See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/375597649

Measuring the level of rurality in the Southwestern region of Bangladesh

Article in Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning · November 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s44243-023-00024-9

CITATIONS READS

0 167

6 authors, including:

Md. Abdur Rahman Md Zakir Hossain

Khulna University Khulna University
6 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 354 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nur Mohammad Ha-Mim Farhan Tanvir Turjo

Khulna University Khulna University
25 PUBLICATIONS 153 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Md. Abdur Rahman on 13 November 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban
Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44243-023-00024-9
and Rural Planning

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Measuring the level of rurality

in the Southwestern region of Bangladesh
Md. Abdur Rahman1 , Md. Zakir Hossain1 , Nur Mohammad Ha‑Mim1, Farhan Tanvir1, Sazzadul Islam1 and
Khan Rubayet Rahaman2*   

Abstract
This research intends to measure and characterize the level of rurality in the southwestern region of Bangladesh using
an indexing approach from functional perspective. The findings of the study can be conducive for efficient decision
making related to rural development policies and planning. Besides, operational delineation of administrative units,
such as Unions and Wards, is essential for the formulation and effective implementation of evidence-based develop‑
ment initiatives. The study has utilized the latest available population census data published by Bangladesh Bureau
of Statistics (BBS). The results reveal that Satkhira district exhibits a higher degree of rurality (RI = 4.23) compared
to Khulna (RI = 3.58) and Bagerhat (RI = 4.14) districts. This variation among the three districts is ascribed to existing
rural–urban disparities. The study underscores the primary influence of socio-economic factors on the rural–urban
disparities, with a secondary role for demographic and infrastructural aspects. However, education’s impact was nota‑
bly limited in this context. Insights on intra-district disparities infer that Khulna district exhibits significantly greater
rural–urban disparities than the other two. The study also highlights the clustering of non-rural areas along major riv‑
ers. This research will assist rural planners and policy makers in understanding the specific rural dynamics of the study
area, essential for tailoring fit-to-context development strategies. Moreover, the study provides a basis for classifying
the region into clusters to streamline development priorities and resource allocation. Furthermore, the article presents
a transferable methodology for evaluating rurality and delineating rural regions in different contexts.
Keywords Rurality index, Principal component analysis (PCA), Indexing, Functional perspective, Rural development,
Bangladesh

1 Introduction rurality and assessing its levels within rural development

Effective rural spatial planning and development poli- offer numerous benefits including the mitigation of spa-
cies necessitate a robust comprehension of the rural tial and social marginalization, facilitation of equitable
context, along with a precise categorization of rurality socio-spatial advancement in rural regions, and enhance-
based on key defining attributes (Agarwal et al., 2009; ment of living standards for marginalized populations
Argent, 2008; Beynon et al., 2016; Cloke, 1977; Gallent & (Humphreys, 1998; Li et al., 2015; Ocana Riola & Sanchez
Robinson, 2011; Li et al., 2015; Waldorf, 2006). Defining Cantalejo, 2005; Watt & Sheldon, 1993). The dynamics of
rural living are intricately tied to concerns of community
sustainability, well-being, equity, and accessibility to ser-
*Correspondence: vices (Nelson et al., 2021). As contemporary lifestyles and
Khan Rubayet Rahaman expectations evolve, these challenges will increasingly
khan.rahaman@smu.ca
1
Urban and Rural Planning Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, hold greater significance for rural communities (Nelson
Bangladesh et al., 2021). While these challenges are not exclusive to
2
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, St. Mary’s rural areas, there has been ongoing debate about how the
University, 923 Robie Street, Halifax, NS B3H 3C3, Canada
underlying factors of these issues manifest distinctively in

© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 2 of 13

rural settings compared to the others (Berenguer et al., framework for assessing degree of rurality and catego-
2005; Ellis & Biggs, 2001). Rural development and rural rizing rural areas is imperative for planners and policy
regions were previously inextricably linked to non-urban- makers to apprehend rural dynamics. Thus, this article
ization and agriculture, but this no longer adequately intends to evaluate degree of rurality of the Southwestern
describes today’s complicated reality (Isserman, 2005; Li region in Bangladesh from functional perspective.
et al., 2015) instigated by the changing climate and grow- The concept of rural or rurality has been theorized dif-
ing socio-spatial complexity (Rahman et al., 2023). Scru- ferently by scholars from different perspectives. Being
tiny through economic lens educes that rural region faces rural as opposed to urban is an attribute that people
heightened disaster vulnerability due to limited socio- easily attach to a place based on their own perceptions,
economic diversity, overly dependence on functions that which include low population density, remoteness from
are highly susceptible to climate change impacts and haz- urban areas, extensive landscape, lower degree of physi-
ards (Bonfiglio et al., 2021; Freshwater, 2015). Charac- cal infrastructures and limited public amenities and utili-
terizing such areas as rural and the extent of rurality are ties etc. (Casey et al., 2001; Waldorf, 2006; Wallace et al.,
necessary to devise fit-to-context strategies and action 2010; Zhang et al., 2000). However, researchers and poli-
plans to abate the loss and damages incurred by climate cymakers must embrace an empirical understanding of
change and disastrous events. Academics have therefore rurality, departing from conventional definitions. Oth-
emphasized the necessity of refining rural definitions to erwise, the outcomes of research, policies, and strategies
enhance policy focus and development objectives (Agar- rooted in these notions may not attain their intended
wal et al., 2009; Argent, 2008; Beynon et al., 2016; Gallent objectives (Agarwal et al., 2009; Argent, 2008; Gallent &
& Robinson, 2011). The inadequate comprehension of Robinson, 2011; Isserman, 2005; Waldorf, 2006). From
rurality in rural development leads to missed opportuni- a demographic viewpoint, differentiating rurality from
ties in effectively leveraging targeted policies that could urbanity is traditionally drawn from absolute population
otherwise capitalize on understanding dynamics and fos- size, faces criticism for its limitations to apprehend rural
tering a sense of identity (Li et al., 2015). Gaining com- dynamics properly. Alternatively, population density has
prehensive recognition and deeper understanding into been recommended for a more precise assessment of
the characteristics of diverse rural areas can offer vital rurality (Harrington & O’Donoghue, 1998; Hugo et al.,
insights for rural developer or planners, serving as valu- 2003; Ocana Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo, 2005). However,
able references to reshape the structure of rural policies. there exists no definitive threshold for either population
Due to globalization impacts and consequential trans- density or population size that can distinctly demarcate
formation experienced in Bangladesh, the rural areas are rural from urban areas (Beynon et al., 2016; Martin et al.,
increasingly becoming subservient to urban priorities, 2000). Furthermore, this perception of rurality overlooks
as government policies are focusing urban centers more various dimensions encompassing socio-cultural, eco-
and more. Since the independence, rural Bangladesh has nomic, spatial, and political aspects. This raises concerns
been experiencing a significant outflow of working age about the reliability of population-based rural definitions
(15 to 64 years) population due to constrained job pros- (Hugo et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2000; Waldorf, 2006). In
pects, low income, and inadequate socio-cultural ameni- the 1940s, Redfield (1941) introduced the concept of a
ties, resulting in critical social and demographic concerns rural–urban continuum, suggesting rural area’s transition
(Khan, 1982) including increased dependency and mor- into urban ones through gradual spatiotemporal changes
tality rates, declining fertility, further livelihood vulner- and socio-economic functions, indicating a lack of dis-
ability, and discouragement of public and private sectors tinct boundaries and instead a gradient connecting rural
investments in rural regions. Such issues also exacerbate and urban (Entrena-Durán, 1998; Hewitt, 1989; Ocana
regional imbalance, which is detrimental to the national Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo, 2005). The rural–urban con-
development (Khan, 1982). Effectively addressing these tinuum theory recognizes the multidimensionality of
concerns is essential for achieving balanced development rurality, proposing a conceptual framework where rural
and promoting sustainability, which requires operational and urban represent opposite points on a continuum
concepts of rurality and objective measurements to elu- that defines spatial variations within a country or region
cidate functional variations within rural areas (Yang & (Hewitt, 1989; Ocana Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo, 2005;
Li, 2020). At policy level, knowledge regarding degree of Sanz, 1994; Waldorf, 2006). From a political-economic
rurality allows for inclusive planning and addressing spa- standpoint, rurality is characterized by unique practices
tial inequalities well. A concrete definition of rurality is favoring private and voluntary initiatives over govern-
therefore instrumental to generate effective rural devel- ment interventions, distinct production systems, and
opment policies and planning that address well-being and disparities in delivering public amenities and utilities
sustainability concerns of rural communities. A distinct (Redfield, 1941). Alternatively, functionality perspective
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 3 of 13

of rurality defines rural areas based on agrarian land-use areas is influenced by the adopted variables (Harrington
mix, low-density small-scale infrastructure with wide- & O’Donoghue, 1998). Furthermore, rurality indices
spread landscape and homogenous sociocultural identity offer a relative, rather than absolute characterization of
(ibid). The demarcation between rurality and urban- investigated area (Blunden et al., 1998; Waldorf, 2006).
ity has become more complicated due to shared socio- Although expecting an absolute measurement of rurality
economic attributes and political frameworks between is irrational without a theoretical foundation of absolute
rural and urban areas. The discrepancies in conceptual- rurality. A school of thought has further criticized the
izing rurality underscore the crucial need for in-depth indexing approach arguing that indexing methods fail to
research to enhance methodological rigor, facilitating the explain more of critical variation that exists in the data
establishment of a dependable typology for characteriz- (Beynon et al., 2016). For example, an area with signifi-
ing rural areas. cantly low population density can have a higher physical
Rural studies have frequently highlighted the necessity infrastructure, non-agricultural socio-economy. There
for conducting dedicated research on rural areas, driven are no cut-off values proposed in the rurality indexing
by the understanding that the rural context differs inher- approach for dealing with such issues. Notwithstanding
ently from the urban context (Osmani & Sen, 2011; Red- these limitations, the indexing approach has emerged
field, 1941; Watkins & Champion, 1991; Yang & Li, 2020). as a reliable application for investigating rurality and
Given this context, defining and measuring rurality has measuring degree of rurality more consistently. Notable
emerged as a specific focal point for researchers, yield- number of studies (see for example, Banister, 1980; Best,
ing significant contributions over the past four decades 1981; Beynon et al., 2016; Harrington & O’Donoghue,
(Beynon et al., 2016). For instance, Redfield’s rural–urban 1998; Moseley, 1979; Ocana Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo,
continuum model (Redfield, 1941) offered a conceptual 2005; Pacione, 1984; Phillips & Williams, 1984) have used
groundwork for constructing a rurality index, although its rurality indexing methodology and have advanced it fur-
development predates the contemporary times. Rurality ther to increase applicability and reliability.
indices prioritize discerning locales through rural func- Assessing the extent of rurality and characterizing rural
tionality, moving beyond a binary division between rural areas based on that holds practical significance in formu-
and urban (Ocana Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo, 2005). The lating fit-to-context development strategies, addressing
presence of conflicting and diverse theoretical viewpoints rural–urban disparity, distributing resources and ser-
regarding rurality poses epistemological challenges in vices effectively, devising evidence-based rural develop-
shaping rurality indices (Kaneko et al., 2021; Waldorf, ment plans and policies. Despite such significance, a little
2006). The first rurality index was developed in England has been done for measuring rurality and characterizing
by the Department of the Environment for investigating rural areas in Bangladesh. This study is thus intended to
rural areas and small towns of England and Wales using contribute in this segment of knowledge to enrich rural-
only three variables (Harrington & O’Donoghue, 1998). ity literature. Besides, rural areas in Bangladesh is often
However, Clokes’ rurality index (Cloke, 1977) was a sig- defined arbitrarily, raising complexities regarding the
nificant and innovative contribution to the measures of status of an area that impede critical decision-making
rurality (Beynon et al., 2016; Galluzzo, 2019). Utilizing processes such as regional development initiatives, rural
principal component analysis (PCA), this quantitative infrastructure development programs, rural welfare pro-
measurement employed a quartile classification system, jects etc. To address these challenges, insights derived
spanning from ’extreme’ rural to ’extreme non-rural’ cat- from this research can be useful for defining rurality and
egories (Cloke, 1977; Cloke & Edwards, 1986; Harrington classifying the region according to the extent of rural-
& O’Donoghue, 1998). Employing PCA to construct ity or non-rurality. Unlike the traditional approach, this
the rurality index offers a key advantage by quantify- study has considered multidimensional functions to con-
ing the distinct influence of each indicator on the level ceptualize rurality, acknowledging the distinctiveness of
of rurality, allowing researchers to proceed their studies rural areas (Beynon et al., 2016; Coombes & Raybould,
without anticipating the outcomes (Beynon et al., 2016; 2001; Harrington & O’Donoghue, 1998; Waldorf, 2006).
Harrington & O’Donoghue, 1998). However, scholars Furthermore, beyond employing a single-factor model
have affirmed the inherent methodological drawbacks of PCA, this research employs a multi-factor model to
of indexing approach in measuring the extent of rural- formulate the rurality index, as this approach enhances
ity (Beynon et al., 2016; Cloke, 1977; Cloke & Edwards, precision and dependability of the index (ibid). This study
1986; Harrington & O’Donoghue, 1998). Although offers valuable insights into varying levels of rurality
indexing method is technically sophisticated, selection across the Unions in the southwestern region of Bangla-
of rurality indicators in the analysis is itself a subjec- desh, which will be instrumental for policy makers and
tive approach and thence, the characterization of rural local development authorities to generate evidence-based
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 4 of 13

rural development plans and actions at the local level. investment projects aimed at the region in the com-
The findings also provide initial glimpse of the rural to ing years. This underscores the need for clear demarca-
urban transitional status of different locales of the inves- tion between rural and urban areas based on empirical
tigated area. Additionally, this article prompts scholars studies and operational definition, as such status impact
to consider the value of dedicated exploration into vari- decision-making, investment categories, and project
ous aspects of rurality and underscores the necessity for types. The coastal region is located in between 21°60´
advancing rurality indices. and 24°13´ north latitudes and in between 88°34´ and
89°58´ east longitudes (BBS, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). The
2 Materials and methods world’s largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans, spans
2.1 Study area the southern portions of Satkhira, Khulna, and Bagerhat
We have selected the southwestern region of Bangla- districts within this region. Within the three case areas,
desh—Khulna, Satkhira, and Bagerhat districts—as the Satkhira exhibits the highest household size, followed
case study areas (see Fig. 1) for this research due to their by Khulna and Bagerhat districts (BBS, 2011a, 2011b,
unique socio-economic traits, elevated climate change 2011c). Population trends since 2000 reveal a decline in
vulnerability, and significant potential for swift socio- total population for Khulna and Bagerhat districts, with
economic transformation in the coming decades. This annual growth rates of -0.25% and -0.47% respectively.
potential is driven by anticipated impacts from major In contrast, Satkhira district has witnessed an increase
infrastructure projects, including the Padma Bridge, in population, with an annual growth rate of 0.62% (ibid).
Ruppur Nuclear Power Plant, and the proposed South- However, Khulna district has undergone more pro-
west Bangladesh Economic Corridor (SWBEC). We nounced urbanization (33.54%) compared to Satkhira
anticipate a series of pivotal development initiatives and (9.95%) and Bagerhat (13.23%) (ibid). According to BBS

Fig. 1 Map of the study area. Source: Developed by the authors utilizing spatial data derived from the GIS unit of Local Government
and Engineering Department (LGED) of the government of Bangladesh (2021)
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 5 of 13

(2011a, 2011b, 2011c), Khulna district records 58.6% of one-factor model (Cloke, 1977; Cloke & Edwards, 1986),
housing as non-structured, with 3.6% of households lack- and enhanced interpretability of the final outcomes. Fur-
ing toilet facilities. In contrast, Bagerhat and Satkhira dis- thermore, the selection of the approach has also taken
tricts exhibit 83.1% and 57.2% non-structured housing, into account the availability of suitable indicators and
respectively. Khulna’s economy is anchored in agricul- corresponding data.
ture, supplemented by its dependence on the Sundarbans
and Mongla port. Notably, around 41.31% of Khulna’s 2.3 Data collection and processing
households are engaged in agricultural activities (BBS, We have considered ’Union’ level (i.e., the smallest strata
2011a). Bagerhat and Satkhira exhibit comparable socio- of local government of Bangladesh) as the unit of analy-
economic circumstances, with approximately 68.75% and sis for measuring degree of rurality and characterizing
57.78% of households engaged in farming, respectively rural areas based on rurality score. It’s worth noting that
(BBS, 2011b, 2011c). Khulna stands out among the dis- the spatial data for Bangladesh’s administrative bounda-
tricts as the most developed district, displaying greater ries, sourced from the LGED, encompasses Wards within
potential for rapid advancement and the capacity to drive municipalities and Unions at administrative boundary
progress in the southwestern region of the country. level-4. We have utilized census data sourced from the
Bangladesh Population and Housing Census 2011 (com-
2.2 Developing a framework for measuring rurality munity reports), published by the BBS. It’s important to
Our study followed four key stages: (i) conceptualizing mention that the raw data from BBS underwent refine-
the issue and identifying research gaps, (ii) choosing a ment and processing using data manipulation techniques
suitable scientific methodology, (iii) gathering and pro- within MS Excel and IBM SPSS applications. Subse-
cessing relevant data for analysis, and (iv) summarizing quently, we have conducted PCA analysis, rurality index-
and analyzing the collected data (see Fig. 2). ing, and GIS-based data visualization using this dataset.
Drawing from an extensive literature review, we have We obtained the geospatial database of Bangladesh’s
selected twenty indicators to assess the level of rurality administrative boundaries from LGED and customized
in the Southwestern region of Bangladesh. Table 1 dis- it as required. This database was utilized to map rurality
plays the chosen variables and their functional relation- levels, facilitated by GIS techniques.
ship with rurality. It is crucial to acknowledge that the
selection of indicators in the rurality indexing approach 2.4 Generating indices and summarizing outcomes
is inherently subjective, raising questions about accuracy We have adopted an indexing methodology to under-
and validity. However, expecting an entirely objective stand degree of rurality. At the beginning of the
method for indicator selection for the indexing is unre- process, all selected indicator data for rurality meas-
alistic, given the absence of an absolute concept of rural- urement have been normalized through the application
ity. We conducted the study using our refined version of of normalization index, using the Eq. (1) (for positive
Cloke’s rurality index methodology. Our enhancements functional relationship) and Eq. (2) (for negative func-
include a slightly expanded set of indicators, utilization tional relationship). These equations were initially for-
of a PCA n-factor model (n = 6) as opposed to Cloke’s mulated for HDI (Human Development Index) to assess

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram depicting the steps followed in this research

Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 6 of 13

Table 1 Dimensions and indicators for measuring rurality index

Dimension Indicator Functional Relation Explanation

Demographic profile Population density (Beynon et al., 2016; Negative Population living per sq. km. area
Cloke, 1977; Cloke & Edwards, 1986; Isser‑
man, 2005; Ocana Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo,
2005; Redfield, 1941)
Household (HH) size (Cloke, 1977; Cloke & Positive Average size of HHs
Edwards, 1986; Harrington & O’Donoghue,
1998)
Children (Ocana Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo, % of population aged 0–14 years old
2005)
Senior population (Beynon et al., 2016; % of population aged above 65 years old
Cloke, 1977; Cloke & Edwards, 1986; Har‑
rington & O’Donoghue, 1998; Isserman,
2005; Ocana Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo,
2005)
Ethnic population (Authors’ inclusion) % of ethnic population
Disable population (Authors’ inclusion) % of disabled population
All age population (Cloke, 1977) Population size
Education profile Male literacy (Authors’ inclusion) Negative % of male population who are literate
Female literacy (Authors’ inclusion) % of female population who are literate
House, water & Sanitation facilities Kutcha-Jhupri house (Cloke, 1977; Cloke & Positive % of HHs living in kutcha & jhupri houses
Edwards, 1986)
Non-sanitary toilet (Cloke, 1977; Cloke & % of HHs having no access to sanitary toilet
Edwards, 1986; Isserman, 2005) facilities
Tube well water (Cloke, 1977; Cloke & Negative % of HHs using tube well as the source
Edwards, 1986) of drinking water
Socio-economic profile Employed male (Beynon et al., 2016; Clev‑ % of employed male population
land, 1995; Cloke, 1977; Simkin et al., 1998)
Employed female (Beynon et al., 2016; Clev‑ % of employed female population
land, 1995; Cloke, 1977; Simkin et al., 1998)
Agricultural employment male (Beynon Positive % of employed male who are engaged
et al., 2016; Clevland, 1995; Cloke, 1977; Har‑ in agricultural sectors
rington & O’Donoghue, 1998; Ocana Riola &
Sanchez Cantalejo, 2005; Simkin et al., 1998)
Agricultural employment female (ibid) % of employed female who are engaged
in agricultural sectors
Industrial employment male (ibid) Negative % of employed male who are engaged
in industrial sectors
Industrial employment female (ibid) % of employed female who are engaged
in industrial sectors
Service employment male (Beynon et al., % of employed male who are engaged
2016; Clevland, 1995; Simkin et al., 1998) in service sectors
Service employment female (ibid) % of employed female who are engaged
in service sectors

life expectancy and subsequently gained widespread Xs − Xmin

adoption for computing other indices like LVI (Liveli- Index Xs = (1)
Xmax − Xmin
hood Vulnerability Index) (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2013;
Hahn et al., 2009), VI (Vulnerability Index) (Ha-Mim Xmax − Xs
et al., 2022), and RI (Resilience Index) (Asmamaw et al., Index XS = (2)
Xmax − Xmin
2019). Normalization indexing is essential in this con-
text to standardize indicators with varying measure- Here, Index Xs is the normalized index value and Xs is
ment scales into a unified index for meaningful analysis. the original value of the indicator X for Union S, Xmin
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 7 of 13

and Xmax are the minimum and maximum values of Table 3 KMO and Bartlett’s Test of the PCA
the indicator respectively.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .568
In the next step, we have conducted a PCA using the
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. 9138.809
twenty selected indicators, employing oblique rotation Chi-
(oblimin with Kaiser normalization). This analysis gener- Square
ated loading scores for each variable (refer to Table 2) uti- df 325
lized as their respective weight in the rurality index. Sig .000
The PCA analysis has been verified as statistically
valid through the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bar-
tlett’s test (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2013; Hahn et al., 2009). (i.e., considered only the first factor) in his rurality index
The sampling adequacy for PCA analysis has been veri- methodology. If we follow the same approach, the first
fied through the KMO measure (0.568), surpassing the factor would explain only 29.48% of the total variabil-
accepted threshold. Furthermore, the Bartlett’s test ity of the indicators included in this analysis. Hence, we
of sphericity (p < 0.05) indicates that the correlations adopted a six-factor model for the rurality index, enhanc-
between the variables were statistically significant (see ing measurement accuracy and reliability compared to
Table 3). The average communality of the PCA (0.71) was Cloke’s one-factor model. In this model, each variable of
also found to be above the recommended minimum of the analysis is loaded onto the factor it is most associated
0.500. with (based on largest loading value). It’s worth noting
Figure 3 illustrates the extraction of six components that in his rurality index methodology, Cloke employed
in the PCA based on the Kaiser criterion (Eigenvalues loading scores from a one-factor PCA model as weights
greater than 1) and the ’point of inflection’ as per Tabach- for the indicators in his study. He did not standardize the
nick and Fidell (Asmamaw et al., 2019), so defined as the loadings, resulting in indicators with negative loadings
six-factor model (Beynon et al., 2016). These six com- closely aligning with rural characteristics in his research
ponents collectively explain 70.91% of the total variance (Cloke, 1977). In contrast, we standardized the obtained
in the underlying variables used in this study. It is cru- variable loadings using a normalization index follow-
cial to highlight that Cloke (1977) used one-factor model ing Eq. (2) for enhanced interpretability. This approach

Table 2 Loadings of the indicators produced from the six-factor model of PCA
Indicator PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6

Population density .067 .271 -.616 .358 .161 -.089

Household (HH) size .091 .750 -.072 .180 .229 -.034
Children -.151 .792 .081 -.073 .079 .016
Senior population .055 .121 -.029 -.102 -.562 .214
Ethnic population .107 -.003 .007 .127 -.104 .859
Disable population -.050 .325 .055 -.366 -.076 .258
Male literacy .734 -.221 .061 .242 -.226 .004
Female literacy .803 -.065 .054 .203 -.208 .002
Kutcha-Jhupri house -.268 .361 -.020 -.542 -.290 -.161
Non-sanitary toilet -.358 -.065 -.168 -.089 .366 .474
Tube well water -.173 .202 .126 .859 -.045 .106
Employed male -.580 -.440 .047 .124 .205 .146
Employed female .259 -.703 .107 -.065 .221 -.068
Agricultural employment male -.819 .132 -.256 -.003 -.259 -.013
Agricultural employment female -.843 -.066 -.256 .097 -.105 .035
Industrial employment male .168 -.013 .863 .113 .121 .004
Industrial employment female -.063 .155 .900 .157 .072 -.088
Service employment male .887 -.147 -.096 -.047 .254 .009
Service employment female .927 -.017 -.194 -.188 .074 .014
All age population .123 .247 .075 -.023 .701 .096
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization (Rotation converged in 17 iterations). Bold values show the
loadings have been normalized and used as the weights for the respective indicators in the rurality index in this study. Source: Authors’ compilation from the PCA
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 8 of 13

Fig. 3 Scree plot showing the numbers of components retained in the PCA

is consistent with findings in scholarly literature (Bey- and Bagerhat). The figure illustrates that Satkhira district
non et al., 2016; Harrington & O’Donoghue, 1998). After exhibits a greater degree of rurality (RI = 4.23) in com-
normalizing the indicators and calculating their corre- parison to Khulna (RI = 3.58) and Bagerhat (RI = 4.14)
sponding normalized loadings, the rurality index for each districts. The Unions across the three districts are
Union within the three case study districts was computed classified intro four classes based on their respective
using Eq. (3). rurality index score following a quartile classification
method: extremely non-rural (RI <  = 2.662), intermedi-
Ij = a1 X1 j + a2 X2 j + · · · + a20 X20 j (3) ate non-rural (2.662 < RI <  = 3.538), intermediate rural
where, Ij = rurality index for union j (3.538 < RI <  = 4.414), and extremely rural (RI > 4.414).
an = normalized loading score corresponding to vari- This functional characterization offers a distinct insight
able Xn into the rurality level of each Union within the districts.
Xn j = normalized value of variable Xn for union j The map depicts a highly rural southern region of the
Thus, the normalized value of each indicator in every study area, encompassing around 32.45% of all Unions.
Union is multiplied by their respective normalized load- Conversely, the northeastern and northwestern parts
ings. The resulting values are then aggregated to deter- exhibit a lower degree of rural functionality indicating
mine the rurality score for each Union in the study area. more urban characteristics. Only 9.8% of the Unions,
The Unions of the individual districts are later catego- including Bagerhat municipality, Satkhira municipality,
rized into four clusters such as Extremely Rural, Inter- and Khulna City Corporation, are registered as extremely
mediate Rural, Intermediate Non-Rural and Extremely non-rural. About 12.1% of Unions are categorized as
Non-Rural, following an equal interval or quartile classi- intermediate non-rural, while the majority (45.65%) fall
fication method (Beynon et al., 2016; Cloke, 1977; Ocana under the intermediate rural classification. Table 4 shows
Riola & Sanchez Cantalejo, 2005). Besides, the average the percentile distribution the rurality clusters across
rurality index score for all the three districts has been the three districts. We have rendered the status of each
calculated for characterizing them based on the relative Union across the study area in terms of the degree of
rurality index score. Finally, the outputs derived from this rurality through Table 5.
rurality index have been linked with their corresponding
spatial data sets in the GIS interface (i.e., ArcGIS Pro) 3.2 Dimensional contribution to rurality
with a view to develop rurality map characterizing rural Figure 5 portrays the respective contributions to each
areas into four clusters within the study area as men- examined dimension of rurality, offering a holistic insight
tioned above. into how various sectors influence rural–urban func-
tionality. The study’s findings suggest that the education
3 Results sector has limited influence on defining rurality levels
3.1 Degree of rurality and characterization of rural areas in the investigated area, indicating comparable educa-
Figure 4 depicts the study generated relative rurality tion quality and efficiency between urban and rural
index score of the case study sites (i.e., Satkhira, Khulna, areas. This suggests that either urban areas lack advanced
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 9 of 13

Fig. 4 Rurality map of the study area

Table 4 Percentile distribution the rurality clusters across the rural–urban disparities in the southwestern region, con-
three districts tributing 59.09% to the rurality index score. This sug-
District Category Number of Percentage gests that socio-economic factors play a crucial role in
Unions defining rurality levels in the area. The findings indicate
that demographic characteristics are the second most
Khulna Extremely rural 26 25
significant aspect shaping rural–urban disparities in the
Intermediate rural 35 33.65
coastal region, accounting for 21.75% of the overall rural-
Intermediate non-rural 20 19.23
ity extent. The research found that the infrastructural
Extremely non-rural 23 22.12
dimension, encompassing housing, water, and sanita-
Satkhira Extremely rural 27 33.33
tion facilities, is a crucial determinant of rurality levels in
Intermediate rural 48 59.26
the study area, contributing 16.57% to the overall rural-
Intermediate non-rural 5 6.18
ity level. Nevertheless, the figure might not encompass
Extremely non-rural 1 1.23
all pertinent aspects of rurality crucial for policymaking,
Bagerhat Extremely rural 33 41.25
warranting potential further research to delve into sup-
Intermediate rural 38 47.50
plementary dimensions.
Intermediate non-rural 7 8.75
Extremely non-rural 2 2.50
4 Discussion
This study informs that Satkhira district exhibits the
highest level of rurality, closely followed by Bagerhat,
educational facilities or rural areas are provided with whereas Khulna demonstrates the lowest degree of rural-
quality education services. It elicits that the socio- ity. The data uncovers signs of spatial inequality among
economic dimension is the dominant sector driving the districts, and delving into spatial inequality could
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 10 of 13

Table 5 Rurality status of individual Unions across the study area

Cluster type Registered Unions

Extremely rural Baharbunia, Baintala, Balaibunia, Banagram, Bara Baria, Baraikhali, Bhojpatia, Chandpai Range, Char Baniari, Chingrakhali, Chital‑
mari, Chunkhola, Daibagnyahati, Dakshin Khali, Dema, Dhansagar, Gaola, Gaurambha, Hizla, Hogla Pasha, Hoglabunia, Jiudhara,
Kalatala, Khuolia, Kodalia, Malliker Ber, Panchakaran, Putikhali, Rajnagar, Ramchandrapur, Santoshpur, Teligati, Ujalkur, Amadi,
Bagali, Baliadanga, Bhandar Para, Bhanderkote, Chandkhali, Dacope, Dakshin Bedkashi, Deluti, Gadaipur, Gazir Hat, Khulna
Range, Koyra, Lata, Maguraghona, Magurkhali, Maharajpur, Maheshwaripur, Nalian Range, Sahas, Sarappur, Sholadana, Sob‑
hana, Surkhali, Tildanga, Uttar Bedkashi, Anulia, Atulia, Buri Goalini, Dhalbaria, Dhandia, Gabura, Ghona, Ishwaripur, Islamkati,
Jalalpur, Joynagar, Kaikhali, Keragachhi, Khajra, Khalilnagar, Khesra, Kulla, Kuskhali, Magura, Munshiganj, Nurnagar, Pratap Nagar,
Ramjan Nagar, Satkhira Range, Sonabaria, Sreeula, Tentulia
Intermediate rural Atjuri, Badhal, Banshtali, Barai Para, Bemarta, Betaga, Bishnupur, Chandpi, Chila, Dhopakhali, Gangni, Gazalia, Gopalpur, Gota
Para, Hurka, Jatrapur, Kachua, Khanpur, Khontakata, Kulia, Lakhpur, Maghia, Morrelganj, Mulghar, Naldha Maubhog, Nishan‑
baria, Perikhali, Piljanga, Rakhalgachhi, Rampal, Rari Para, Royenda, Shat Gambuj, Shibpur, Subhadia, Sundarban, Suniltala,
Udaypur, Ajugara, Amirpur, Aranghata, Atlia, Bajua, Banishanta, Barakpur, Barasat, Batiaghata, Dhamalia, Dumuria, Gangaram‑
pur, Garuikhali, Ghatbhogh, Gutudia, Haridhali, Jamira, Kailasganj, Kamarkhola, Kapilmuni, Kharnia, Laskar, Laudubi, Madhupur,
Pankhali, Raghunathpur, Rangpur, Raruli, Rudaghara, Sachiadah, Sagladah, Sutarkhali, T. S. Bahirdia, Terokhada, Ward No-04,
Agardari, Alipur, Assasuni, Baikari, Balli, Banshdaha, Baradal, Bhomra, Bhurulia, Bishnupur, Brahma Rajpur, Budhhata, Champa‑
phul, Chandanpur, Dakshin Sreepur, Dhulihar, Diara, Durgapur, Fingri, Helatala, Jallabad, Jhaudanga, Jogikhali, Kadakati, Kaila,
Kalaroa Paurashava, Kashimari, Keralkata, Khalishkhali, Krishnanagar, Kulia, Kumira, Kushadanga, Kushlia, Mathureshpur, Mautala,
Nagarghata, Nalta, Nangalthara, Noapara, Padma Pukur, Parulia, Ratanpur, Sarulia, Shibpur, Sobhnali, Tala, Tarali
Intermediate non-rural Bahirdia Mansa, Burirdanga, Fakirhat, Kara Para, Mithakhali, Mongla Port Paurashava, Morrelganj Paurashava, Aijganti, Atra Gila‑
tala, Chalna Paurashava, Damodar, Dighalia, Jalma, Jugipole, Naihati, Paikgachha Paurashava, Phultala, Sreefaltala, (Ward No-01,
Ward No-02 (part), Ward No-03, Ward No-05, Ward No-06, Ward No-07, Ward No-08, Ward No-09, Ward No-13) KCC, Bhara Simla,
Debhata, Labsa, Sakhipur, Shyamnagar
Extremely non-rural Bagerhat Paurashava, Sharankhola Range, Senhati, (Ward No-02 (part), Ward No-10, Ward No-11, Ward No-12, Ward No-14,
Ward No-15, Ward No-16, Ward No-17, Ward No-18, Ward No-19, Ward No-20, Ward No-21, Ward No-22, Ward No-23, Ward
No-24, Ward No-25, Ward No-26, Ward No-27, Ward No-28, Ward No-29, Ward No-30, Ward No-31) KCC, Satkhira Paurashava
KCC means the Unions within the first parenthesis are under Khulna City Corporation

provide insight into the reasons behind varying degrees Satkhira districts (see Table 6). Almost a similar sce-
of rurality among them. The analysis uncovers disparities nario can be seen for rural areas too. Table 6 elicits that
within the non-rural (urban) areas of the districts, akin the rural areas in Satkhira district are characterized
to those observed in the rural areas. The relative rurality with comparably higher degree of rurality than that of
index score indicates that non-rural areas in Khulna dis- Khulna and Bagerhat districts. An intriguing observation
trict exhibit relatively lower rural functions and a higher emerges: rural areas in Bagerhat district display slightly
degree of urban functionality compared to Bagerhat and lesser rurality than those in Khulna district, despite
Khulna district exhibiting the lowest rurality level among
the three case study areas. This phenomenon is influ-
enced by factors like higher female literacy rates, female
employment in the service sector, and improved access
to sanitation facilities in Bagerhat’s rural areas com-
pared to those in Khulna and Satkhira. Another point
can be approximated from the analysis that rural–urban
disparity within Khulna district is significantly higher
(see Table 6). This signifies that resource allocation,
infrastructure advancement, employment prospects,
public utility access, gender parity, educational provi-
sions etc. are disproportionately concentrated in urban
areas, potentially resulting in a significant developmental
imbalance across the district.
An evident trend identified in the study reveals the con-
centration of urban functions along major rivers, histori-
cally pivotal in the urbanization process (Phong, 2015).
For instance, Mongla Port Paurashava and Chalna Pau-
rashava situated on the banks of the Pashur River, with
Fig. 5 Contribution of the dimensions to the level of rurality various other urban areas in the three districts similarly
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 11 of 13

Table 6 Rural–urban disparity among the districts based on rurality index

District Average RI for extremely non- Average RI for extremely Average RI for intermediate non- Average RI for
rural areas rural areas rural areas intermediate rural
areas

Khulna 2.14 4.76 3.01 3.98

Bagerhat 2.22 4.69 3.31 3.92
Satkhira 2.56 4.73 3.42 4.07
Source: Authors’ composition from rurality index of this research

evolving alongside such waterways. Hence, key indus- balanced growth and greater sustainability in the south-
trial, commercial, and service sectors in Bagerhat district, western region. Socio-economic transformation of an
including Mongla sea port, Mongla EPZ, cement facto- area is imperative to address increasing spatiotemporal
ries, banks, power stations, and industrial complexes, uncertainties and climate change-induced risks (Rah-
have thrived along the Pashur River’s banks. Khulna man et al., 2023). Ensuring active public participation
district’s industrialization stemmed from the growth of in decision-making and development processes is criti-
Khulna Shipyard and industries such as steel, rubber, cal to harness such transformative potential of commu-
cement, seafood, and jute along the Rupsha River. Infra- nities. Requiring community consensus for decisions
structure development alongside major rivers fosters concerning rural areas is a robust strategy to ensure the
employment, drawing people, investors, and government inclusion of residents in the development process. It
attention. This transformation shifts agrarian econo- will also enhance local government autonomy, account-
mies into urbanized one with increased non-agricultural ability, and transparency, promoting good governance
employment, literacy rates, population density, and in the region. Implementing an ‘economic diversifica-
female empowerment. In contrast, the extremely rural tion’ policy can mitigate economic vulnerability in rural
areas in these three districts feature agriculture-focused areas by integrating compatible sectors (for example,
employment, loss of labor force, less robust housing, promoting pisciculture, apiculture with farming through
restricted sanitation and water access, along with ele- a smart management system; forestry and haor-based
vated proportions dependent populations. Intermediate tourism; farming and food processing industries). Com-
areas represent a transitional phase between rural and plementing these policies, incentivizing diverse income
urban, where the attributes of rurality are gradually yield- sources for rural residents, involving unemployed youth
ing to urbanization, transforming these areas from rural and students in freelancing and rural innovation through
to urban. specialized training can effectively diversify rural econo-
An unforeseen concern emerged in Bagerhat district mies. Furthermore, this approach can mitigate rural-to-
when a disparity surfaced between the statistical data urban migration by retaining the working-age population
provided by BBS for Sarankhola Range and the actual in rural regions. Establishing cottage industries in rural
spatiotemporal characteristics of the Union. Sarankhola areas with appropriate institutional arrangements can
Range lies within the forested expanse of the Sunda- empower women and stimulate local economic growth
rbans mangrove forest, sparsely populated. However, effectively. Moreover, these industries offer valuable
official data from BBS presents urban traits, including export opportunities. Pastoral farming is another prom-
non-agricultural employment, tube well water access, ising option for promoting rural economic growth, par-
and elevated literacy rates. This overestimation incor- ticularly in providing alternative employment for women.
rectly classifies Sarankhola Range as an extremely non- Creating a direct cooperative partnership between the
rural area rather than an extremely rural one. It’s worth private sector and local communities, facilitated by
noting that the loadings of certain variables used to local governments, involves communities supplying raw

in exchange for financial and technical support ─ can

measure rurality do not align with the assumed (based on materials (e.g., milk, meat, poultry, eggs) to industries
extensive literature review) functional relationship with
rurality. To resolve this concern, we applied a normalized effectively direct investments to rural areas and create
scoring method for the loadings, as suggested by Beynon employment opportunities. Incorporating local gov-
et al. (2016) and Harrington and O’Donoghue (1998), in ernment here is essential to safeguard against potential
calculating the rurality index. exploitation of local communities by capitalist indus-
Although globalization has shifted the balance in favor tries. These policies and plans, once realized, will lead
of urban areas, rural development remains crucial. Sus- to the improvement of infrastructure and education sec-
tainable rural development is instrumental for achieving tors, thereby contributing to the overall development of
Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 12 of 13

rural areas. To address uncertainties like pandemics (e.g., on rural–urban disparities in southwestern Bangladesh,
COVID-19) and natural disasters (e.g., floods, cyclones), considering factors like spatiality, political dynamics, and
establishing a local government-managed ‘uncertainty cultural aspects. This article calls for a robust method-
and climate change fund’ (Rahman et al., 2023) for com- ology in rurality research, incorporating geographical,
munity support in times of crisis can be considered. political, adaptation, and vulnerability factors alongside
However, implementing these strategies hinges on central other dimensions.
and local governments reshaping their rural development
priorities and agendas to create a conducive environ-
Authors’ contributions
ment. The governments must recognize the importance All the authors contributed significantly to the manuscript’s development.
of rural areas for national growth and establish well- Conceptualization, Md. Abdur Rahman, Md. Zakir Hossain, Nur Mohammad
defined development agenda for them. Ha-Mim, Farhan Tanvir Turjo, Sazzadul Islam, and Khan Rubayet Rahman; meth-
odology, Md. Abdur Rahman, Md. Zakir Hossain, Khan Rubayet Rahaman; data
analysis and summarization, Md. Abdur Rahman, Md. Zakir Hossain, Farhan
Tanvir Turjo, Sazzadul Islam; writing- original draft preparation, Md. Abdur Rah‑
5 Conclusion man, Md. Zakir Hossain; writing – review and editing, Md. Abdur Rahman, Md.
This research has assessed the degree of rurality of Zakir Hossain, Nur Mohammad Ha-Mim, and Khan Rubayet Rahman; supervi-
the southwestern region of Bangladesh using a rural- sion, Md. Zakir Hossain, and Khan Rubayet Rahman.
ity indexing approach from on functional perspective. Funding
The study has also categorized the region into four clus- The authors have not received any funding for conducting this research.
ters (i.e., extremely rural, intermediate rural, intermedi-
Availability of data and materials
ate non-rural, and extremely non-rural) using a quartile Upon reasonable request, the corresponding author can provide access to the
classification method based on the rural index scores, datasets that were either analyzed or generated during this study.
measured at Union level. The study has utilized primar-
ily population census data deriving from the Bangladesh Declarations
Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Local Government Engineer-
Competing interests
ing Department (LGED) has provided the required geo- The authors certify that none of them is associated with or involved in any
spatial datasets. organization or entity that has any kind of financial or non-financial interest in
The results indicate that Satkhira district has the high- the topics covered in this paper or the materials addressed in it.
est degree of rurality (RI = 4.23), followed by Bagerhat
(RI = 4.14) and Khulna (RI = 3.58) districts. The study Received: 14 March 2023 Revised: 11 September 2023 Accepted: 18
reveals a highly rural southern part (32.45% of Unions) September 2023
and lower rural functionality in the northeastern and
northwestern sections, with 9.8% of Unions being
extremely non-rural, 12.1% intermediate non-rural,
and 45.65% intermediate rural. Sectoral analysis high- References
Agarwal, S., Rahman, S., & Errington, A. (2009). Measuring the determinants
lights socio-economic factors as the primary drivers of of relative economic performance of rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies,
rural–urban disparities in the southwestern region, fol- 25(3), 309–321. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrurs​tud.​2009.​02.​003
lowed by demographic characteristics and infrastruc- Antwi-Agyei, P., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E. D. G., & Stringer, L. C. (2013). Characteris‑
ing the nature of household vulnerability to climate variability: Empirical
ture. Additionally, the study indicates that education evidence from two regions of Ghana. Environment, Development and
plays a limited role in shaping rurality levels in the area. Sustainability, 15(4), 903–926. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​012-​9418-9
Analysis reveals that Khulna district has notably higher Argent, N. (2008). Perceived density, social interaction and morale in New
South Wales rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 245–261.
rural–urban disparities compared to the other two. We https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrurs​tud.​2007.​10.​003
have also observed a concentration of higher non-rural- Asmamaw, M., Mereta, S. T., & Ambelu, A. (2019). Exploring households’
ity along major rivers like Rupsha, Mongla, and Bhairab, resilience to climate change-induced shocks using Climate Resilience
Index in Dinki watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia. PloS One, 14(7),
suggesting a potential link between geographic features e0219393. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02193​93
and rurality. Banister, D. J. (1980). TRANSPORT MOBILITY AND DEPRIVATION IN INTER-URBAN
This research will aid rural planners and policymakers AREAS (Monograph). Article Monograph. https://​trid.​trb.​org/​view/​156225
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). (2011a). Bangladesh Population and
in comprehending the area’s unique rural dynamics, cru- Housing Census 2011: Community Report Khulna. Retrieved 2 September,
cial for crafting context-specific development strategies. 2023, from http://​203.​112.​218.​65:​8008/​WebTe​stApp​licat​ion/​userf​i les/​
Moreover, precise delineation of administrative units, like Image/​EcoCe​n13/​DistR​eport/​Khulna
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). (2011b). Bangladesh Population and
Unions and Wards, is vital for effective implementation Housing Census 2011: Community Report Satkhira. Retrieved 2 September,
of evidence-based development initiatives. Additionally, 2023, from http://​203.​112.​218.​65:​8008/​WebTe​stApp​licat​ion/​userf​i les/​
the article offers an adaptable methodology for assess- Image/​PopCe​nZilz​2011/​Zila-​Satkh​ira.​pdf
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). (2011c). Bangladesh Population and
ing rurality and defining rural areas in diverse contexts. Housing Census 2011: Community Report Bagerhat. Retrieved 2 September,
The study highlights the necessity for additional research
 Rahman et al. Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2023) 1:20 Page 13 of 13

2023, from http://​203.​112.​218.​65:​8008/​WebTe​stApp​licat​ion/​userf​i les/​ Kaneko, M., Ohta, R., Vingilis, E., Mathews, M., & Freeman, T. R. (2021). Systematic
Image/​EcoCe​n13/​DistR​eport/​Bager​hat.​pdf scoping review of factors and measures of rurality: Toward the develop‑
Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J. A., & Martín, R. (2005). Rural-Urban Differences in ment of a rurality index for health care research in Japan. BMC Health
Environmental Concern, Attitudes, and Actions. European Journal of Services Research, 21(1), 9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12913-​020-​06003-w
Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 128–138. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1027/​1015-​ Khan, A. A. M. (1982). Rural-Urban Migration and Urbanization in Bangladesh.
5759.​21.2.​128 Geographical Review, 72(4), 379–394. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​214592
Best, R.H. (1981). Land Use and Living Space. Methuen young books. Li, Y., Long, H., & Liu, Y. (2015). Spatio-temporal pattern of China’s rural develop‑
Beynon, M. J., Crawley, A., & Munday, M. (2016). Measuring and understanding ment: A rurality index perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 12–26.
the differences between urban and rural areas. Environment and Planning https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrurs​tud.​2015.​01.​004
b: Planning and Design, 43(6), 1136–1154. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02658​ Martin, D., Brigham, P., Roderick, P., Barnett, S., & Diamond, I. (2000). The (mis)
13515​605096 Representation of Rural Deprivation. Environment and Planning a:
Blunden, J. R., Pryce, W. T. R., & Dreyer, P. (1998). The Classification of Rural Areas Economy and Space, 32(4), 735–751. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1068/​a32130
in the European Context: An Exploration of a Typology Using Neural Moseley, M. J. (1979). Accessibility: the rural challenge. Methuen: Methuen and
Network Applications. Regional Studies, 32(2), 149–160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Company Limited.
1080/​00343​40985​01230​35 Nelson, K. S., Nguyen, T. D., Brownstein, N. A., Garcia, D., Walker, H. C., Watson, J.
Bonfiglio, A., Coderoni, S., Esposti, R., & Baldoni, E. (2021). The role of rurality in T., & Xin, A. (2021). Definitions, measures, and uses of rurality: A systematic
determining the economy-wide impacts of a natural disaster. Economic review of the empirical and quantitative literature. Journal of Rural Studies,
Systems Research, 33(4), 446–469. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09535​314.​2020.​ 82, 351–365. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrurs​tud.​2021.​01.​035
18142​06 OcanaRiola, R., & Sanchez Cantalejo, C. (2005). Rurality index for small areas in
Casey, M. M., Thiede Call, K., & Klingner, J. M. (2001). Are rural residents less Spain. Social Indicators Research, 73(2), 247–266. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
likely to obtain recommended preventive healthcare services? American s11205-​004-​0987-3
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(3), 182–188. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​ Osmani, S. R., & Sen, B. (2011). Inequality in Rural Bangladesh in the 2000s:
s0749-​3797(01)​00349-x Trends and Causes. Bangladesh Development Studies, 34(4), 1–36.
Clevland, C. (1995). Measures of Rurality. The University of Tennessee Institute of Pacione, M. (1984). Rural geography. Rural Geography. https://​www.​cabdi​rect.​
Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin, 689, 5–8. org/​cabdi​rect/​abstr​act/​19841​813353
Cloke, P. J. (1977). An index of rurality for England and Wales. Regional Studies, Phillips, D. R., & Williams, A. M. (1984). Rural Britain: a social geography. Blackwell
11(1), 31–46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09595​23770​01850​41 Pub.
Cloke, P., & Edwards, G. (1986). Rurality in England and Wales 1981: A replica‑ Phong, L. H. (2015). The relationship between rivers and cities: Influences of
tion of the 1971 index. Regional Studies, 20(4), 289–306. https://​doi.​org/​ urbanization on the riverine zones – a case study of Red River zones in Hanoi,
10.​1080/​09595​23860​01852​71 Vietnam. 27–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2495/​SDP15​0031
Coombes, M., & Raybould, S. (2001). Public Policy and Population Distribution: Rahman, M. A., Hossain, M. Z., & Rahaman, K. R. (2023). Climate Urbanism as
Developing Appropriate Indicators of Settlement Patterns. Environment a New Urban Development Paradigm: Evaluating a City’s Progression
and Planning c: Government and Policy, 19(2), 223–248. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ towards Climate Urbanism in the Global South. Climate, 11(8), Article 8.
1068/​c9826 https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​cli11​080159
Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s–2000s. Redfield, R. (1941). Folk Culture of Yucatan. The University of Chicago Press.
Development Policy Review, 19(4), 437–448. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1467-​ Sanz, B. G. (1994). Nuevas claves para entender la recuperación de la sociedad
7679.​00143 rural. Papeles De Economía Española, 60, 204–218.
Entrena-Durán, F. (1998). Cambios en la Construcción Social de lo Rural. De la Simkin, S., Hawton, K., Fagg, J., & Malmberg, A. (1998). Stress in farmers: A
autarquía a la globalización. survey of farmers in England and Wales. Occupational and Environmental
Freshwater, D. (2015). Vulnerability and Resilience: Two Dimensions of Rurality. Medicine, 55(11), 729–734. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​oem.​55.​11.​729
Sociologia Ruralis, 55(4), 497–515. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​soru.​12090 Waldorf, B. (2006). A Continuous Multi-Dimensional Measure of Rurality: Moving
Gallent, N., & Robinson, S. (2011). Local perspectives on rural housing afforda‑ Beyond Threshold Measures. Available online: https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​
bility and implications for the localism agenda in England. Journal of Rural net/​publi​cation/​23506​665_A_​Conti​nuous_​Multi Dimensional_Meas‑
Studies, 27(3), 297–307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrurs​tud.​2011.​05.​004 ure_of_Rurality_Moving_Beyond_Threshold_Measures (Accessed on 2
Galluzzo, N. (2019). An assessment of rurality in Italian farms using a quantita‑ Sept 2023).
tive approach. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 25(3), 433–438. Wallace, A. E., Lee, R., MacKenzie, T. A., West, A. N., Wright, S., Booth, B. M.,
Hahn, M. B., Riederer, A. M., & Foster, S. O. (2009). The Livelihood Vulnerability Hawthorne, K., & Weeks, W. B. (2010). A Longitudinal Analysis of Rural and
Index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variabil‑ Urban Veterans’ Health-Related Quality of Life. The Journal of Rural Health,
ity and change—A case study in Mozambique. Global Environmental 26(2), 156–163. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1748-​0361.​2010.​00277.x
Change, 19(1), 74–88. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2008.​11.​002 Watkins, C., & Champion, A. G. (Eds.). (1991). People in the countryside: studies of
Ha-Mim, N. M., Rahman, Md. A., Hossain, Md. Z., Fariha, J. N., & Rahaman, K. R. social change in rural Britain. SAGE Publications Ltd.
(2022). Employing multi-criteria decision analysis and geospatial tech‑ Watt, I. S., & Sheldon, T. A. (1993). Rurality and resource allocation in the
niques to assess flood risks: A study of Barguna district in Bangladesh. UK. Health Policy, 26(1), 19–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0168-​8510(93)​
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 77, 103081. https://​doi.​org/​ 90075-Z
10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2022.​103081 Yang, Z., & Li, C. (2020). Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Rurality in
Harrington, V., & O’Donoghue, D. (1998). Rurality in England and Wales 1991: Urban Suburb Town and Its Driving Factors Based on Land Use Transfor‑
A Replication and Extension of the 1981 Rurality Index. Sociologia Ruralis, mation. Complexity, 2020, e2806127. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2020/​28061​
38(2), 178–203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1467-​9523.​00071 27
Hewitt, M. (1989). Defining “Rural” Areas: Impact on Health Care Policy and Zhang, P., Tao, G., & Irwin, K. L. (2000). Utilization of preventive medical services
Research. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. https://​ufdc.​ufl.​ in the United States: A comparison between rural and urban populations.
edu/​AA000​55019/​00001/​pdf The Journal of Rural Health: Official Journal of the American Rural Health
Hugo, G., Champion, A., & Lattes, A. (2003). Toward a New Conceptualization of Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 16(4), 349–356.
Settlements for Demography. Population and Development Review, 29(2), https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1748-​0361.​2000.​tb004​85.x
277–297. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1728-​4457.​2003.​00277.x
Humphreys, J. S. (1998). Delimiting ‘Rural’: Implications of an Agreed ‘Rurality’
Index for Healthcare Planning and Resource Allocation. Australian Journal
of Rural Health, 6(4), 212–216. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1440-​1584.​1998.​
tb003​15.x
Isserman, A. M. (2005). In the National Interest: Defining Rural and Urban Cor‑
rectly in Research and Public Policy. International Regional Science Review,
28(4), 465–499. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01600​17605​279000

View publication stats