Rurality as a choice: Towards ruralising rural areas in sub-Saharan African countries

Abstract

Rural development practices in sub-Saharan Africa are still based on modernisation approaches. This has led to distortion in rural identity in most sub-Saharan communities. This article embeds this issue in the development discourse. It calls for developing rural areas rurally – rather than urbanely. The paper argues that improvements in rural conditions should aim to make rural lives and the environment sustainable, while preserving rural identities. Drawing from literature, it presents a conceptual framework for understanding rurality and shows how planning can serve as a tool for achieving rurality focused development. It provides six suggestions that could lead to integrating rurality-as-a-choice in development policies and practices. The suggested measures include the heritagisation of rural areas, introduction of rurality-focused vision in planning, and organisation of campaigns for the protection of rural heritages, among others. It contributes to emerging literatures on identifying problem-generating issues in rural development in sub-Saharan Africa.

Keywords:

• rural development
• rural heritage
• rural planning
• rural preservation
• rurality

1. Introduction

There are ongoing debates on how to create sustainable rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Phuhlisani's (2009a) research found that development practitioners work on the assumption that rural (or traditional) societies in SSA are eager to embrace modernisation. For this reason, the delivery of rural development in most SSA communities has focused on transforming them into urban settlements, instead of making them more liveable rural areas. This article calls for a change in this direction. It recognises rural and urban areas as different spatial units, each with a unique identity. The paper argues that improvements in rural conditions should aim to make rural lives and the environment sustainable, while preserving rural identities. This does not imply that cultural ‘practices that disparage, exclude, ridicule and demean certain social groups’ in rural areas should be upheld (Kabeer, 2010:13). Unfortunately, preserving the unique identities of rural areas in SSA remains a missing factor in development planning for these areas (Ndoro et al., 2009). Addressing this situation has the potential for realising the Millennium Development Goals in rural communities in SSA (Kabeer, 2010) and stemming the ‘loss of traditional cultures’ (McGrath & Brennan, 2011:340).

Do rural communities want development that erases their very heritage or identity? This critical question deserves a thorough debate, and practitioners should have their own answers ready before undertaking any rural development projects. However, this is not always the case. Their inability to answer this question undermines rurality as a possible choice for SSA communities – that is, their ability to follow a rural path rather than simply accept any development vision imposed on them.

Despite the varied discourses of the regional sciences, the possibility of adhering to rurality as a development pathway remains largely unexplored. Most of those who have written about rurality have emphasised poverty, livelihoods, local government administration and policy issues in rural areas (Scoones, 2009; Alemu, 2012). Although these are important aspects of rural realities, they do not fully represent rural issues, which include the state, characteristic or quality of being rural. Instead, they merely represent the problematic aspects of rural areas. In most cases, these authors erroneously equate rurality to poverty. This could make rural communities uncomfortable with associating themselves with rurality, which represents their original identity. This situation arises because rurality is viewed more as a challenge than as a positive condition or choice in the development process. This notion feeds into the already existing urban bias. If SSA governments can work towards creating ‘greener cities’ (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012:1) or ‘new cities’ (Lumumba, 2013), the same can apply to creating or preserving rural villages or regions.

Regarding the issue of whether or not rurality can be chosen, there is an emerging body of research examining choices (Parsell & Parsell, 2012), but with little focus on rurality. The few studies exploring rurality have led to a number of significant findings. A recent study reveals how a rural municipality, Weyarn (in Germany), stemmed its growing urbanisation by implementing village renewal, and consequently regained its rurality (Chigbu, 2012). This was possible because the communities embarked on improving infrastructure while simultaneously maintaining their cultural heritage. Another study on Uturu (Nigeria) showed that rurality is not being offered as a choice in development programmes. The study proved that where this is the case, it resulted in a different pattern: the inability of the people to make a choice, owing to policies imposed by the government, and leading to the lack of a sense of place in their rural affairs (Chigbu, 2013a). In this article, we construct rurality as a possible choice (as opposed to urbanity or modernisation) for communities that pursue rural development. We argue that given the choice to develop rurally, rural areas will have a better chance of playing unique roles in national development. As a way forward for communities that may choose to follow a rural path to development, we present five aspects necessary for achieving development without distorting rurality or local situations. We then show how these aspects can combine effectively to create a positive perception or awareness of rurality. Finally, we suggest six ways of achieving development focused on rurality.

2. Understanding the concepts of rural (or rural areas) and rurality

The concepts of rural and rurality have no universally acceptable definitions. No single definition can serve all researchers, disciplines, countries or policies. We recognise these concepts as elastic, flexible and usable in multiple ways. Therefore, we explore them only in a manner that aids their understanding in the context of this study.

To understand the concept of rurality, it is necessary to provide an understanding of what rural areas (or rural) are. Scholars have different views about what constitutes a rural area. Ward & Brown (2009:1239) identified rural areas as ‘places of tradition rather than modernity, of agriculture rather than industry, of nature rather than culture, and of changelessness rather than dynamism’. This assertion is not entirely true. All rural areas do undergo some kind of change, whether spatial, in land use, demographic, economic or social. It is probably more accurate to say they undergo a slower pace of change, especially when compared with urban areas. In SSA, there is an assumption that all rural people are poor and disadvantaged (Phuhlisani, 2009b). This is far from correct, because some rural areas are the location of wealth (as well as poverty). Nigeria's Niger Delta region is a good example of a rural area that serves as a location of oil wealth. However, despite being locations of wealth, these areas are still poor. This shows that rural areas can be locations of wealth or poverty and can have wealth and poverty existing side by side. The Government of South Africa (2000:2) notes that in rural areas ‘agriculture is often the dominant, and sometimes the exclusive economic sector, and opportunities for resource mobilisation are limited’. This situation is also prevalent in SSA. It means that the ‘spatial dispersion of rural populations often increases the cost and difficulty of providing rural goods and services effectively’ (Government of South Africa, 2000:2). However, this does not mean that rural areas in SSA have no urban character. Chigbu (2013b:11) expressed this notion with a Venn diagram (see Figure 1) that specifically highlights rural–urban differences and commonalities in SSA.

Figure 1. Understanding ‘rural’ by emphasising its differences and commonalities with ‘urban’

Source: Adapted from Chigbu (2013b:11).

Figure 1 suggests differences and commonalities between rural and urban areas as spatial units. Their differences make them unique while their commonalities provide a basis for their cooperation. Most explanations or definitions ignore these commonalities and focus mainly on the differences (Nchuchuwe & Adejuwon, 2012). Defining ‘rural’ from the perspective of its differences (from ‘urban’) has contributed significantly to the failure to ‘construct any comprehensive and generally accepted definition’ of the term (Van der Ploeg et al., 2000:1). In framing the definition of rural areas, we depart from this paradigm. We consider the differences and commonalities between rural and urban areas (alongside other factors) in providing an understanding of rural areas in SSA. Following this logic, we define rural areas in SSA as ‘land-spaces with culturally defined identity; situated within a place statutorily recognised as non-urban; and occupied by settlers predominantly depending on primary sources of labour for their livelihood’ (Chigbu, 2013b:10–11). This definition is relevant to and broad enough in the SSA perspective. Most places in SSA are not fully rural; they are largely rural, with some urban character. Despite this, they are geographies that are culturally and statutorily distinguishable from urban areas. This definition of rural areas includes places of traditional living that have not been socially, geographically or statutorily designated as either urban, peri-urban or fringe (Chigbu, 2013b). Rural areas are changing in response to technology and globalisation. This makes it difficult to provide an all-encompassing definition of the term. It is not our intention to produce a universal or general SSA definition or description of rural areas in this article. Rather, our intention is to provide a current and reliable picture of what constitutes ‘rural’ in SSA. In this regard, Chigbu's (2013b) definition is sufficient for understanding what rural areas are.

From the overview of rural areas, it is obvious that more work is necessary in specifying the meaning of rurality. Within the social (and regional) sciences, debates on how to conceptualise rural areas have ‘focused on “rurality” as a phenomenon produced by processes of social construction’ (Rye, 2004:2). This approach has not enabled thorough descriptions of the images (or the physical appearances) that represent rurality. While it will not be possible to reach a universal definition of the term, viewing it from diverse perspectives provides a more representative idea of rurality. Based on the foregoing, we tie our idea of rurality partly to physical, political and economic impressions found in rural areas and in places that are partly rural (Hoggart, 1990). These impressions emanate from how those who live in and outside rural areas (rural and non-rural residents) view the rural place and its people. Rurally eliciting symbols and physical representations of life in rural places are considered part of rurality (Murdoch & Pratt, 1993). This emphasises the social construction of rurality, without evoking utopian ideas (Harvey, 2000). It makes rurality a concept denoting the conditions of rural people and the environment of rural places. It originates from and reflects traditional or local living in rural areas. Rurality exists and manifests in various forms – in individuals, communities, places and behaviour. We define it by integrating those factors (and their relationships) that make it manifest. We therefore view rurality as a condition of place-based homeliness shared by people with common ancestry or heritage and who inhabit traditional, culturally defined areas or places statutorily recognised to be rural. Although place-based homeliness also exists in urban areas, it is rural when it manifests in feelings or attachment to the natural features in rural areas or to socio-cultural patterns, values, attitudes and customs directly linked to the collective origin or heritage of rural people. Heritage is an important aspect of rurality because it is ‘closely related to the spiritual life, value systems, social practices of people and communities, and embodies their cultural identity’ (Aikawa-Faure, 2008:96). Defined in this way, rurality is a natural and unique condition that can be experienced in rural areas. This is important because the state of rurality involves people-to-people and people-to-place relationships within rural geographies (Chigbu, 2013a). In another way, the definition reflects the major composite features that affect the condition of rurality – that is, a spatially defined area, a group of people (community), attitudes that prevail among the people, activities performed by the people, and the rules that guide these activities. Since there is still some ambiguity in our definition, we provide a conceptual framework for attaining rurality, which can improve the understanding of the term.

2.1 A conceptual framework for attaining rurality

We frame a conceptual proposition from the idea that rurality is part of the social system of people in rural places. Its main role in this regard is to provide an identity to communities that regard themselves as rural. As a system, rurality emanates from the heritage and living patterns of societies that view themselves as being traditional in nature. Ndoro et al. (2009:22) recognised rurality as ‘non-monumental or vernacular structures’ of heritage. It becomes problematic when its constituent parts are not in a state of equilibrium. This has been the case with most SSA communities, especially because of ad hoc approaches to solving rural problems (Aribigbola, 2008). This has led to uneven development in rural regions, turning them into places with a ‘high propensity for out-migration’ (Nchuchuwe & Adejuwon, 2012:54). As a way forward, we identify five elements that constitute rurality. They include the rural place, rural people, rural livelihoods, rural governance and ‘sociopsycho-rural’ perception. Figure 2 shows that the relationship between these five elements forms rurality.

Figure 2. The five elements of rurality

Note: Author's own illustration.

We view the rural place as the domain of rural activities. In particular, it hosts the traditional, cultural, social, economic, environmental and political activities that are distinguishable from those in urban areas. As a place, the rural area is a spatial locality consisting of culturally defined spaces, with natural and physical features given meaning by human and other material experiences: ‘Since culture exists within defined geographic spaces, much of what is valuable to the culture is present and perceived in the place’ (Chigbu, 2013a:266). This means that the other four elements of rurality can largely be experienced within the rural place (the natural habitat of rural people). The rural place, although in a state of flux, is immobile, in the sense that it is not transferable from one point to another. In contrast, the other four elements of rurality are mobile.

Rural people are the human populations that live in the rural places or those that identify the rural place as their homeland. They are a community, and are central to rural life. Rural development policies or decisions affect them directly. They interact with others within (and outside) their territory, ‘often share common histories, traditions, and cultures’ (McGrath & Brennan, 2011:348), and participate in community life. The interactional and the participatory aspects of rural communities can be built, destroyed, lost, rebuilt, created, recreated and promoted. This is what makes the people factor in rurality essential and powerful. They have opportunities for both personal and group expression and contribute to development.

Rural livelihoods consist of all activities or options available to rural people for catering for their living. In SSA, rural people typically cultivate land, produce crops, or are generally dependent on land-based livelihood activities for their subsistence. In the current global circumstances, livelihood options available to rural people extend far beyond farming activities. Place-based cultures, more human interaction and slow-moving organisations characterise non-farm activities in rural areas. All of these (and many more) affect rural livelihood activities and processes.

Rural governance is about relationships between actors and institutions involved in attaining common goals for rural development. It entails the presence of rural government and non-governmental institutions. Woods (2009:164) erroneously referred to it as a ‘new style of governing’ in rural areas. Rural governance is neither new nor has it evolved only few decades ago. Since time immemorial, rural communities (whenever and wherever they evolved) have made decisions and acted on issues concerning their welfare, development and future needs. Hence, rural governance, which entails the system, processes, conditions and activities involved in making decisions and taking actions that influence rural affairs in any direction, is an essential element of rurality. It is the rule that guides other elements of rurality. Local governments, traditional monarchies, chiefs, elders and rulers form a major aspect of this institution in rural communities in SSA.

Sociopsycho-rural perceptions are all aspects of the social, sensory, emotional and psychological states that rural people exhibit in their everyday lives. We embrace them as an aspect of rurality because of evidences that exist on the social and psychological patterns of rurality (Pretty, 2010). These manifest in a combination of social and psychological conditions in rural areas. One of the major behavioural traits of rural people is that their attitudinal patterns differ from those of people from non-rural areas (Halfacree, 1993), in that they have more traditional or conservative attitudes towards moral and social values (Halfacree, 2004). Although there are exceptions in this regard, rural areas are generally more conservative than urban areas because they comprise a homogeneous group of people. More devotion to religious practices, heritage practices, belief systems, values and attitudes are some of the factors that shape their conservative attitudes.

3. Rurality should be a choice made through planning

In rural studies, many scholars have argued for the choice of rurality measurement (Halfacree, 1993) but not many of them have considered rurality-as-a-choice in development. Nevertheless, rurality-as-a-choice can be identified around the world. Through rurality-as-a-choice, urbanising communities have reversed their urban identity in countries such as Austria (Hody, 2001), Taiwan (Liu, 2002), Germany (Magel, 2012) and China (Wei-dong & Spindler, 2012). This is not the case in SSA. In some SSA countries (e.g. Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda), significant amounts of funding have been allocated to rural road construction, agriculture, housing, land reform, water and energy supply, and the like. However, simply providing rural facilities or amenities does not necessarily imply that they fit into the rural character of the recipient communities. In most SSA countries, development is tantamount to modernisation (or an escape from rurality) at the rural level. This should not be the case. For rural communities, choosing to develop towards sustaining their rurality could be a wiser decision. Maintaining rurality provides a more convenient and cost-effective path to rural development, which also supports climate change objectives. It makes the provision of modern infrastructure to rural areas more practicable because it aligns with rural landscapes and conforms to the needs of the people (without disrupting rural identity). This has not happened in most SSA countries because planners and policy-makers have failed to integrate rurality as a positive concept in planning. Rural people, for their part, are still caught in the modernisation philosophy, believing that developing in an urban fashion will help them escape the traditional challenges they face. This is due to the largely institutionalised, top-down approaches to planning in most SSA countries, which encourage uneven development and, hence, migration from rural to urban areas. Most rural people who out-migrate to urban areas end up in informal settlements, where they face the difficulties of the informal economy (Posel & Marx, 2011). Few embrace the new city life totally and leave their village pasts behind. Among those that leave the rural for urban areas, most suffer from rural nostalgia for the rest of their city lives. Hence, they return to their ancestral villages for holidays or on retirement. But a place worth holidaying in (or retiring to) by choice should be a place worth sustaining through development, by choice. The situation can be remedied through planning.

One of the most common mistakes in general planning is neglecting the needs of rural areas. Even where rural needs inform general planning, the plans ignore the fact that most rural communities want to maintain their rural character while also strengthening their economies. Planners should offer them the choice to develop rurally. Rural areas deserve separate planning because their institutional arrangements and priority of needs are usually different from those of urban areas. This calls for choices by rural communities. Their needs and culture should be acknowledged in the formal plans. The concepts for rural planning vary, but whatever course is taken must involve ‘preparing for the future’ (Dalal-Clayton et al., 2003:8). In all cases, tailoring planning activities (e.g. land use and the allocation and management of resources) towards the protection of rurality will be beneficial to communities and future generations. Planning should aim ‘to find the ideal combination of human beings and the living territory thus create the living conditions as satisfactory as possible’ (Liu, 2002:131).

Using Figure 3, we show how planning can serve the purpose of developing rural areas based on their rural identity (rurality). On the left side of the diagram are different stages of rural planning activities. These activities govern the choices and processes that guide the path to rurality-focused development. First, there must be a rurality vision. It is important for communities to follow a rurality vision if they truly want to develop rurally. Contextualising a vision can lead to various positive results. We suggest four main contexts (focal points) of development for achieving rurality through planning: living conditions and infrastructure, society and culture, environment and ecology, and agriculture and working conditions (Liu, 2002).

Figure 3. Planning based on the choice of rurality

Source: Adapted from Chigbu (2013b:48).

Adequate rural living conditions and infrastructure are achievable through a strategy of providing infrastructure that conforms to the rural culture, landscape and styles. This is possible by designing facilities to fit into rural cultures, which will result in infrastructure that aligns with rural identities. The social and cultural contexts of rurality can be achieved through a strategy of revitalising rural traditions and heritage. By rebuilding historical relics and creating an awareness of the cultural heritage, an improved social life (based on rural cultural living) is a possible outcome. Concerning the environmental and ecological contexts of achieving rurality, the protection of the rural climate and environment through the practice of sustainable land use and management has the potential for a healthier rural living environment. Agriculture and working conditions have strong rural economic implications. The strategy should be to diversify the rural economy through supportive agricultural development and the creation of non-farm job opportunities. In general, a development vision based on promoting rurality will make emerging improvements conform to rural identity and conditions. This is sustainable and emphasises treating rural environments in non-urban ways. Wilhelm Landzettel (a German scholar and planner) described this condition by noting that:

The rural village is to its surroundings as the yolk is to egg white. No hungry person would have appetite for an egg without its egg white because that is not how an egg is made of. (Liu, 2002:150)

To put it simply, local villages will not be rural if they are developed as city-villages. Planning, apart from being an option, serves as a formal tool for presenting rural people with the choice of improving their lives according to their rural tradition and original identity. This can happen if the national frameworks in which SSA local authorities operate are enhanced to promote ‘developmental states’ (Economic Community for Africa & African Union, 2011:7).

4. Rurality as a choice: Suggestions for some steps forward

Many SSA countries are on the verge of transition from agrarian to industrial societies. Very few are in transition from industrial to information societies. These transformations influence rural communities in these countries and affect rural production systems (e.g. farming, environment and culture). To reduce the negative impacts they may have in rural areas, we call for a range of interventions, such as reducing gender discrimination and ignorance (Tacoli & Mabala, 2010) and lowering the rate of rural-to-urban migration to help address the slum problems in cities (Tacoli, 2011). Other interventions could be improving food security through sustainable agriculture and reducing the environmental effects of climate change (Tacoli et al., 2013). In addition, preserving traditional rural values is important. By adopting a development path that promotes and preserves their rural features (rather than one that leads to urbanisation), rural communities could live more sustainably. This is important because their major livelihood options (farming and forestry) are closely tied to their culture and heritage. Where they choose to follow a path of rurality, rural decision-makers should work towards preserving the rural character, rather than urbanising it. This way, SSA states would appreciate the essential developmental potential of rural areas, such as eco-tourism or cultural tourism. Cultivating conditions of rurality (while avoiding the trend to urbanise rural areas) is only possible through some well-considered steps. We present six important steps that can be taken in this direction.

4.1 Introducing a vision of ‘rurality-as-a-choice’ in rural development practice

Most SSA countries lack the policy direction to pursue development focused on rurality. Without such a vision, it would be difficult to pursue rural development goals that retain or revitalise the cultural landscape, heritage and identity in rural areas. Should such a vision become policy, it would have an all-encompassing effect on the design, planning and implementation of rural development. Since most rural development policies in SSA countries are top-down, they do not allow local communities to decide how they want to develop (Abonyi, 2009). Attaining development focused on rurality needs a vision that embraces rurality as a development choice at all levels. Germany is an example of a country with such a policy, which emphasises equal living conditions (Magel, 2012). This policy guarantees that urban and rural areas are treated equally in the national development process. As part of its implementation, communities decide how to develop. The implication is that most rural communities are proud of being rural and work towards developing rurally. They know that rurality (just as urbanity) is important in the development of the national economy.

4.2 Establishing specialised institutions for ‘rural planning’

Rural planning is important for organising and keeping the rural façade. Forests, open spaces, agricultural land, grazing land, markets, the overall landscape and water bodies (rivers and streams) are some of the land uses that must be organised to protect rurality. The distribution of the rural population and infrastructure must be planned, and the needs of rural people must be integrated into these plans. This will make rural plans attainable, manageable and sustainable. For formal development to conform to rural conditions, planning must play its role. Most SSA countries do not have specialised agencies for rural planning. We call for the institutionalisation of rural planning in these countries. This will enable professionals or specialists in rural development to put their expertise into practice in a way that is specifically beneficial to rural people.

4.3 Enabling institutions to support ‘the preservation of rurality’

Providing infrastructure while preserving rurality will be difficult without implementable laws to support these initiatives. Institutional developments should include putting in place adequate frameworks and arrangements to attain rurality-based visions. Institution here refers to the structure of the social order and cooperation governing the behaviour of a set of individuals within a specific rural community (North, 1990), and includes governance systems. It means aligning rural social norms, culture, laws, rules and regulations to support visioning, planning and development for rurality. Authorities, practitioners, policy-makers and rural people need to cultivate a more positive attitude towards rurality. Making implementable laws to support rural development would assist in obtaining honest feedback from communities. This would lead to innovative ideas on improving their situation.

4.4 Avoiding or reducing the ‘loss of rural heritage’

Many SSA communities face the potential loss of their heritage in their quest to develop, because culture and traditional identity are ignored in the planning process (Soetan, 2001). The Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (2004:50) research project in SSA found that the ‘loss of cultural identity’ or the ‘loss of culturally important economic activities’ poses significant challenges to the region. Focusing on rurality-as-a-choice offers a better chance of preserving or promoting rural heritage, avoiding culture loss and enhancing the rural sense of place in communities (Chigbu, 2013a). To this end, two major questions arise. What exactly is heritage? Does every rural area have a heritage?

We view heritage as including all traditional cultures that manifest in physical, material and immaterial forms inherited from past generations within a community. In the context of SSA, everything that the ancestors of a community bequeathed to them constitutes heritage. In this sense, every naturally evolved or evolving rural community has a heritage. Their heritage constitutes their link to their origin, history or past – their unique way of living. Music, landscapes, traditions, literature, songs, performing arts, historical objects, languages and many more activities, lifestyles, places and objects constitute a heritage (Nercissians & Fremerey, 2008). Heritage plays a significant role in community development, especially at the rural level. It enables communities to use their past and present living memories to form or sustain their identity as they improve their future existence. Without integrating heritage into the development processes, communities would lose resources capable of ensuring their continuity (McGrath & Brennan, 2011). Improving heritage can help avoid or reduce the culture loss in rural SSA communities. This can be enabled by promoting and maintaining rurality.

4.5 Adhering to ‘rural as a site of recreation’ or ‘heritagisation of rural areas’

Development focused on rurality occurs not only through exposing the values and aesthetics of a particular rural area (heritage) to the outside world but also by presenting the entire rural place as a heritage. This can be effective if tourism elements are included in rural planning as measures of economic diversification (Hall & Jenkins, 1998). We do not recommend mass tourism to rural areas, in view of the dangers of such an approach. Instead, we call for alternative tourism: mass tourism involves large numbers of people seeking culture holidays in popular resort destinations, whereas alternative tourism is special-interest tourism (or responsible tourism), which emphasises understanding inhabitants' ways of living and the local natural environment (Irshad, 2010). This will enable visitors from non-rural areas (or other rural areas) to experience local attractions (e.g. open spaces and hiking landscapes). This sort of exposure to visitors could provide learning opportunities for rural authorities and their people.

In addition, through the ‘heritagisation’ (Chapman & Light, 2011:209) of rural areas, rurality could become a core aspect of development policy and practice. Heritagisation implies reimaging the elements of rurality (e.g. people, activities and place features) in positive forms, based on their heritage. It avoids making the rural area appear as a mere site of recreation (Paniagua, 2012). A heritage protection law that recognises the preservation of rurality will be a good starting point for countries that consider rurality as a unique feature deserving protection. Legally recognising rural areas as a heritage or cultural node of their nations would provide opportunities for taking legal action against measures that distort rurality in the course of a development project. The advantage would be that development projects within rural areas would conform to the rural identity.

4.6 Launching campaigns for ‘the protection of rural areas’

Embarking on campaigns for the protection of rural areas in SSA will provide a useful area of engagement for the different stakeholders in the rural development process. This is necessary for creating awareness of the protection, conservation and preservation of rurality as a unique identity. Such campaigns can be social, political or cultural in approach. In all cases, they must begin with well-developed themes on rurality-as-a-choice by rural people (or people with rural interests) and for rural people. If this resonates with the majority of the rural population, then it will affect the choices and decisions they make in development processes. The more publicity the issue receives, the more awareness will be created, and the more educated people will become about the importance of protecting rural identity.

This is already happening elsewhere. An organisation called Campaign to Protect Rural England is currently promoting rurality in England by creating an awareness of the preservation of rural areas. Their focus is on keeping rural areas more natural and making them a better place for future generations. Similar groups are conducting campaigns in other parts of Europe, such as the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, the Bavarian Academy for Rural Areas (Germany, regional) and the Alliance of German Academies for Rural Areas (national). These organisations are raising awareness of the preservation of rural conditions (rurality). SSA organisations or interest groups can learn from these examples.

5. Conclusion

Contemporary literature posits that today's rural challenges in SSA are mainly about diversifying job opportunities and providing infrastructure and services. We have argued that the most challenging issue is fulfilling these rural needs without destroying existing rural features and identities. Our concern is not about the technicalities of development in rural areas in these countries. It is more about how authorities and development agencies can empower rural communities to plan, manage and conduct development processes to retain and promote their heritage or identity. Having the capacity to do this is the greatest empowerment rural communities in SSA can have today. It links directly to community self-awareness and environmental identity, which are necessary tools for development. These have the potential to address challenges relating to heritage protection, the environment, climate change, community cohesion, and the like. We think that by broadly defining their heritage (to encompass a wide range of physical and non-physical experiences stemming from their past), rural communities in SSA could better promote and preserve those they consider pro-development. This way, promoting a rural lifestyle would become a core aspect of rural development.

Rurality as a choice can occur at different levels – community, policy and individual. Our study has focused on the local level (municipal and community), and only considered institutional or policy issues where necessary. It is at the local level that municipalities are required to produce operational rural development plans. We have provided a framework for integrating rurality-as-a-choice into the rural planning discourse and development practice. This article contributes ideas necessary for facilitating new or renewed thinking in Africa's rural development path (New Partnership for Africa's Development, 2013). While it is uncommon (in SSA) to attempt to deurbanise rural places that are threatened by uncontrolled or unplanned urbanisation, we call for planning structures to provide rural communities with the option of developing rurally, as opposed to pro-urban development. In so doing, we embedded the issue of rurality-as-a-choice in development debates by presenting five aspects of rurality that must be achieved for communities to remain rurally sustainable. Furthermore, we showed how planning could serve as a tool for rurality visioning, and made some suggestions on the way forward. Raising this issue of rurality is our way of directing the attention of scholars back to the rural issue. The urban will always be with us, but the rural may become extinct if nothing is done to protect it.