Land use as the product of human activity on Earth’s surface show a very large variation, both within the local town and in the regional city. An understanding of the forms of land use that characterizes the built up area, urban-rural transition area and the countryside itself is a matter of principle to do its spatial structure differentiation. In addition, an understanding of the term “urban” and “rural” also need special attention. Two terms are generally considered to be contradictory. The word “urban” is an adjective relating to urban life and the word “rural” associated with countrified life. Aspects of life itself, both urban and countrified aspect of political, social, economic, cultural, psychological, technological, and physical. In discussing this morphological approach, someone always insisted on the physical aspect and one of which is land use.
To distinguish between types of urban and rural land use, in general these kinds of linkages with the agricultural-land became the main focus. It is recognized that most of the provincial land use type is always associated with agricultural activities, but also recognized that the existing urban land used for agricultural activities and some provincial lands which have more to do with the interests of agriculture. Thus, it appears the term “urban agricultural-land” and “rural agricultural-land.” The first is that these lands are located in urban areas (morphologically) that are used for agricultural purposes. While for the “rural agricultural-land” lots of examples and is very common in rural areas, among others, rice field, dry land, garden mix, etc. Thus, identifying with the provincial agricultural or non-urban agriculture is not one hundred percent correct, but linking the proportion of “urban agricultural land” compared with “urban non-agricultural land” is very small, its presence is always ignored. Similarly, “rural non-agricultural land” in rural areas, and meanwhile “rural agricultural-land” types dominate the land use in rural and urban areas. On the basis of these two types of land use in rural and “urban non-agricultural land” to dominate the land use type is the label for the rural areas on the one hand, and urban on the other side. Definition of “dominance” is always used for any discussion of spatial structure in terms of land use type. The main problem lies in the transition area from the appearance of a real urban to rural real appearance. In this transition area domination problem seemed to blur. Especially for regions that show (gradual transformation) from urban to be rural. However, with certain approaches to differentiation and counting of each type of land use can be done, among others, with the “grid system approach,” “administrative approach”, or “physical approach.” From the calculation of land use area in each cell (in the “grid system approach”), or “areal units” (in the administrative and physical approach), the percentage of land use orientation can be known and also can be determined to sub-zone of each cell (unit area) (Yunus; 2000:162-164).
Morphology of cities by Robin Pryor
Pryor in Yunus (2000:165-167) to calculate the percentage of urban land use, percentage of provincial land use and the percentage distance from the main urban area. These three components are combined in the rural-urban land use triangle. The creation of this model is based on the idea of gradual transformation from city to village. “Distant Decay Principle” also applies here, where the further away from the “real urban” appearance will increasingly blur the town and village became clear appearance. In other words can be expressed that has come closer to urban areas (in terms of morphology) the dominance of other forms of urban land use would be bigger.
Pryor suggested the term of 4 sub-zones for different in the “regional city” (the term of Russwurm, 1975): (1) urban areas, (2) urban fringe, (3) rural fringe, (4) rural areas. Urban areas are areas that form the use of land completely non-agriculture oriented, while rural areas are areas of land use completely oriented agriculture. The problem in an attempt to differentiate these zones are areas located between the urban areas and rural areas. In this case Pryor was named the area as rural-urban fringe, which is fully defined as follows:
“The rural urban fringe is the zone of transition in land use, social and demographic characteristics, lying between (a) the continuously built-up urban and sub-urban areas of the central city, and (b) the rural hinterland, characterized by the almost complete absence of non-farm dwellings, occupations and land use, and of urban and rural social orientation an incomplete range and penetration of urban utility services; uncoordinated zoning or planning regulations; area extension beyond although contiguous with the political boundary of the central city; and an actual and potential increase in population density, with the current density above that of surrounding rural districts but lower than the central city. These characteristics may differ both zonal and sectorally, and will be modified through time”.
Based on rural-urban land use triangle, the rural-urban fringe can still be divided into two distinct sub-zones: (1) urban fringe and (2) rural fringe. Dominance of the morphological appearance of a main confluence of this differentiation. Each sub-zones are described as follows:
“The urban fringe is the sub zone the rural-urban fringe which is in contact and contiguous with the central city, exhibiting a density of occupied dwellings higher than the median density the total rural-urban fringe a high proportion of residential, commercial, industrial and vacant distinct, land use conversion, and commuting. The rural fringe is the zone of the rural-urban fringe which is the contiguous with the urban fringe, a high proportion of farm as distinct from non-farm and vacant land, and lower rate of increase in population density, land use conversion and commuting”.
Although quantitatively, Pryor suggests dominance of land-use issues as a basis for the introduction of sub-zones, but there are still things that are confusing, especially in areas that the proportion of urban land use in balance with the proportion of village land use.
In these land-use model, the boundary between the urban fringe and rural fringe is on the line halfway between the two sub-zone. This barrier not only manifested in the line, but as a zone too.
Morphology of cities by Russwurm
Slightly different from the opinion of Pryor, especially in areas that lie between the real urban and rural real. Russwurm in Yunus, (2000:167-168) suggested three sub-zones: (1) inner fringe; (2) the outer fringe, and (3) urban shadow zone. Regional rural-urban fringe (the term of Pryor) is also identified with the urban fringe by Russwurm.
As another opinion, the basic problem of the dominance of the introduction of the existing sub-zone. Inner fringe is marked by a number of agricultural land conversion to non-agricultural land. Penetration of the land owners rather than farmers a lot happening in this sub-zone. Outer fringe is the area/sub-zone where village land use is more dominant. Provincial land conversion into urban land began much happens, but the frequency is not as high as in sub-zone of inner fringe. Infiltration of urban appearance began to appear in this zone. To the cities of western countries, the types of land use as a cemetery, land for stacking the carcasses car is one of the characteristics of the outer fringe areas. This is reasonable because such forms that it requires vast land and cheap. Land ownership is still dominated by farmers. Urban shadow zone is the zone where the elements of urban morphology began to infiltrate, but still very little. This zone is bordered directly with a real urban areas. Distributors such zones is a conceptual model only. Not all cities are marked by a sequence of sub-zones such as in the model and it also does not always spread evenly in all directions.
Morphology of cities by Yunus
Hadi Sabari Yunus (2000:168-169) adds a new sub-zones in the sub zone differentiation according to Pryor on the area located between the urban fringe and rural fringe. Successive division of its sub-zones: (1) urban areas; (2) urban fringe; (3) urral fringe; (4) rural fringe, and (5) rural areas. Urban areas are areas where 100% urban-oriented land use. Urban fringe areas are areas (zones) that most of the land use is dominated by forms of urban land use (> 60% of urban land use and <40% of rural land use). Urban fringe areas are located from the border point of the urban built-up to within 40% of the point (calculated from the overall distance of a real urban to real rural). Rural fringe is a sub zone of the percentage of its urban land use in balance with its rural land use. The comparison ranges from 40% to 60% where the explanation is >40% urban land use and <60% of rural land use. In this condition, a zone shows the comparison of urban land use in balance with provincial land use and in a relatively short period of time, the structural transformation of land use will occur, although not as fast on the urban fringe zone.
Meanwhile, sub-zone of the rural fringe is dominated by the provincial land use, where 60% greater percentage of its land use forms of land use countrified. Transformation of land use structure runs slower than the sub-zone of the rural fringe. Rural area is an area that 100% of its land use forms-oriented agricultural land use. The process of structural transformation of the general land-use factors associated with distance from built-up area, but in areas located along transportation routes and at locations near the junction of the ring road and radial roads, distant decay principle associated with the acceleration of transformation structure of land use do not apply.
Bryant, C.R., Russwurm, L.H., McLellan, A.G., 1982. The City’s Countryside: Land and its Management in the Rural-Urban Fringe. Longman, London.
Yunus, H.S., 1987. Problems urban fringe and its alternative solutions. Regional development planning course for strategic development framework arrangement, Faculty of Geography UGM, Yogyakarta.
Yunus, H.S., 2000. Spatial structure of cities. Indonesian National Business Publisher, Surabaya.
Yunus, H.S., 2001. Land use change in suburban area, A case study of Yogyakarta suburban. Dissertations, Faculty of Geography, Gajahmada University, Yogyakarta.
Design and Planning Laboratory
Sakura-ku, Saitama-shi, TOKYO, Japan
March 17, 2010, at 1.39 pm…