Researching Sustainable Rural Development With Location Quotient Method in Yozgat (2006-2016)

Researching Sustainable Rural Development With Location Quotient Method in Yozgat (2006-2016)

Barış Ergen (Erciyes University, Turkey) and Muhammed Özgür Oğuz (Bozok University, Turkey)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-7158-2.ch011

Abstract

This chapter investigates employment structure with regard to sustainable rural development for the NUTS-4 regions. In this research, the Location Quotient (LQ) method was used to provide statistical knowledge on geographical location and clustering. The employment structure is examined under three categories: 1) number of employees contributing to rural production using traditional methods; 2) number of employees in vegetable and animal production, and logging and fishing; and 3) number of employees in the food industry. Of these three areas of interest, the LQ method could not be applied to the first one because of the lack of entrepreneurship and capital accumulation. It was concluded that Sorgun, Çandır and Akdağmadeni were the NUTS-4 regions that contributed to rural production. Clustering was detected in Çayıralan, Aydıncık, Kadışehri and Akdağmadeni NUTS-4 regions that contributed to business activity in vegetable and animal production, and logging and fishing. Clustering in activities in the food industry was detected in Boğazlıyan, Çayıralan, Çandır and Sorgun NUTS-4 regions.
Chapter Preview
Top

Introduction

Urban and regional development studies have tended to focus on urban centers as the driving force in innovation and growth, with surrounding rural areas cast in a passive and residual role (Ward & Brown, 2015 p:1238; Morrison et al., 2015). Öğdül (2010) defines “rural” as economic centers in previous national regions that are outside urban production areas; and the spatial urban planning law in Turkey (3194 law on land development and control) still uses this definition. In a study by Beynon et al. (2016) that was based on another study by Isserman (2005), the authors pointed out the mistake of examining differences between rural and urban areas based on the common use of metro/non-metro concepts. In the same study, Beynon et al. (2016) explained the need to define the term “rural” with development policies. Trying to understand rural dynamics in studies focusing on urban issues could produce misleading results (Hovardaoğlu et al., 2011), as rural communities and settlements are typically characterized by their diversity (Hallstrom et al., 2017). Diversity in rural societies and settlements are gaining more and more importance with the “decentralization” concept in spatial planning (Curry, 2012). According to this literature it is possible to propose many different definitions for urban areas and, at the same time, it is possible to propose different definitions for rural areas based on the economic dynamics, social structure, geographical features, macroform, legal status and fabric of the settlement. These criteria put forward for rural areas also overlap with the idea of localization. Urban planning often deals with urban problems, and for that reason, rural planning is mostly considered within the scope of regional planning. With vast rural areas, different rural regions can have their own characteristics that are independent from urban areas. As Alden (2006) pointed out, regional planning is in need of different regional units that can serve as key components of planning policy and programs. With these regional units, rural potential can be fulfilled, and the problems these areas face can be solved in a more efficient way. In this regard, spatial planning is playing a key role in fulfilling this potential and solving the problems. In her study, Riveira and Masedaô (2006) referred to Van Lier and emphasized the role of land-use development plans for creating sustainable rural settlements. Hahn (1970) pointed out the importance of rural planning under three categories:

  • 1.

    Economic development of rural areas on a national level

  • 2.

    Urban and rural poverty

  • 3.

    Urban and suburban solutions to problems in rural areas.

Apart from the topics mentioned above, Hibbard et al. (2015) emphasizes that rural planning has a lot to do with climate change, energy, biodiversity and ecological sustainability. Regional rural planning approaches can help to integrate rural development strategies given the diversity of rural areas (Alden 2006). Regional development planning, which is widely taken to mean rural regional development (Morrison et al., 2015; Friedmann & Bloch, 1990; McManus & Pritchard, 2000; Tonts & Haslam-McKenzie, 2005), is the primary focus of this paper.

Key Terms in this Chapter

Sustainable Planning: Process of planning in a region by maintaining, social structure, economic potentials, natural resources.

Economic Cluster: Geographic concentration of a sector.

Location Quotient: Ratio of one sector employment to whole employment in NUTS-4 region compared to NUTS-3 region.

Regional Planning: deals with integrate socio-economic estimations to land use decisions, transportation, infrastructure in a region which covers larger area than town and cities.

Rural Planning: Plan of a whole region however focus on rural settelements, villages and rural areas.

Trickle-Down Effect: The diminishing effect of the dynamics of an economically dominant region or city settlement on other settlements.

Economic Polarization: Developing one sector or more sectors which has/have a potential of developing in a region.

Traditional Agriculture: Type of farming using habitual techniques in a region or specific area for long time periods.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset