meals. People have started opting for food away from home. Per capita income in India is also increasing very rapidly and moreover according to the World Resource Institute report ‘Structure of poverty in India’ which was published in the 2004 around 53% of the household income in India is spent on food, beverages and around Rs. 35000 crores is spent on eating out annually (Annexure-2 shows the rise in per capita income). Thus, the fast food industry has good prospects ahead.

Other key external factor that forms an opportunity for the fast food industry as a whole and also for McDonald’s is the fact that 30% of the population of the country is the youth which is in the age group of 10-24 years of age who are generally inclined towards the fast foods (Youth in India, 2009). Rising consciousness about the health forms one of the greatest threats for the fast food industry. The trend has been changing towards the organic foods and the quick service restaurants will have to adapt themselves to sustain their market share. McDonald’s has slowly started to adapt to this change by introducing salads.

For the foreign fast food chains like McDonald’s, KFC etc. nationalism remains a constant threat for example when in 2005 USA denied a diplomatic visa to the Gujarat Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, various protests were launched by the BJP party activists against the American MNC’s. Low barriers to entry in the fast food industry is also a potential threat for the players in the market because if the barriers are low and the growth opportunities of the industry are high, new players will be willing to enter into the market and thus increasing the competition.

Internal Assessment Internal factors are the factors which exist within the realm of business itself and on which business exercise certain amount of control. We have used the IFE Matrix to conduct an internal strategic – management audit (Annexure-3 shows the IFE matrix). The total weighted score of McDonald’s is 3. 14, which means that it is performing with regards to these factors in an exceedingly well manner. McDonald’s is a well known and a recognized brand across the globe. This familiarity of the brand among the masses forms one of the biggest strengths for McDonald’s.

Efficient supply chain is one of the other key strengths for McDonald’s. In India 50,000 crores of food produced gets destroyed because of lack of proper infrastructural facilities of transportation and storage. McDonald’s had set up an efficient supply chain by investing 450 crores in supply chain management even before opening its first restaurant in India to implement its Quality, Service, Cleanliness and Value principle (About McDonald’s, 2009). For any business, employees form the greatest asset and it is even truer in case of McDonald’s.

The proficient work force that McDonald’s has is one of the key reasons why it is one of the key players in the market today. The ability to provide the order within one minute is one such manifestation of this proficiency. The efficiency of the employees is also increased because of the various training programmes they go through which help them in performing their tasks quickly and in a better way but also enhances their capabilities which help them rise in their careers. Around 40% of the employees in middle management of McDonald’s in India are the ones who had joined as crew members.

Business environment is very dynamic no business can afford to remain static; it has to work continuously towards innovation. Nearly 80% of McDonald’s restaurants in India give certain percentage of their profits for research and development activities. This is another important strength for McDonald’s. McDonald’s has its operations in 119 countries; one of the key reasons for the McDonald’s is the ability to make itself a part of the community. In India also McDonald’s has been a part of various social welfare activities like – raising funds for charity on World’s Children Day, helping in setting up pulse polio to eliminate polio.

McDonald’s strategy revolved around customization of the menu to suit the Indian palate. (About McDoanld’s, 2009) One of the key weaknesses that McDonald’s has is that it faces a high attrition ratio as high as 83%, which means that company has to invest money for training of new employees again and again. (Business Standard, 2009) McDonald’s often faces protests from environmentalists for promoting practices harmful to the environment through the disposal of tons of packaging material and through the effects of cattle ranching.

Another internal weakness for McDonald’s is that is yet to capitalize on the trend towards organic food. Even though it has reacted to the changing preferences of the consumers by introducing salads in the menu but it is still to make the most of the opportunity. Organizational Purpose Clearly defined organizational purpose is very important for an organization as it describes the basis for its existence. It works as a directing force on the basis of which every decision is taken. The organizational purpose can be known with the help of three elements which are:

• Vision .
• Mission
• Objective

McDonald’s vision is to be the world’s best quick service restaurant experience. (Work@Mcdonald’s, 2010) Being the best means offering excellent quality, service, cleanliness and value, so that it makes each customer in every restaurant smile. It has been the execution of the motto of QSC and V i. e. Quality, Service, Value and Cleanliness that has made McDonald’s a success story. It strategizes to attain best value by providing top quality products at reasonable prices. McDonald’s mission is to be its customers’ favorite place and way to eat.

To fulfill this McDonald’s has been using the concentration strategy where in it is trying for greater market penetration by attaining high level of efficiency in servicing its customers with a limited product line. Delivery of QSC and V on one hand keeps the customers satisfied and on the other hand also maintains the competitive edge over the competitors. The delivery of QSC and V is accomplished by taking care of every minute detail whether it is the unique cold chain network which makes sure that the customers get fresh products at low cost or the supply chain management which makes sure that customers are offered good quality products. About McDoanld’s, 2009) Moreover to keep the customers satisfied McDonald’s continuously updates its menu. Strategy Analysis and Choice In the IFE matrix the total weighted score came out to be 3. 14 and in the EFE matrix the total weighted score was 3. 04. This means that McDonald’s is responding to the internal and external factors in a good way. We have used I/E matrix to come out with a strategy for McDonald’s on the basis of its score in the IFE and EFE matrix (Annexure-4 shows the I/E matrix). The basis f I/E matrix are the total weighted score of the IFE matrix which is represented on X axis and the weighted score of EFE matrix is represented on Y axis.

The I/E matrix is divided in three regions which have strategy implication. Quadrants I, II and IV are the regions of grow and build. Firms which position in Quadrant III, V and VII can be managed with hold and maintain strategy where as the organizations positioned in Quadrant VI, VIII and IX can be managed with harvest and divest strategy. McDonald’s is placed in the I/E matrix it comes in the Quadrant-I because of its score in the IFE and EFE matrix which is 3. 4 and 3. 04 respectively. The business organizations which are positioned in Quadrant I can be best managed through grow and build strategy. The Grand Strategy Matrix is another widely used tool for formulating strategies. A firm can be positioned in the four quadrants on the basis of market growth and competitive position that it holds in the market.

When we placed McDonald’s in the Grand Strategy Matrix it was positioned in Quadrant I mainly because of its high market share of 18% in the highly fragmented quick service restaurant and also because of rapid growth of the quick service restaurant industry itself. Financial Express, 2009)Thus, McDonald’s is in a strong strategic position (Annexure-5 shows the Grand strategy matrix). For the firms in Quadrant I market penetration, market development and product development are appropriate strategies. By using the Grand strategy matrix and Internal/External matrix we have come up with two strategies which are expansion in the market i. e. opening more restaurants in the country and the other strategies is product development which is developing the new products and continuously updating the menu in order to pull more customers.

Need for product development arises specially because of the rising health consciousness among the people particularly in the educated class. To identify which strategy is more feasible we have used the Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix popularly known as QSPM. QSPM is a strategic management tool to evaluate which of the possible strategies is better for the business organization. In QSPM weights and attractive scores are given to each factor according to the amount of effect it can have on each strategy and then the product of weight and attractive score is calculated.

The product for whichever strategy is greater is selected. We used two strategies expansion in the market and product development, the total attractive score for expansion in the market is 3. 37 and for product development is 2. 60. Thus, opening more restaurants is a more viable strategy than product development. Currently McDonald’s has 157 restaurants all over India, majority of these are in the metropolitan cities or in larger cities like Chandigarh, Kanpur, Jaipur so it has very less or limited presence in smaller cities.

So, McDonald’s should target these cities as they form a large potential market for it. With the per capita income on rise, high youth population in the country and increasing urbanization the smaller cities can prove promising markets for McDonald’s. If we look at the current plans of McDonald’s it becomes clear that they have spotted this opportunity as they are planning to open 180 restaurants by the year 2015 majority of these restaurants will be opened in smaller cities. Retail initiatives are being taken up by petroleum companies like Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Financial Express, 2009) McDonald’s can capitalize on this trend and can set up more outlets near the petrol stations on the highways and can thus increase its presence. Current Strategy McDonald’s is currently focusing on expanding its base in the Indian market. By the year 2015 McDonald’s is planning to start around 180 more restaurants, majority of which will be opened in Tier II cities where McDonald’s has very limited presence. (financialexpress, 2009) So, McDonald’s is trying to penetrate very deep into the Indian market.

McDonald’s is also trying to come up with new products so as to satisfy its customers. Nearly 80% of McDonald’s restaurants in India give certain percentage of their profits for research and development activities which helps McDonald’s in coming up with new products and efficient service. When McDonald’s entered the Indian market it had to re-engineer its menu and since then it has included several products especially for the Indian customers as McDonald’s believes in thinking global but acting local.

McDonald’s should continue with its strategy of expanding its base into the Indian market as still there are lot of untapped regional markets in the country especially in the Eastern India where it has less presence as compared to the other parts of the country. McDonald’s should also concentrate on the smaller cities as large amount of population (nearly 177 million people) lives in smaller cities. So there is a huge market potential for McDonald’s in Tier II and III cities. (Population in small cities, 2010) Conclusion The Indian Quick Service Restaurant industry is growing at a very fast pace.

Per capita income, urbanization and youth population is also increasing in India. So India is a very potential and attractive market for the quick service restaurants. McDonald’s should make the most of the opportunity and should penetrate deep into the market by increasing the number of restaurants in India. It should concentrate on increasing its base in the smaller cities which can form potential markets for McDonald’s.

References

About McDonald’s. (2009). Retrieved 2009, from mcdonaldsindia. com: http://www. mcdonaldsindia. com/aboutus. html Brief history of McDonald’s. (2009).

Retrieved December 22, 2009, from mcspotlight. org: http://www. mcspotlight. org/company/company_history. html Business Standard. (2009).

Retrieved January 2010, from business-standard. com: http://www. business-standard. com/india/storypage. php? autono=290494. Economic Times. (2010).

Retrieved January 2010, from economictimes. indiatimes. com: http://economictimes. indiatimes. com/News/articlelist/1715249553. cms Financial Express. (2009).

Retrieved 2009, from financialexpress. com: http://www. financialexpress. com/news/mcdonalds-india-to-open-180190-more-restaurants-by-2015/466279/ Financial Express. 2009, June).

Retrieved January 2010, from financialexpress. com: http://www. financialexpress. com/news/mcdonalds-to-invest-rs-400-cr-in-india/321481/ Financial Express. (2009).

Retrieved January 2010, from financialexpress. com: http://www. financialexpress. com/news/bpcl-plans-to-grow-in-retail-initiative/101536/ financialexpress. (2009).

Retrieved 2009, from financialexpress. com: 3. http://www. financialexpress. com/news/mcdonalds-india-to-open-180190-more-restaurants-by-2015/466279/ McDonald’s. (2009).

Retrieved January 2010, from aboutmcdonalds. com: http://aboutmcdonalds. om/mcd/our_company. html McDonald’s History. (2009).

Retrieved January 2010, from aboutmcdonalds. com: http://aboutmcdonalds. com/mcd/our_company/mcd_history. html Population in small cities. (2010).

Retrieved January 2010, from infochangeindia. org: infochangeindia. org/… India/Cityscapes/Slumdogs-and-small-towns. html Work@Mcdonald’s. (2010).

Retrieved 2010, from mcdonaldsindia. com: http://www. mcdonaldsindia. com/workat. html Youth in India. (2009).

Retrieved 2010, from www. popcouncil. org: http://www. popcouncil. org/projects/TA_IndiaYouthSituationNeeds. html Annexure-1 EFE Matrix S. No.

Key External FactorsWeightageRankWeighted Score 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. Opportunities Increasing urbanization High youth population Rise in per capita income Indian quick service industry expected to be around $6. 3 billion High proportion of household income spent on food and beverages.

Opportunities

Increasing urbanization0. 1040. 4010. 10 High youth population0. 1540. 6010. 15 Rise in per capita income0. Indian quick service industry expected to be around $6. 3 billion by 20110. 1530. 4520. 30 High proportion of household income spent on food and beverages0. 1030. 3020. 20 Threats Rising health consciousness0. 1020. 2040. 40 Anti-American sentiments0. Low barriers to entry0.

Strengths High brand awareness0. 1020. 2010. 10 Efficient supply chain0. 1030. 3020. 20 Community involvement0. Efficient workforce0. 1030. 3020. 20 World class training programmes0. 0920. 1810. 09 Investment in research and development0. Quality of food0. 1020. 2030. 30 Customization of menu0. 0820. 1640. 32 Weaknesses High employee turnover0. Less variety0. 0810. 0830. 24 Environmental issues0. Yet to capitalize on the trend towards organic food0. Total Attractive Score 3. 37 2. 60

Military University Experiences Of Migration For hundreds of years migration has been the topic of discussion as individuals or mass groups have migrated away from their homelands In search of alternate residency elsewhere throughout the world. Much like today, the 19th century migratory have been faced with a plethora of different types of reactions by their newfound territories Including both positive and negative In nature. Many Individuals exhibited numerous viewpoints Including the various governments who understood the advantages tot immigration.

Immigration certainly holds the potential to live a more lucrative elite In another part of the world as most immigrants enjoyed the venous employment opportunities and enhanced lifestyles. Although some immigrants traveled with their families. There were Individuals who set out to find a new life while leaving their loved ones behind. In one such case, and individual by the name of Taffeta Broker. ‘џaka was left behind in Warsaw Poland as her husband sent out to find a new existence. Unfortunately for Taffeta. Re husband never returns as we read in her correspondence to him. 893. Dear husband; up to the present I live with Rabbinic. I am not very Well satisfied, perhaps because was accustomed to live for So many years quietly, With you alone. And today you are at one and Of the world and I at the Other. So when I kick at strange corners don’t know what to do from longing and regret _ You wont forget me, that you Will remain noble as you have been I have only the sort Of the friends think that I own thousands and from time to time Sorenson comes to me, skins me to lend her a dozen rubles. 1894. P to the present I thought and rolled that you would still come back to Warsaw, but since you write that you will come I comply with the will of God and with your will. I shall now, the days and weeks until take me to America Such a sad elite ! Go almost to nobody, tort as long as PU were in Warsaw everything was deferent. Formally we had friends, and everybody was glad to see us, while now, if I go to anybody they are afraid need something from them and they show me beforehand and indifferent face (Hunt et al. 012, 778). Forward and left loved ones behind.

For the ones that did follow their loved ones, their experiences were that of excitement, apprehension and anxiousness as these immigrants were met with both open arms and rejection as the population receiving the immigrant’s viewed these people as deserters and without patriotism. The following: gives us insight of the feelings from one immigrant as he is traveling to Im bound for young America, farewell old Scandinavia. Vive had my America. Fill of cold and toil, all for the love of mother soil. You poets with your rocks and rills can stay in starve-on words, no-frills.

They are, out west, a man breaths free, while here one slaves, a tired bee, gathering honey filled the hive of wise old rulers, on us they thrive. In toil we over before their thrones while they take to slumber like lazy drones. Drunk with our nectar they’ve set us affright, but opportunity has knocked, and will take our flight (Hunt et al. 2012, 779). It is clear, that at least for some, immigrants left their homelands in search of freedom along with economic stability hat they felt could not be provided in their own country.

Paper prepared for the conference ‘New Forms of Urbanization: Conceptualizing and Measuring Human Settlement in the Twenty-first Century’, organized by the IUSSP Working Group on Urbanization and held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Study and Conference Center in Bellagio, Italy, 11-15 March 2002. Paper 14 THE NATURE OF RURALITY IN POST INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY By David L. Brown and John B. Cromartie? Draft 2/15/02 INTRODUCTION Urbanization is a dynamic social and economic process that transforms societies from primarily rural to primarily urban ways of life (Hauser, 1965).

Few would dispute this definition, but how useful is it for examining the spatial reorganization of population and economic activities in postindustrial societies where a large majority of people, jobs, and organizations are concentrated in or dominated by urban agglomerations? The essence of this question hinges on our ability to differentiate between what is rural and urban in postindustrial societies. While this may have been a relatively straightforward task during the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries, it has become an exceedingly complex question in the context of postindustrialization. We acknowledge the helpful comments of Calvin Beale, Kai Schafft, Laszlo Kulcsar, and the conference organizers Tony Champion and Graeme Hugo. Brenda Creeley prepared the manuscript. Early social scientists saw urbanization and industrialization as being reciprocally related. One process could not proceed without the other. While most scholars understood that urban and rural were not entirely discrete categories, relatively clear lines could be drawn to distinguish urban from rural communities and distinct ways of life associated with each.

In addition, early social scientists were convinced that the transformation from rural to urban-industrial society would be accompanied by a wide range of negative social outcomes. In fact, this concern is generally credited with motivating the rise of the new discipline of Sociology (Marx, 1976; Durkheim, 1951; Weber, 1968; Wirth, 1938). The social and economic organization of community life has been thoroughly transformed by technological and institutional changes since the mid 20th century.

Accordingly, notions of what constitutes urban and rural communities that grew out of the era of industrialization may no longer offer a reliable lens with which to view contemporary settlement structures. They may no longer provide a reliable delineation of what is urban and what is rural, and consequently we may not be able to determine whether the level of urbanization is advancing, declining, or remaining constant. As a consequence, our analyses of population redistribution may bear little connection to the reality of spatial reorganization.

The large literature on counter-urbanization, to which we are both contributors, may be missing the mark because it depends on data systems and geo-coding schemes that reflect a prior era of socio-spatial organization. Hence, our purpose in this paper is to propose a multidimensional approach for conceptualizing rurality that reflects the demographic, social, economic and institutional realities of postindustrial society. We agree with Halfacree (1993: p. 4) that “…the quest for an all-embracing definition of the rural is neither desirable nor feasible,” but we believe that social science can and should develop conceptual frameworks and geo-coding schemes to situate localities according to their degree of rurality. Since rurality is a multidimensional concept, the degree of rurality should be judged against a composite definition that includes key social, economic and demographic attributes. This approach rejects the notion of rural as a residual (after urban has been measured).

The operationalization of rurality should be flexible enough to differentiate urban from rural, while recognizing and appreciating the diversity contained within each category. Our approach to defining 2 rurality involves the material aspects of localities, but we acknowledge the validity of other approaches. As Halfacree and others have observed, rurality can be defined as a social representation. Or as he puts it, “the rural as space, and the rural as representing space” should be distinguished (1993: 34). We do not propose to debate the relative merits of the material and representational approaches in this paper.

Each has a respected tradition in social science. Our sociodemographic approach is inspired by previous work of Paul Cloke, 1977 and 1986, while the social representation approach’s pedigree includes Moscovici, 1981, Giddens, 1984, and many other highly respected scholars. We feel that these approaches are complementary rather than competitive. As Martin Lewis has observed, “In the end, only by combining the insights of the new geography with those of the traditional approaches may human relatedness be adequately reconceptualized” (1991: 608).

However, we emphasize the socioeconomic approach in this paper because of its utility for informing statistical practice essential to the quantitative empirical study of urbanization. Why Do We Need To Know What Is Rural In Postindustrial Society? At the most basic level, urbanization cannot be understood without also examining the nature of rurality. Perhaps it is axiomatic, but urbanization cannot proceed in postindustrial society unless rural people and communities persist and are at risk of “becoming urban. While there is copious evidence that rural-urban differences have diminished during the latter half of the 20th century, important differences have been shown to persist structuring the lives people live and the opportunities available to them (Brown and Lee, 1999; Fuguitt, et al. , 1989). In addition, what we believe about rural people and communities sets the agenda for public policy. The American public, for example, holds a strong pro-rural and/or antiurban bias that provides continuing support for agricultural and rural programs (Kellogg Foundation, 2002; RUPRI, 1995; Willits, et al. 1990), and quite possibly promotes population deconcentration (Brown, et al. , 1997). However, research has demonstrated that this pro-rural bias is based on nostalgic positive images of rural places, and a misunderstanding of the social and economic realities of rural life (Willits, et al. , 1990). What people value in rural communities is often formed “at a distance,” through literature, art and music, not through actual experience. As John Logan (1996: 26) has observed, “A 3 large share of what we value is the mythology and symbolism of rural places, rather than their reality. Accordingly, more reliable research-based information about the social and economic organization of rural areas, their role in national society, polity and economy, and their relative share of a nation’s population and economic activity will provide a stronger basis for public policy. Bringing beliefs about rural areas into closer connection with empirical reality will improve the fit between rural problems and opportunities, public priorities, and the targeting of public investments. HOW CAN THE NATURE OF POSTINDUSTRIAL RURALITY BE DETERMINED?

The Conventional Approach: Rural-urban classification in most national statistical systems typically involves two mutually exclusive categories. In most highly developed societies, (North America, Western Europe, Oceania, and Japan) the rural-urban delineation is based solely on population size and/or density (United Nations, 1999). It is not that government statisticians don’t understand that rurality is a variable not a discrete dichotomy, that the rural-urban distinction is somewhat arbitrary regardless of the population size or density threshold chosen, or that neither the rural nor the urban category is homogeneous.

However, given their responsibilities for monitoring basic aspects of social organization and social change, and for providing data tabulations to the public, to businesses, and to other government agencies, the elemental need is to develop a geographic schema that makes intuitive sense, and where between category variability exceeds internal differentiation.

It has not been realistic to expect statistical agencies to adopt a complex multidimensional delineation of rurality given the realities and politics of statistical practice in which budget constraints, and competition between stake holder groups determine which items are included on censuses and other large scale public surveys, and which variables are routinely included in tabulations and data products. However, the development of GIS techniques, and new advances in small area data collection and availability suggest that more flexibility and variability in geo-coding may be possible in the future.

Hence, while we do not necessarily expect statistical agencies to adopt our multidimensional approach, we believe that it raises important questions about conventional methodologies for assessing the level and pace of urbanization in highly developed nations. 4 OMB’s New Core Based System: A Step In The Right Direction: The public availability of summary tape files from censuses and other nationwide surveys, provides significant opportunities for inquiry by university-based and government scientists into the extent and nature of rurality in postindustrial societies. In effect, analysts can design their own residential categorization schemes to examine various aspects of settlement structure and change. And, innovative research experimenting with alternative categorization systems can eventually contribute to changes in official statistical practice. For example, 25 years of research by social scientists in the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and in academia is arguably responsible for persuading the U. S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that an undifferentiated nonmetropolitan category is not defensible (Duncan and Reiss, 1956; Butler and Beale, 1994).

As early as 1975, ERS was recommending that the nonmetropolitan category be disaggregated according to the degree of urbanization. In a major publication released in that year, Hines, Brown and Zimmer showed that more populous nonmetropolitan counties, especially those adjacent to metropolitan areas, were more similar to metropolitan areas than to their nonmetropolitan counterparts. OMB has now modified its official geo-coding scheme to recognize diversity within nonmetropolitan America.

OMB has instituted a “core based statistical area classification system” that recognizes that both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan territory can be integrated with a population center. The new CBSA classification system establishes a micropolitan category as a means of distinguishing between nonmetropolitan areas that are integrated with centers of 10,000 to 49,999 population, and nonmetropolitan territory that is not integrated with any particular population center of 10,000 or more inhabitants (OMB, 2000). 2 Metropolitan counties contain 79 percent of the U. S. opulation and 21 percent of its land area in the new classification scheme while the 1 In the United States and some other postindustrial countries, two residential categorizations are used: urban vs. rural and metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan. Some writers use these concepts interchangeably, but even though their respective shares of the nation’s total population have tracked quite closely during recent decades, they are different concepts. What is similar between them, however, is that rural and nonmetropolitan are both residuals that are left over once urban settlement is accounted for.

Hence, the rural population includes all residents of places of less than 2,500 and persons who live outside of urbanized areas while the nonmetropolitan population includes all persons who live outside of metropolitan counties (counties containing or integrated with a place of 50,000 persons). 2 Social scientists have also objected to the use of counties as building blocks for the nation’s metropolitan geography, but the new OMB standards have retained counties in the new classification system (Morrill, Cromartie and Hart, 1999). 5 ercentages are exactly reversed for nonmetropolitan territory. The nonmetropolitan population is almost evenly split between micropolitan and noncore based areas, although the former category contains 582 counties while the latter has 1668. The data in tables 1-3 show substantial diversity between micropolitan and noncore based areas, and demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between these two types of counties. To begin with, the average micropolitan county has 45,875 persons compared with only 15,634 persons in the average noncore based area.

The data in Table 1 also show that micropolitan counties have 43 persons per square mile while only 12 persons live on each square mile of noncore based territory. [Table 1 here] Table 2 compares social and economic characteristics of persons living in various types of U. S. counties. In each instance these data show regular patterns of decline as one moves from the largest metropolitan counties to noncore based counties.

For example, almost half of all metropolitan persons have attended college compared about one third of nonmetropolitan residents, but only 31 percent of noncore based adults have been to college compared with 37 percent of persons living in micropolitan counties. Metropolitan workers are more dependent on jobs in service industries while their nonmetropolitan counterparts depend more heavily on farming and manufacturing, although these differences are not strikingly large.

Within the nonmetropolitan category, however, dependence on farming is over twice as high in noncore based counties compared with micropolitan areas, and small but consistently smaller percentages of noncore based employees work in manufacturing, retail and services jobs. Similarly, professional, technical managerial and administrative occupations comprise a much larger share of metropolitan than nonmetropolitan jobs, and a larger share in micropolitan than in noncore based counties.

Data on earnings per job (displayed in the bottom panel of Table 2) show that noncore based workers earn less than their micropolitan counterparts in all industrial categories, and their earnings are consistently the lowest of any county type in the U. S. [Table 2 here] We have also examined whether micropolitan areas are more “metropolitan” than noncore based counties with respect to the presence of various services and facilities typically associated with metropolitan status (Beale, 1984). We conducted a mail survey 6 f the heads of county government in a 10 percent random sample of noncore based areas, and in 20 percent of micropolitan and small metropolitan areas. We have only received about 40 percent of the questionnaires from the county executives at this time, so the data in Table 3 are provisional. 3 However, these preliminary results reveal that central counties of small metropolitan areas are clearly differentiated from both nonmetropolitan categories. In all twelve instances the presence of these “metropolitan functions” is most prevalent in small metropolitan counties, and least available in noncore based areas.

Micropolitan areas, however, appear to be more similar to small metropolitan areas than to noncore based counties. Hence, OMB’s new system seems to be a step in the right direction from the undifferentiated nonmetropolitan residential. It does a good job of distinguishing between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, and between micropolitan and noncore based areas outside of the metropolitan category. [Table 3 here] While we applaud the OMB’s new classification system as a step toward recognizing rural diversity, we believe that it is just that, one step.

We recommend that social science research further examine the multidimensional nature of rurality in order to enhance understanding of the extent of urban and rural settlement and urbanization in postindustrial societies, and to guide future modifications of official statistical geography. A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO CONCEPTUALIZING RURALITY IN POSTINDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES As mentioned earlier, our multidimensional approach elaborates and extends earlier work by Paul Cloke (1977; 1986).

The basic notion is that while urban and rural have intrinsic meaning, both concepts derive much of their analytical power when compared with the other. Low population density, for example, has important meaning in and of itself, but its meaning is further clarified when low rural density is compared with the high ratio of persons to space found in urban regions. 4 Cloke’s objective was to develop a 3 We are now involved in the refusal conversion process and hope to obtain at least a 60 percent response rate.

Moreover, attitudes about urban and rural areas are formed on the basis of the attributes people believe characterize such areas, but these attitudes also reflect people’s opinions of how rural and urban areas differ 4 7 quantitative statement of rurality that could be used as a basis for comparative studies among rural areas, and between them and urban areas. He used principal components analysis to identify nine variables associated with rural-urban location. Principal components loading scores were then used as weighting criteria to form an index of rurality.

The resulting scores were arrayed in quartiles ranging from extreme rural to extreme non-rural, and each of England’s and Wales’ administrative districts was assigned to one of these four categories. In 1986, Cloke replicated his 1971 index. His second study showed that while most districts were classified in the same rural-urban category in both 1971 and 1981, some districts changed categories over the decade, and the nature of rurality itself was marginally transformed over time.

He found that the variables differentiating rural from urban areas in 1981 were somewhat different than those used in the initial analysis. In particular, population decline and net out migration were important rural attributes in 1971, during a period of population concentration, but not in the 1981 analysis after the relative rates of rural-urban population change and net migration had reversed in favor of the periphery. The 1981 revision included 8 variables.

Positive variable loadings on five of the eight factors indicated that they corresponded to urban characteristics (high level of housing occupancy, high percentage of workers outcommuting, high percentage of women in childbearing ages, high level of household amenities, and high population density) while negative loadings on the remaining three variables corresponded to rural characteristics (high involvement in extractive industries, disproportionate number of older persons, and distance from an urban area of 50,000 population).

It is important to point out at this juncture that neither Cloke nor we are geographic determinists, e. g. , we do not contend that the type of environment people live in has an independent causal effect on their attitudes and behavior. On the other hand, we believe that spatial locality is more than simply a setting in which social and economic relationships occur. Our position is that a person’s place of residence in a nation’s settlement system can shape social and economic outcomes, and can have a profound impact on life chances (Brown and Lee, 1999). While a growing number of social from each other.

Accordingly, the public’s overall positive attitude toward rural people and areas is a combination of “pro-rural” and “anti-urban” attitudes. 8 scientists agree that space should be incorporated into social theory and research, there is little agreement on the manner in which space enters into social behavior. The debate hinges on the question of whether spatial arrangements are an elemental cause of social behavior, or whether space acts in a more contingent manner. Our position is consistent with the latter view; that space has an important but contingent causative role in social relations.

Hence, we see value in distinguishing rural from urban areas because we contend that rural-urban variations in socioeconomic status, for example, can only be understood by taking into account how contingent characteristics of rural and urban places modify the access to opportunities. In other words, we are saying that local social structure contextualizes social and economic behavior. We do not question the existence of fundamental social relationships, but we observe that these relationships are modified by spatial variability in social and economic contexts.

Linking back to the status attainment example, education is positively related to income in all locations, but the strength of this relationship varies across local labor markets depending on their industrial and occupational structures. Education matters everywhere, but returns to education are higher in some spatial contexts than in others depending on the availability of well paying jobs and on the nature of the stratification system (Duncan, 1999). Dimensions of Rurality in the United States at the Turn of the Century: Cloke’s approach to defining rurality was largely inductive.

His choice of variables was not shaped by a clearly defined theoretical framework for distinguishing rural from urban, although they were suggested by the literature as being important aspects of the sociospatial environment. Neither do we claim that our approach emanates from a wellcrafted theory of rurality, but we do start with a clear premise about four distinct dimensions that comprise rural environments in postindustrial societies. We then choose indicators for each domain that have been shown in the research literature to vary across rural-urban space.

The concept of rurality we are proposing involves ecological, economic, institutional, and sociocultural dimensions. In this section of the paper we discuss each of these four dimensions in turn, and propose a set of indicators that could be used to empirically develop a composite measure of rurality. We follow Willits and Bealer (1967) in observing that a composite definition of rurality involves both the attributes of rural areas themselves, and the attributes of persons residing in such areas. Figure 1 shows 9 the four dimensions of rurality, indicators of each dimension, and the contrasting rural vs. rban situation for each indicator. Our approach indicates the attributes that define rurality, and it does so in a comparative framework vis a vis urbanity. [Figure 1 here] The Ecological Dimension: Population size, population density, spatial situation within a settlement system and natural resource endowments are included in this dimension. As indicated earlier, conventional statistical practice typically emphasizes this approach. Urban vs. rural delineations are usually defined by a size and/or a density threshold, while metropolitan vs. onmetropolitan delineations use size and density criteria to identify central cities and measures of geographic access such as physical distance or commuting to signify the interdependence of peripheral areas. Hope Tisdale’s (1942) influential article provides one of the clearest theoretical statements for the size/density delineation, while central place theory is the primary theoretical basis for considering geographic location vis-a-vis other places in a settlement system (Berry, 1967). The ecological dimension also includes a consideration of the natural environment.

As shown in Table 1, 79 percent of land in the United States is found outside of officially recognized metropolitan areas, and 61 percent is located in noncore based areas. While this tells volumes about density, it also indicates that most of America’s natural resources are located in its rural territory. Energy, minerals, land for agricultural production, water, and habitat for wild life are all found disproportionately in the rural sector, and this is an important aspect of the nation’s rurality during the postindustrial era.

The Economic Dimension: This dimension concerns the organization of economic activity in local economies. It focuses on what people do for a living, the size and composition of local economies, and the linkages between local economic activities and national and global capital. Until the mid 20th century, rural and agriculture while not synonymous were very closely related, and definitions of rural were heavily influenced by measures of dependence on agriculture and other extractive industries.

Rural economies were small and undifferentiated both in terms of establishments and workers, and localities had a relatively high degree of economic autonomy. 10 Many people continue to view rural areas through this archaic lens, even though local economies have been fundamentally restructured during the past 50 years. Direct dependence on agriculture, forestry, mining and fisheries has declined to less than one in ten nonmetropolitan workers although extractive industries continue to dominate economic activity in particular regions of the U. S. (Cook and Mizer, 1994).

There is no denying that economic activities in rural and urban America have become much more similar since World War II. Not only has dependence on extractive industries declined throughout the country, but so has dependence on manufacturing, and most economic growth is now accounted for by services. However, the jobs available in rural labor markets continue to be significantly different than urban jobs. Rural manufacturing is more likely to be nondurable than urban manufacturing, and well paying producer services jobs are seldom available in rural economies.

Moreover, research shows that full time rural workers earn less than urban workers regardless of their industry of employment, and that rural employment is significantly more likely to be part time and/or seasonal (Gale and McGranahan, 2001). While these rural-urban differences in employment do not adhere to the traditional farm-nonfarm contours, they show that opportunities available in rural labor markets are clearly inferior to those available in urban America, and that rural and urban areas can be differentiated with respect to how people make a living.

Rural economies have traditionally been smaller than urban economies in terms of number of workers, the number and size of establishments, and the gross value of products or services sold. Of the three indicators of rural economic activity, this one has changed the least over time even though the decentralization of urban based branch plants has brought some large employers to particular rural areas. Moreover, rural economies have been much more dependent on one or a few types of economic activity than urban economies, and this too remains an important rural-urban difference.

The “protection of distance” enjoyed (or suffered) by rural economies has clearly diminished in recent decades. Technological changes including all weather roads, the interstate highway system, virtually universal telephone service (now including cell phones), and the internet have greatly reduced rural isolation. This is not to deny that some important inequalities in transportation and communication infrastructure persist 11 between rural and urban areas, but for the most part the effect of physical distance has been substantially leveled by technological advances.

Institutional changes, especially the increased mobility of capital, have further diminished rural economic independence. The deregulation of banking means that capital now flows easily to and from metro bank centers and the rural periphery. This has both positive and negative implications for particular rural communities, but the clear result is that rural economies are increasingly integrated within national and global structures. With this change comes a resulting decline of local autonomy and increased dependence on extra-local firms and organizations.

This makes rural areas at the same time more attractive sites for certain types of external investment, and more likely to lose traditional employers because of financial decisions made elsewhere. There is little room for sentiment in the globalized economy, including sentiment for rural communities as valued “home places. ” When the bottom line demands it, capital flows across national borders to production sites with low costs and few regulations, locating and relocating according to the demands of the market.

The Institutional Dimension: Communities are institutionalized solutions to the problems of everyday life. Accordingly, some social scientists view communities as configurations of institutional spheres including education, religion, governance, the economy, etc. (Rubin, 1969). While we do not necessarily subscribe to this functionalist view of community organization, there is no denying that institutions are a critical aspect of local social structure, and that human beings would have little use for communities if they did not serve recurring needs. Both urban and rural areas have formal institutional sectors.

Most places have some form of politics and local governance, organized religion, education, and voluntary and service organizations. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding section, sustenance and economic activity are important aspects of locality. Rural and urban areas are not so much differentiated by the presence or absence of particular types of institutions as by their diversity and capacity. For example, schools, newspapers and churches, are widespread, but most rural communities offer a narrower range of choices as to where one’s children may be educated, where to worship, and/or the media from which one obtains local news.

School consolidation in rural America has resulted in fewer and larger schools. Students are often bussed long distances to school. 12 Similarly, while churches are present in most rural communities, the range of denominations and congregations is narrow. Clubs, service organizations, and voluntary associations are also an important part of rural community life, but the choice of organizations to join is constrained in comparison to the organizational choices available in urban environments.

Rural institutions also tend to have more limited capacity than their urban counterparts. Rural governments, for example, are often constrained by part time leadership, insufficient fiscal resources, ineffective organizational structures, limited access to technical information and expertise, and limited ability to assess changing community needs (Kraybill and Lobao, 2001; Cigler, 1993). The Sociocultural Dimension: Moral traditionalism is one of the most consistent themes subsumed under the term “rural culture” (Willits and Bealer, 1967).

Rural persons are often considered to be more conservative than their urban counterparts, and data from national surveys indicate this to be true in the United States. Calvin Beale (1995) has shown that 49 percent of rural respondents to a 1993 National Opinion Research Center (NORC) national survey regard themselves as religious fundamentalists compared with 33 percent of urban respondents. Similarly, a much lower percentage of rural respondents believe that abortion should be available for any reason (26 percent vs. 44 percent), and a much higher percentage of rural persons believe that homosexuality is immoral (84 percent vs. 2 percent). Beale also observed that rural voters have been more likely to support conservative candidates in recent elections even though rural persons are slightly more likely than urban persons to describe themselves as democrats. A related idea is that rural conservatism is often associated with the homogeneity of the rural population. Wirth (1938) and others argued that increased population diversity was one of the dominant effects of urbanization, and one of the reasons why informal social control was likely to break down in cities.

Ironically, Fisher (1975) and other critics of Wirth, argued that ethnic diversity rather than contributing to a weakening of the social order was a main reason why the strength of social relations did not diminish in cities, and why community was not “eclipsed” in urban environments. While the association between ethnic and other aspects of population diversity and social and political attitudes is still an open question, research clearly indicates that rural populations in the U. S. , while 13 increasingly diverse, remain significantly more homogeneous than urban populations (Fuguitt, et al. 1989). In addition, the rural population’s racial and ethnic diversity is not spread evenly across the landscape, but tends to concentrate in particular regions and locales (Cromartie, 1999). Hence, even though about one out of ten rural Americans is African American, few rural communities are 10 percent Black. Rather, Blacks tend either to comprise the majority or large minority of a rural population or an insignificant percentage. The same tends to be true with respect to other racial and/or ethnic populations.

Much has been written to suggest that primary social interaction is more prevalent and more intense in rural areas, and that rural areas have a higher level of informal social control than is true in urban areas. However, these contentions, if ever true, are not supported by contemporary empirical evidence. Copious research has shown that urban persons are involved in regular and intense interaction with family, friends and neighbors, and that community has not been eclipsed in urban America (Hummon, 1990; Fischer, 1975).

Moreover, research by Sampson (1999), and others has shown that social networks are quite effective in regulating social behavior in urban locales. Accordingly, primary social interaction and effective social control do not differentiate rural and urban areas in contemporary American society, and are not components of the sociocultural dimension of rurality. CONCLUSIONS How urbanized are postindustrial societies? How rapidly is the remaining rural population being incorporated within the urban category? How do rural people and rural areas contribute to and/or detract from the social and economic well being of highly developed nations?

We contend that answering these questions accurately is contingent on the availability of theoretically informed definitions of rural and urban areas. Virtually every developed nation uses population size and density as the basis for its differentiation of urban and rural areas. Areas obtain urban status by reaching some threshold of population size and/or density, and commuting or some similar measure of routine social and/or economic interaction is used to determine whether peripheral areas are integrated with, and hence part of large/dense urban agglomerations.

Rural areas are simply the residual—areas that fail to satisfy the urban threshold or lack routine interaction with core 14 areas. We join with many previous scholars in arguing that this approach is blind to the complex multidimensional nature of postindustrial rurality. We believe that the residual approach is inadequate for differentiating rural from urban populations, and for examining social, economic, political, ecological and other forms of diversity within the rural category itself. We have recommended a multidimensional framework for considering the nature of rurality in postindustrial society.

Our approach includes conventional demographic measures, and adds information on the natural environment, economic structures and activities, the diversity and capacity of institutions, and a sociocultural domain. Our case is the United States but we believe that the situation we describe in the U. S. is similar to that in most other postindustrial societies. Our paper rejects the notion that rurality is simply a residual that is leftover once urban areas have been identified. The rural as residual approach clearly identifies the extremes or urbanity and rurality (Paris, France vs.

Paris, Texas, for example), but it offers no guidance for examining settlements that fall in the intermediate zone between these extremes. We believe that the multidimensional approach to conceptualizing rurality is helpful not only for distinguishing urban from rural but also for understanding the variability of social and economic organization that occurs within both categories. As we have shown, the OMB’s new core-based statistical areas systems is a step toward recognizing important aspects of rural diversity and of focusing attention on the zone between what is clearly urban and clearly rural.

We acknowledge that there is a venerable tradition in social science of examining the correlates of city size (Duncan, 1951; Duncan and Reiss, 1956), and that it is possible that rural-urban variability in ecological, economic, institutional and sociocultural attributes may simply be a reflection of inter area differences in population size. If this is the case then the conventional practice of using population size to define urbanity may be sufficient for delineating urban from rural.

In contrast, if the other dimensions of social and economic activity are only weakly associated with population size then conventional statistical practice may be producing misleading information regarding urbanization and the conditions of life in rural and urban communities. This important question merits continued examination in future research. 15 Changes in a nation’s urban-rural balance have significance that extends beyond purely academic curiosity. Understanding how variability in spatial context affects opportunity structures and the quality of life contributes to producing flexible public programs that are sensitive to local needs.

Misinformation about the social, economic and institutional organization of rural and/or urban areas, and about the size and composition of a nation’s population living and working in rural and urban places will result in misinformed policies. For example, if policy makers believe that most rural persons are farmers, agricultural policies will be seen as a reasonable response to rural poverty and income insecurity. But, of course, agricultural policies will not have much of an effect on rural poverty because most rural persons in postindustrial societies do not depend on farming for their livelihoods (Gibbs, 2001).

Or, if research indicates that the size of a nation’s rural population has held constant over time, as is the case in the United States where about 55-60 million persons has been classified as rural since 1950, then significant public investments for rural development will be legitimized (at least from an equity perspective). But, if the measurement of rurality is too permissive, and the population that is genuinely rural has actually declined, then public resources may be targeted to the wrong populations.

We realize that the multidimensional perspective we are promoting could not be easily or cheaply built into a national statistical system. But, regardless of its practicality our framework raises important questions about the sufficiency of the size/density conventions used throughout the developed world, and consequently about the state of knowledge on urbanization in postindustrial societies. Moreover, our contention that rurality should not be treated as an undifferentiated residual complements the social representational approach in which rurality is defined by how people imagine community life in everyday discourse.

Both approaches focus attention on the complexity of contemporary rural life and its continuing distinctiveness in comparison with urban areas. 16 REFERENCES Beale, C. 1995. “Non Economic Value of Rural America. ” Paper presented at the USDA experts’ conference on the value of rural America. ” Washington, DC: USDA-ERS. ______. 1984. “Poughkeepsie’s Complaint or Defining Metropolitan Areas. ” American Demographics 6(1): 28-31; 46-48. Berry, B. 1967. Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, D and M. Lee. 1999. Persisting Inequality Between Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan America: Implications for Theory and Policy. ” Pp. 151-167 in P. Moen, D. Demster-McClain and H. Walker (eds. ) Diversity, Inequality, and Community in American Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ______. G. Fuguitt, T. Heaton, and S. Waseem. 1997. “Continuities in Size of Place Preferences in the United States, 1972-1992. ” Rural Sociology 62(4) : 408-428. Butler, M. and C. Beale. 1994. “Rural-Urban Continuum Codes for Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties, 1993. ” Staff Report No. 9425. Washington, DC: USDA-ERS. Cigler, B. 993. “Meeting the Growing Challenges of Rural Local Government. ” Rural Development Perspectives 9(1): 35-39. Cloke, P. and G. Edwards. 1986. “Rurality in England and Wales, 1981: A Replication of the 1971 Index. ” Regional Studies 20: 289-306. _____. 1977. “An Index of Rurality for England and Wales. ” Regional Studies 11: 31-46. Cook, P. and K. Mizer. 1994. “The Revised ERS County Typology. ” Rural Development Research Report No. 84. Washington, DC: USDA-ERS. Cromartie, J. 1999. “Rural Minorities Are Geographically Clustered. ” Rural Conditions and Trends 9(2): 14-19. Duncan, C. 1999.

Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America. ” New Haven: Yale University Press. Duncan, O and A. Reiss. 1956. Social Characteristics of Urban and Rural Communities. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Duncan, O. 1951. “Optimum Size of Cities. ” Pp. 632-645 in P. Hatt and A. Reiss (eds. ) Reader in Urban Sociology. New York: Free Press. 17 Durkehim, E. 1951. Suicide. New York: Free Press. Fischer, C. 1975. “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism. ” American Journal of Sociology 80: 1319-1342. Fuguitt, G. , D. Brown, and C. Beale. 1989. Rural and Small Town America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gale, F. nd D. McGranahan. 2001. “Nonmetro Areas Fall Behind in the New Economy. ” Rural America 16(1): 44-51. Gibbs, R. 2001. “Nonmetro Labor Markets in an Era of Welfare Reform. ” Rural America 16(3): 11-21. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Halfacree, K. 1993. “Locality and Social Representation: Space, Discourse, and Alternative Definitions of the Rural. ” Journal of Rural Studies 9(1): 23-37. Hauser, P. 1965. “Urbanization: An Overview. ” Pp. 1-47 in P. Hauser and L. Schnore (eds. ) The Study of Urbanization. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hines, F, D. Brown, and J. Zimmer. 1975. Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties, 1970. ” Agricultural Economic Report No. 272. Washington, D. C. : USDA-ERS. Hummon, D. 1990. Common Places: Community Ideology and Identity in American Culture. Albany: SUNY Press. Kellogg Foundation. 2002. Perceptions of Rural America. Battle Creek, MI. : Kellogg Foundation. Kraybill, D. and L. Lobao. 2001. County Government Survey: Changes and Challenges in the New Millennium. Washington, DC: National Association of Counties. Lewis, M. 1991. “Elusive Societies: A Regional-Cartographical Approach to the Study of Human Relatedness. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 18(4): 605-626. Logan, J. 1996. ‘Rural America As A Symbol of American Values. ” Rural Development Perspectives 12(1): 24-28. Marx, K. 1976. Capital, Vol. I. London: Penguin NLR. Morrill, R, J. Cromartie, and G. Hart. 1999. “Metropolitan, Urban, and Rural Commuting Areas: Toward a Better Depiction of the united States Settlement System. ” Urban Geography 20(8): 727-748. 18 Moscovici, S. 1981. “On Social Representation. ” Pp. 181-209 in J. Forgas (ed. ), Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding. London: Academic Press. RUPRI. 1995. 1995 National RUPRI Poll: Differential Attitudes of Rural and Urban America. ” Columbia, Missouri: Rural Policy Research Institute. Rubin, J. 1969. “Function and Structure of Community: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis. ” International Review of Community Development 21-22: 111-119. Sampson, R. , J. Morenoff, and F. Earls. 1999. “Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children. ” American Journal of Sociology 92(1): 27-63. Tisdale, H. 1942. “The Process of Urbanization. ” Social Forces 20: 311-316. United Nations. 1999. World Urbanization Prospects: 1999 Revision.

New York: United Nations. U. S. Office of Management and Budget. 2000. “Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. ” Federal Register 65(249): 82228-82238. (http://www. whitehouse. gov/omb/fedreg/metroareas122700. pdf. ) Weber, M. 1968. Economy and Society. New York: Bedminister. Willits, F. , R. Bealer, and V. Timbers. 1990. “Popular Images of Rurality: Data From a Pennsylvania Survey. ” Rural Sociology 55(4): 559-578. ______. 1967. “An Evaluation of a Composite Index of Rurality. ” Rural Sociology 32(2): 165-177. Wirth, L. 1938. “Urbanization As a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology 44(1): 129. 19 Figure 1: A Multidimensional Framework of Rurality in Postindustrial Society Indicators Rural Areas or Populations Urban Areas or Populations Are More Likely to Be: Are More Likely to Be: Dimensions of Rurality Ecological Dimension Population Size Population Density Situation in Settlement System Natural Environment Economic Dimension Dependence on Industrial Activities Size of Local Economy Diversity of Economic Activity Autonomy of Local Economy Institutional Dimension Local Choice Public Sector Capacity Sociocultural Dimension Beliefs/Values Population Diversity

Small Low/Scattered Peripheral Rich in Natural Resources Large High/Concentrated Central Lacking Natural Resources Extractive Nondurable Manufacturing Consumer Services Small Workforce Small Establishments Undiversified Low/Dependent Producer Services Professional Services Durable Manufacturing Large Workforce Large Establishments Diversified High Narrow/Constrained Limited/Modest Wide High Conservative Homogeneous Progressive Heterogeneous 20 Table 1: Population, Land Area, Density and Percent Rural by CBSA Category, 19901 CBSA Category U. S. Metro Large Small Nonmetro Micro Non-CBSA 1

No. Counties 3,141 891 606 285 2,250 582 1,668 Population 1,000s Percent 248,709 195,930 171,606 24,323 52,780 26,699 26,081 100 79 69 10 21 11 10 Land Area (square miles) 1,000s Percent 3,536 737 488 249 2,799 625 2,174 100 21 14 7 79 18 61 Population Per Sq. Mile 70 266 351 98 19 43 12 See OMB (2000) for discussion of procedures used to delineate CBSA county types. Source: 1990 U. S. Census of Population 21 Table 2: Comparative Profile of Metro, Micro and Noncore Based Counties, U. S. , 19901 Metropolitan Large Small Nonmetropolitan Micro Noncore

Characteristic Educational Attainment Pct. Less Than High School Pct. High School Pct. College Total Total 23 29 48 23 28 49 25 32 43 31 35 34 29 34 37 34 36 31 Industry of Employment (selected) Pct. Farm Pct. Manufacture Pct. Retail Pct. Services 1 13 16 29 1 13 16 30 3 15 18 25 8 18 16 21 5 18 17 22 11 17 15 19 Occupation of Employment (selected) Pct. Manager, Professional Pct. Tech. , Sales, Admin. Pct. Labor2 Earnings Per Job3 All Jobs (000) Manufacture (000) Retail (000) Services (000) 1 2 28 33 24 29 34 24 24 30 28 20 26 34 21 27 33 18 24 36 27 36 15 24 27 37 15 25 0 27 12 16 20 25 12 15 20 27 12 16 18 23 11 14 See OMB (2000) for rules used to identify county types. Skilled and unskilled 3 Nonfarm jobs Source: 1990 U. S. Census of Population 22 Table 3: Presence of Services and Facilities by County Type, 20001 Percent Provided in County Micro 29 71 62 58 91 89 41 64 38 100 45 Service or Facility Scheduled Passenger Air Service Scheduled Inter County Bus Service Local Bus Service Museum2 Daily Newspaper National or Regional Hotel Franchise Four Year College Library with Multiple Branches Commercial Television Station3 General Hospital4 N 1

Small Metro 50 91 95 77 95 100 82 64 68 100 22 Noncore Based 11 31 29 23 18 44 11 34 9 74 71 Ten percent sample of noncore based counties; 20% samples of small metro and micro counties. Current response rate = small metro: 41%; micro: 75%; noncore: 42%. Art, science or natural history with focus beyond local county. With local news and advertising. With at least two of four of the following services: emergency room, physical therapy, cardiac care or MRI. 2 3 4 23

The most important point being that the natural balance in an ecosystem is maintained. This balance may be disturbed due to the introduction of new species, the sudden death of some species, natural hazards or man-made causes. In this field trip we will explore how human population and development affects the ecological balance. Take time to explore this site as your gateway to the world of ecology. It has interesting articles and facts. There are features such as the Environmental Timeline that shows how there were different concerns about the environment throughout istory.

The environmental impact of war is an interesting article on how preparation of war and warfare leads to environmental losses. The carpet bombing of the lush green forests during the Vietnam war led to the loss of habitat of many species. Special features on population and the environment show how population has increased from the industrial age and how it will affect the environment. There are additional resources for higher classes. In the name of development, we remove trees and vegetation, change how we use and, and keep expanding paved areas.

All these not only affect the soil ecology, but also the water balance. Increased urbanization also requires more water to feed the city’s population and industry, often requiring deeper and deeper wells to be drilled or water to be moved from even more distant locations. Increase of pavement area not lonely lessens the amount of water vapour that transpires back from the vegetation but also contributes to groundwater pollution if the salt used to melt road ice were allowed to runoff into the natural drainage system.

Visit this site for a detailed look at water as a precious resource and how human development affects water and its ecosystem. It is dedicated to Water Day. To understand how human population and increased developmental activities affect the ecosystem, there are live examples all over the world. Armenia is one such example of what is happening to the ecosystem because of increased population and developmental activities. Over the last 1,000 years human impacts on the land have increased, mainly through deforestation and increased use of pastures.

Such problems have intensified over recent years with unprecedented population growth and urbanisation since 1920, resulting in increased human impacts not only on individual species, but also on whole ecosystems. Read the article on this site and you will consciously become aware of what unchecked industrial development and urbanization could do to your region. The fast pace of development has led to many unwanted results. Exotic species get destroyed taster than we can discover them and ancient ecosystems are getting isturbed in our scientific explorations.

Find out about amazing facts on human impact on oceans, toxins, and much more as you explore this site for environmental education on the web. It is designed primarily for kids, but the features and articles are good reading for any grade. There are also handy tips on what you can do to help protect the environment and ideas on how you can start an ecology club in your neighbourhood. Visit the resources given on the Ecology and great Links pages to know more about this science.