different approaches it has been demonstrated that they result in different numbers or different people being included as constituting a rural community or population (du Plessis, Beshiri, Bollman, & Clemenson, 2001). There have been a number of quantitative approaches regularly applied to defining rural. At an international level, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development defines rural communities as areas of population densities of less than 150 people per square kilometre (du Plessis, et al., 2001). During the period of selecting and studying RCD projects for this research, in Australia there were three different classification systems utilised predominantly by government departments to categorise rural. Within the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Section of State Structure of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification, rural is defined as
settlements with a population of 999 or less (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The Rural Remote and Metropolitan Area (RRMA) classification described three categories of rural: Large rural centres (population 25,000-99,000); Small rural centres (population 10,000 – 24,999); and Other rural areas (population <10,000). These were determined through both population size and ‘personal distance’, where personal distance relates to the population density of an area and the available opportunities for connectedness (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1994). The Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) was a sliding scale quantifying remoteness based on the accessibility of services by road (Department of Health and Aged Care Information and Research Branch, 2001).
Externally changing boundaries through the application of different quantitative classifications can have a significant impact on communities, particularly regarding access to funding. For example in Tasmania, residents of small communities on the west coast and islands describe the experience of isolation. Under the classification used prior to 2009 they were eligible to receive and thus accessed a particular funding due to their remote nature. When the government departments changed the classification used, these areas were no longer eligible. The funding was accordingly withdrawn,
reducing the service’s accessibility for these areas (researcher’s personal practice experience 2010). Changing classification systems resulted in changed boundaries. It seems in this case the
classification previously used reflected the experience of boundaries and identity within the communities more closely than the later system.
Quantitatively determined classifications create boundaries which are determined without reference to people’s perception of being rural, or being a community. Given the internal appropriation of community boundaries by members, quantitatively determined boundaries may not reflect the experience of rurality of residents, nor the ideological understanding of rural that has been linked to the discourse associated with the Australian national identity over many years (Bourke & Lockie, 2001). People have their own sense of whether they are ‘rural’ and quantitative definitions alone do not account for the experience or meaning of being rural (Hugo, Smailes, Macgregor, Fenton, & Brunckhorst, 2001; Rios, 1988). Considering rural through a combination of elements, such as geography, distance, population density, access to services and self-perception (Dukeshire, 2002) provides a more comprehensive definition, capturing the complexity, diversity and reality of rural.
Taking a qualitative perspective, rurality is a multidimensional concept with varying meanings in different contexts (Bourke & Lockie, 2001; Lockie, 2000). In Australia the prominent mental image of rural community is strongly stereotyped with a ‘sugar coated’ view beholding values of hard work, loyalty, honesty, and close relationships (Finkelstein & Bourke, 2001). These ideals associated with quality of life, are more imposed than descriptive of the experience of rural life (Bourke & Lockie, 2001; Gray & Phillips, 2001; Lawrence & Gray, 2000), yet are part of the understanding of what it means to be rural. They paint an image of Australian rural community life reminiscent of Tönnies’ Gemeinschaft (Tönnies, 1957) and denote a normative view of what ‘should’ comprise a rural community. By comprehending rural as it is lived and experienced rather than imposing expectations, research can contribute to understanding the community fabric. This includes
acknowledging that it involves an ever changing and heterogeneous space where members and external forces actively shape the communities to which they belong.
The components which make-up the rural space are extremely diverse in their characteristics. An immediate association is farming. However, rural from an occupational viewpoint is additionally understood to include a range of primary industries including forestry, fishing, hunting and mining (Bourke & Lockie, 2001; Lawrence & Gray, 2000). Looking at the changing economic and vocational circumstances within rural areas identifies the role of other occupations such as tourism and hospitality (Bourke & Lockie, 2001). Ecological and sociocultural definitions further capture aspects such as values, demographics and social structures (Dukeshire, 2002; Rios, 1988). Whether taking one or all of these qualitative perspectives, the rural landscape encompasses a multitude of perceptions and experiences.
In creating rural classification systems, recommendations have been made which seek to combine quantitative and qualitative components of rural through further developing and utilising the concept of social catchments. The work of Hugo, Smailes, MacGregor, Fenton and Brunckhorst (2001) presents a process for determining communities through combining population, geography and social connections. Social catchments are based on groupings of households that interact and identify the area as their community, and as such are described as a community of interest (Hugo, et al., 2001). In this manner the concept of social catchments is responsive to the internal
appropriation of community boundaries and the associated expression of identity. By embracing the quantitative and qualitative aspects of defining rural, more robust and meaningful spatial units can be identified for social and community planning and policy development (Hugo, et al., 2001; Rios, 1988).