The Effect of Rural Population Density on Socio-economic Characteristics of Rural Communities - Dissertation Example

? Effect of Rural Population Density on Socio-economic Characteristics of Rural Communities Literature review 1 Rural Population Density Human population density (both urban and rural) serves as an important study tool, necessary to measure the balance between the total capacity of the physical environment necessary to support the perpetually rising global population, especially in the context of the developing or under developed nations. The studies on population density have primarily focused on the constantly increasing human population and subsequent impact of this increase on the physical environment and the resources available. The picture of an increasing population in developing nations, inserting compelling pressure on the country’s natural resources, takes a different turn in majority of the developed industrialized nations. Here, researches show that the excessive low human population densities may show detrimental effects on the support system of social communities within the modern, industrialized, capitalist societies, creating barriers in the scale economy development, restraining the division of labor, while reflecting a heavy transportation charges upon the rural and ‘sparseland’ populations, that decrease their chances for social interactions (Holmes, 1987). Though having a seemingly simple front, the term population density actually comprises of a complex concept, which is associated with a wide range of factors like the physical environment, humans, economy, and technology, with each factor closely linked to the other (Fonseca & Wong, 2000). Saglie (1987) in his papers delineated two major concepts within the term population density, which are: measured density (a quantifiable figure of the population units, that comprise of the individuals, families and the households, in per unit area); and perceived density (a qualitative dimension comprising of abstract concepts, like loneliness, privacy, isolation, contact potential, and crowding). Human population density has always been the chief centralizing theme within geographical studies, co-relating the range and depth of the interrelationships that occur between society, individuals, and the surrounding physical environment and the nature of their mutual influence. a majority of the density related research work has centered upon the factor of measured density (ratio of people per unit area), and have explored various aspects seeking resolutions for problems related to the services provided by the State, or for planning, within rural or urban settings. Holmes (1981) in his papers conceptualized the notions of ‘critical density thresholds’ for specific kind of service centre oriented network, where he associates population density levels to the wider aspects of ‘primary production,’ and his papers on Australian population density distinguished between the ‘sparselands’ and the ‘settled areas.’ A closer look at this subject revealed that not much work has been done in this line owing to the complex nature of the term population density (Fonseca and Wong, 2000). It is not easy to distinguish between cause and effect, while explaining the various planes of human density, and the type and depth of their relationships with different social aspects. The complex nature of population density also implicates the involvement of the socio-economic, environmental, and historical factors that help to create a specific density spectrum and kind, like, linear, clustered, or randomly distributed, in respect to any type of rural community (Argent, Smailes, & Grif?n, 2005). The perceived density or the qualitative dimensions of population density are yet to be explored in details. only a few researchers have worked in this regards, as for example, Irving and Davidson (1973) defined social density (interpersonal relationships between members of a rural community), and Tuan (1977) in his papers emphasized that the feelings of crowding or loneliness were created owing to an individual’s sense of socio-economic opportunity within a particular environment. He opined that qualitative responses to the figurative human population density were adapted by two main factors, culture and the desire for a community member’s self-accomplishment. Here Tuan gives an example of the Russian farmers residing in the Steppes. This landscape does not have much human habitation, except for few isolated farmhouses, and such isolation tends to produce a feeling of fear and despair within the local rural inhabitants (Tuan, 1977, 56). Therefore, the subjective aspects of crowding or isolation though not directly related to the physical environment can nevertheless have a significant influence. Saglie (1998) in her papers recounts her experiences of the Norwegian people living in urban settlements, and her observations show that the Norway residents displayed an antipathy towards urban form of life, which grew from their age-old tradition of low-density settlement, thus making the Norwegians inherently prefer sparser settlements. Here, Saglie comments, “The ideal Norwegian way is to live scattered because Norwegians are ‘lone wolves’…Norway has been a kingdom of small kings, with rural communities divided by topographical features” (Saglie, 1998, 29). According to Saglie (1998), the two aspects of density (measured and perceived) portray two different conceptions of space. Measured density arises from an absolute proportion of space (Kantian theory); whereas the perceived density ensues from social relationships, is relative in nature with a relational concept of space. Tuan in his papers observed that ‘‘Human beings require both space and place. Human lives are a dialectical movement between shelter and venture, attachment and freedom’’ (Tuan, 1977, 54). Thus, one can derive that loneliness is also essential for the appropriate functioning of a society; Tuan, further adds that the population shift from rural areas to urban areas during the era of industrialization was owing mainly to the young population moving away to the ‘less crowded’ cities, from the close knit social bindings of the rural communities (ibid, 60). Smailes (1997) in his researches on the Australian rural communities identified three prime zones of human habitats, within the rural context: (1) ‘peri-urban zone’ (fringe areas) which form the ‘core’ area, with higher incomes and high population growth; (2) ‘cereals/ sheep belt’ showing declining density, loss of service and poor income type; and (3) ‘marginal pastoral zone’ that is experiencing rising decline in demography, very poor incomes while low chances for variegation. Population density, best described in terms of a typical spatial aspect, reflects the way in which human species have spread out, and occupied the surface of the earth, and is an extremely important factor in the study of social and population geography. A study of the available literature on the subject, as already mentioned, however reveals that there are very few detailed studies in this line, with the majority of work conducted concerning themselves with population density only within the urban areas. For example, we find town-planning reviews based on the population density by Saglie 1998; with various other general overviews, on the subject of urban population density (Bahr, Jentsch, & Kuls, 1992). As regards specific studies on the density of the rural areas, there are articles by Robinson, Lindberg, & Brinkman (1961) that explore the link between the rural farm densities and percentage of arable land, percentage of the land producing crop, percentage of rainfall, and the distance from the nearest urban centre. Aangebrug and Caspall (1970) in their paper on rural population density categorized the Kansas rural areas by the perceived changes in the population density patterns over time. However, it was in 1967 that Berry in his research papers first undertook a systematic work to distinguish the effects on the variation of density on an overall community settlement system. Working within the restraining framework of the inflexible concepts of the central place theory, Berry revealed in his papers that the dimensions of the rural trade areas and service centers is linked to the wider aspect of the regional population density of which it is a part. Irrespective of the population density, the rural centers are apt to form a distinct spatial pyramid (Berry, 1967). With a decrease in the population density, the place dimension at each level of the pyramid also decreases, while there is an increase in the trade area sizes that seeks to compensate partially for the decreasing population density. Subsequently owing to these shifts and transitions, the specific forms of services seen at the lowest level of the spatial pyramid under conditions of high-density rural population will move a step up to the next higher level when population density decreases (ibid). Berry in his papers conceptualized the presence of a ‘phase shift’ within the spatial emulations of the trade centers, with sudden breaks in the density, as noticed between the suburban areas, and the rural areas bordering the urban centers; or between the broad care type of farming zones and irrigation areas. A less known paper that examines rural density by Irving and Davidson, (1973) explores primarily the urban population but with distinct rural applicability. In this paper, the authors brought in the concept of social density, which reflects the time of interpersonal interactions that are occurring within a given unit of area, per unit of time. Rural population density has an important influence over the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the rural communities in all developed and developing countries. It is also the basic factor taken into consideration by the government while undertaking developmental planning and shaping public policies. Population density (rural and urban) is influenced by certain factors, like the, available environmental resources in a particular area, the time and form of colonization, which are transient in nature and tend to keep on changing over the years. Rural population density has a significant amount of influence over the socio-economic characteristics of rural communities, which is on one hand a persistent process occurring through a long period over the years, and on the other hand it is also ongoing process taking place at the present moment. Unlike urban size, rural density takes a direct measure of the rural community’s living size and space, the habitability of the physical environment where it is located, and the potential cost of transport for service delivery and other measures of maintaining contact and personal interaction between the rural people (Smailes, Argent, & Grif?n, 2002, 390). In Australia, researchers have shown that the besides the aforementioned factors rural density can be also co-related with ‘age and maturity’ of the rural community’s tradition and culture, the kind of farming practice followed, size of the farms, amongst various other factors (Holmes, 1981). Rural population density also influences the markets for entrepreneurs, and the chances for earning from doing work other than farming. In their research paper, Smailes, Argent, & Grif?n (2002) theorized an original relationship between rural density, which is an independent variable, and other characteristics of the rural communities, which are the dependent variables. In their papers, the authors found positive correlation between the rural population density and the total population; the mobility rate of the community members; industrial workforce, and ratio of non-native population. Negative correlations were found with the number of people working within the primary industry, spatial area of the rural community, the masculinity proportion, and the fertility ratio. The authors additionally found in their researches conducted mainly in the Australian context that rural population density remains correlated at a significance of .01 levels with the aforementioned variables, along with factors like youth dependency factor, unemployment proportions, and ratio of the population below 15 years of age. Although there are a dearth of studies into the dimension of rural population density, whatever researches have been conducted into the matter, shows us that, there is a close link between the rural population density and socio-economic characteristics of rural communities and the two factors are mutually interdependent. 1.2 Factors Affecting Rural Population Density  Fig 1: Hypothesised relationships between key variables affecting rural density (Argent, Smailes, and Grif?n, 2005, 159). Following the theory put forward by Argent, Smailes, and Grif?n (2005) as is shown in the figure we will discuss each individual factor that affects the rural density population. Annual Rainfall: rural communities in a majority of the countries depend on agriculture for their livelihood, so it is it is of little wonder that rainfall is considered by the authors as “one of the most direct and important influences on rural density” (Argent, Smailes, and Grif?n, 2005, 159) and a strongly positive correlation between the two is hypothesised. Rainfall variability: Here the authors found a moderately negative correlation between rural density and the variability of rainfall, except in places where the condition was offset by presence of agricultural irrigation. Ruggedness of Terrain: according to the authors delineated a further factor that affected the rural population density, which is the average ‘‘ruggedness’’ and ‘‘?atness’’ of the rural community’s environmental settings. “In a landscape dependent on land-based primary industry...a strong negative correlation is expected between ruggedness of terrain and rural density, though this effect may be partly offset by the orographic effect of terrain on rainfall” (ibid, 160). In very rugged regions, the authors noted that the rural settlements tend to be restricted to “small and relatively flat part of the total community area” (ibid), showing and thinly populated peripheral regions. Altitude: an examination of this factor led the authors to derive that the “median altitude is hypothesised to influence rural density indirectly through its impact on climate, particularly rainfall,” (ibid), thereafter they concluded that there is a weak negative influence between rural population density and altitude of the locality. Soil Quality: Another important characteristic (relevant to almost all rural areas in Australia, US, and Europe) “is its comparatively ancient geology, poor, thin and fragile soils and extremely slow rates of soil formation” (ibid, 161). There are have always been concerns over the problems of farm soil erosion and soil nutrient depletion (Powell, 1988) which has been further aggravated by the warnings over the “potential geographical extent, and likely future economic and social consequences, of dry land and irrigated land salinity for farmers and rural communities alike” (Argent, Smailes, and Grif?n, 2005, 162). Soil quality has thus a direct link with rural population density, reflecting a strong positive correlation between it and farmland value, value of agricultural products / unit area, and the “relative intensity of land use and farming type” (ibid). The indicators of soil quality as adopted by the authors were, “(1) per cent clay content; (2) electrical conductivity of soil—a salinity measure; (3) per cent of organic carbon; (4) level of extractable potassium—a measure of availability of a critical plant nutrient; (5) average exchange acidity—a measure of cation exchange capacity and, hence, of the soil’s ability to provide plant nutrients; and (6) soil pH” (ibid). All these soil quality indicators have a direct positive bearing on the rural density population. Remoteness: the factors pertaining to long distances of the rural communities from the urban centres, high transportation and travel charges, slow and erratic communication with the air or sea ports for exporting materials, and the heavy densities of home markets around these export routes, makes the factor of remoteness an important influencing factor on rural population density. In remote locations, there are available many cheap farmlands, though it is offset by a high scarcity of manual labour and high transport charges, which makes it essential to have more extensive type of agricultural practice; while in areas that not remotely located, reverse conditions are observed. A strongly negative correlation thus derived by the authors between the factors of remoteness and rural population density (ibid). Duration of Settlement: the authors had conducted their researches in the context of Australian rural communities, which are primarily settler communities (ibid, 162). In such settler economies (as was seen in Australian context) the authors expected the rural population density to show some sort of an impact on the length of the European settlement in various ways: (1)Through the tendency of the early rural settlers to take the easily accessible or the more fertile lands first; (2) owing to the fact that the mid-19th century culture, technology, and the associated survey system allowed for a landscape that was more suitable for small sized farms, with closely spaced towns; and (3) Owong to a long duration of settlement, there were greater scope for the development of a diverse and multicultural population, with various secondary line of income like industries related to textiles, agricultural machineries, flour milling, breweries, sawmilling along agriculture and farming. From their various researchers, the authors finally concluded that in a ‘productionist’ environment, there is only a mild positive correlation between the factor of duration of settlement and rural population density (ibid, 162). Value of farm production: this factor has a direct effect on the rural population density, or the economic conditions of the population that earns its livelihood by agricultural means, and residing in rural areas outside the urban townships is the total productive capacity of that particular local environment. here the authors theorise that ‘ideally, the relationship of rural density to farm production should be measured by farming intensity in terms of inputs—especially labour inputs—per unit area” (ibid). The authors base their measure on a total farm production value, (in terms of the total number of dollars per hectare). This variable is greatly affected by the factors of water availability, soil fertility, and the nature of the terrain, along with various other completely different factors, such as, operator skills, kind of farm production, and the nature of the export and national market for the farm products. Since this factor tends to represent the measure the entire rural community it is well suited for analysis, and the authors predicted a strong positive correlation between rural population density and farm production values (ibid). Irrigation dependence: the factor of water availability for irrigation (ground water or surface water) clearly affects the farm production values, thus in turn having a strong impact on the rural population density. Thus, one can expect a positive correlation between the dimensions of irrigation dependence and rural densities (ibid, 163). All the aforementioned factors that affect the rural population density as outlined by Argent, Smailes, and Grif?n (2005) in their papers converge to create another important factor, which is known as the ‘perceived amenities’. Fig 2: Hypothesised additional relationships between key variables affecting rural density in a multifunctional landscape (source: Argent, Smailes, and Grif?n, 2005, 179). In the fig above (fig 2), we find that there is an added factor (ref fig 1) as the central element known as the ‘perceived amenity.’ This is the measure of the degree of attractiveness of a rural area for the people who desire to settle in a rural community and this factor is considered to have a significant influence on many of the same factors that help to a create a thick rural population density. Perceived amenities may include a productive and peaceful landscape that has good water supplies, through rainfall, or via irrigation. Thus the amenity’s influence on rural population density may vary from being so called ‘‘hidden’’, or integrated with some independent variables. The authors define perceived amenity as “a multifaceted factor, inevitably comprising aspects of landscape appreciation, agronomic productivity, landscape heritage and proximity to large service centres” (ibid, 180). 1.3 Rural population density as an indicator of demographic and socio-economic structure Argent, Smailes, & Grif?n, (2002) in their research papers studied in details the relationships between the rural population density and the socio-economic structure of many of the rural communities in Australia. In their survey, they found that the rural population density serves to form good indicators of the demographic and socio-economic structure of a rural community, and subsequently they framed the following hypotheses: (a) Low rural population density is correlated with greater spatial dimensions of the rural communities, with a greater distance between the neighbouring towns, and this forms the basic concept within the central place theory, the general truth can be seen by looking at any road map or topographical maps (Argent, Smailes, & Grif?n, 2002, 394). (b) The higher spatial dimensions of the local social systems within less dense areas compensate partly for the low population density. Thus, the lower rural population density, will implicate smaller total population size of the communities (Berry, 1967). (c) Low rural population density is correlated with a low available rate of labour force participation. “This is expected mainly because in sparsely populated rural areas, numbers of females in the formal job market are likely to be low for a variety of reasons, including the relative shortage of both full time and part time non-farm jobs, particularly for women, and long commuting distances for the few jobs available” (Argent, Smailes, & Grif?n, 2002, 395). (d) Low rural population density is generally co-related with low figures, but high densities of the labour force that work in farms. Rural population density highly affected by the productivity value of the land. In highly populated rural areas, farms will be smaller with larger absolute percentage of farmland workforce, a high rural population is most likely to create better opportunities for other kinds of non-farming enterprise to function profitably, so in such cases the rural community start relying less on agriculture alone (ibid). (e) High rural densities are naturally associated with “high levels of both occupational and industrial diversity of the population” (ibid). Thus, highly populated areas will attract more businesses (other than farming) and more people into the area, thus creating a greater range of niches that can yield greater productivity for the entrepreneurs. (f) Low rural population density signifies lower proportions unemployed workforce within that locality. This is primarily owing to the fact that in sparsely populated areas, jobs being few and with a lack of services and amenities, those looking for jobs tend to migrate from that area. Areas having higher populations and with better services amenities are more likely to attract the migrant population thus giving rise to situation where many of the local people may remain unemployed (Hugo and bell, 1998). (g) “In areas of low rural density the masculinity ratio of the population (males per 100 females) will tend to be high” (Argent, Smailes, & Grif?n, 2002, 395). (h) Low population density is generally associated with low proportions of the non-native population or people of foreign origin, owing to a lack of amnesties and services provided (ibid). (i) Areas having low rural population density will have low proportion of the population that may have changed address within the past 5 years. This is owing to the fact that the sparely populated areas will also have more percentage of out-migration as compared to in- migration, since once again a lack of amenities and services provided will attract very few migrants (ibid). (j) “Low rural density will tend to be associated with a high fertility ratio (children under 5 per 100 women aged 15–44)...Low density is likely to correlate with high ruralilty, isolation, a low proportion of exurban immigrants and the longer retention of established behaviours” (ibid). (k) Low rural population density tends to show a low proportion of the population under 15 years if age (ibid). 1.4 Importance of Socio-Economic Aspects and Activities in Rural Studies Lately a large number of research scholars and experts have recognised the fact that all researches undertaken and public policies framed for the rural areas, must take into cognizance the account of the interactions that take place between the social, environmental, and economic factors, within the local rural population. In the Rural White Paper (2000) it has been clearly mentioned that that the character of the rural areas hold great importance and can be viewed as environmental and economic assets (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2000). The World Development Report (2009) gives us a detailed review where it portrays the environmental aspects as being a driver of economic activities, while also putting certain constraints upon the economic activities. Here the report linked the socio-economic and environmental aspects of a rural community, and suggested that the natural capital must be safeguarded Thus, within rural studies it is essential that one understands the basic socio-economic aspects of the community in order to provide suitable public policies and better public amenities. Fig 3: A contextual framework for characterising rural areas showing the kinds of data needed to capture key aspects of rural conditions (Source: Huby, M., Steve Cinderby, S., and Owen, 10). Here we find that socio-economic characteristics are one of the key factors for comprehending the essence of a rural community. Thus, we find that to comprehend the conditions within the rural communities it is essential to integrate socio economic aspects within the rural studies, as it would give a more holistic approach to the study of the entire rural scenario. Modern rural studies are greatly depending on the ‘post-rural’ approaches (Cloke, 1997), the new type of researches, are based on paying greater attention to diversity Massey, 1984), instead of homogeneity. Owing to the strong penetrative forces of globalisation, the social research trends, including the ones that are exploring rural communities, are largely affected by many external factors (non-rural & foreign). These factors include the consumers; the regulatory bodies; the citizens; as well as various other forces triggered by the economic globalisation, which has led to a blurring of the borders between the rural and non-rural zones. The modern drivers of change, as emerging from a globalised world of trade market, are, ‘capital’ and ‘labour,’ thus, making it imperative for any community that desires to improve its living and working conditions, to take cognizance of the socio-economic factors and activities. For those studying rural studies, it is now essential in the context of a globalised world to study the socio-economic aspects of the rural communities in order to make better provisions and work out more effective framing of public polices, for the betterment of the rural communities. Rural governance is another topic that has gained importance recently, and to comprehend the essence of good governance within the rural communities, one must first comprehend the basic framework on these communities function. Any community framework in order to operate effectively must base its foundations or pillars on the cultural, social, and economic factors, thus, making it imperative that in order to efficiently govern, frame public polices, and even to comprehend the complex matrix of the rural population, one must be well aware of the socio-economic characteristics and the demographics of these areas. 1.5 Conclusion From the above review, it stands out clearly that rural population or settlement density is a very important factor or variable in identifying, delineating, analysing and categorising the rural communities. Modern day rural communities are typically formed out of a symbiosis between a central urban centre and a rural matrix within which it is embedded, in terms of the labour market, service provided, social interaction and other activities. The concept of the rural population and the nature of these settlement densities are essential variables as one tries to comprehend the important factor in understanding the socio-economic, the population density and the settlement matrix of the sparsely populated rural areas, where the thin and decreasing population densities presents both theoretical and practical problems for those involved in rural planning. Rural population density has a strong influence over the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the various non-urban communities, especially in the developed world, and forms to be a fundamental variable within the realms of planning and public policy framing. Thus, we find that study of rural population density is an essential subject in order to develop these spresely-populated areas better. However, a closer look at this subject of rural population shows us that not much work has been done in this line owing to the complex nature of the population density. It is not easy to distinguish between cause and effect, while explaining the various planes of human density, and the type and depth of their relationships with different social aspects. The complex nature of population density also implicates the involvement of the socio-economic, environmental, and historical factors that help to create a specific density spectrum and kind. As shown by the researchers the rural population density has significant effects on the main attributes of the rural communities, like the demographic and cultural composition, diversity in occupations, nature of the local industries, their demographic and ethnic composition and the relative mobility of the community member. The researchers have also shown that the rural population densities have an large influence on the socio-economic opportunities available to the people living in the non-urban regions in a majority if the developed countries, globally. Though one cannot deny the significance of the rural population density study, yet much remains to be done in this arena. While collecting data for the literature review on this theme a dearth of information on this matter is very evident, and it singularly points out the necessity to conduct greater number of primary researches on the subject of rural population density. References Aangebrug, R., & Caspall, F. (1970). Regionalization of population densities in Kansas. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geogra?e 61, 85–90. Argent, N., Smailes, P., & Grif?n, T. (2005). Tracing the density impulse in rural settlement systems: a quantitative analysis of the factors underlying the rural population density across south-eastern Australia, 1981–2001. Population and Environment 27, 151–190. Argent, N., Smailes, P., & Grif?n, T. (2002). Rural population density: its impact on social and demographic aspects of rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies 18, 385–404. Bahr, J., Jentsch, C., & Kuls, W. (1992). Bevolkerungsgeographie. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 80–11. Barr, N. (2004). The micro-dynamics of change in Australian agriculture: 1976–2001. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Berry, B. (1967). Geography of Market Centres and Retail Distribution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. (2000). Our Countryside: The Future. Retrieved from, http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/policy/ruralwp/rural.pdf Fonseca, J., & Wong, D. (2000). Changing patterns of population density in the United States. Professional Geographer 52, 504–517. Fotheringham, A., Brunsdon, C., & Charlton, M. (2000). Quantitative geography: Perspectives on spatial data analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Friedmann, H. (1993). The Political economy of food: A global crisis. New Left Review 197, 29–57. Holmes, J. (1981). “Sparsely populated regions of Australia.” In, Lonsdale, R., Holmes, J. (Eds.), Settlement systems in sparsely populated regions. New York: Pergamon. Hugo, G. (1989). “Australia: the spatial concentration of the turnaround.” In, Champion, A.G. (Ed.), Counter urbanization: The Changing Pace and Nature of, Population Deconcentration. London: Edward Arnold. Hugo, G., & Bell, M. (1998). “The hypothesis of welfare-led migration to rural areas: the Australian case.” In, Boyle, P., & Halfacree, K. (Eds.), Migration into Rural Areas—Theories and Issues. West Sussex: Wiley, West Sussex, 107–133. Holmes, J. (1987). “Population.” In, D. Jeans (ed.), Space and society. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 24–48. Huby, M., Steve Cinderby, S., and Owen, A. Social and Environmental Conditions in Rural Areas, 10. Retrieved from,  http://www.sei.se/relu/secra/Report.pdf. Irving, H., Davidson, R. (1973). A working note on the measurement of social interaction. Transactions of the Barnett Society 9, 7–19. Ladd, H. (1992). Population growth, density and the costs of providing public services. Urban Studies 29 (2), 273–295. Lawrence, G. (1987). Capitalism and the countryside: The rural crisis in Australia. Leichhardt: Pluto Press. Lester, D. (1995). An extension of the association between population and mental illness to suicidal behaviour. Journal of Social Psychology 135 (5), 657–658. Marshall, A., 1972. ‘Desert’ becomes ‘Downs’: the impact of a scienti?c discovery. Australian Geographer 12 (1), 23–34. Powell, J. (Ed.). (1974). The making of rural Australia–environment, society and economy: Geographical readings. Melbourne: Sorrett Publishing. Powell, J. (1988). An historical geography of modern Australia: The restive fringe. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, A., Lindberg, J., & Brinkman, L. (1961). A correlation and regression analysisNapplied to rural population densities in the great plains. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 51, 211–221. Saglie, I. (1987). Density and town planning: Implementing a densification policy. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis), Oslo: Oslo School of Architecture. Saglie, I., (1998). Density and Town Planning: Implementing a Densi?cation Policy. Oslo:NIBR (Norsk Institutt for By-og Regionplanlegging). Schwartz, H. (1989). In the dominions of debt: Historical perspectives on dependent development. Ithaca: Cornell University Press Taylor, T. (1951). Australia: A study of warm environments and their effect on British settlement. London: Methuen. Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and Place: the Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. White, R. (1997). Principles and practice of soil sciences: The soil as a natural resource. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Wilson, G. (2000). From productivism to post-productivism...and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26, 77–102. World development report (2009). Reshaping economic geography. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2009/Resources/4231006-1225840759068/WDR09_bookweb_1.pdf Read More