Defining the Rural-Urban Fringe

Author(s): Robin J. Pryor

Source: Social Forces, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 202-215
Published by: University of North Carolina Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2575150
Accessed: 12/09/2008 03:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org
202 SOCIAL FORCES
the development of status homogamy in this
context.
Fifty knowledgeable fraternity members and
44 knowledgeable sorority members ranked the
25 fraternities and the 11 sororities on a state
university campus in the West South Central
region. The agreement on these rankings
among men is expressed by coefficients of con-
cordance of .68 and .57. Among women the
coefficients were .77 and .76. The rankings of
the men also were correlated with the rankings
of the women, yielding rho's of .97 for fra-
ternities and .98 for sororities.
Information about serious dating relation-
ships was secured from reports of drops, pin-
nings, and engagements in the campus news-
paper. These reports are relatively complete for
fraternity and sorority members.
Forty-seven percent of the sorority members
and 20 percent of the fraternity members were
dropped, pinned, or engaged. Of these persons,
82 percent of the women and 63 percent of the
men were paired off with fraternity or sorority
partners. Men from the higher-ranked fraterni-
ties were more likely to be involved with so-
rority members and their partners were more
likely to be from the higher-ranked sororities.
The proportions of men dating independent
women increased steadily from the highest- to
the lowest-ranked fraternities.
Unilike the situation among men where there
were very few relationships with off-campus
women, between one-sixth and one-fifth of the
women at all status levels were involved in
relationships with off-campus men. Most of
these men probably were former students rather
than nonstudents. When sorority women dated
campus men, they overwhelmingly were in-
volved with fraternity men and with members
of the high- and middle-ranked fraternities.
When the status ranks of seriously-dating
Greek pairs were correlated, the correlations
increased from dropped to pinned to engaged
levels. Only the difference from dropped to
engaged was statistically significant. Since
the same pairs were not followed through time,
no certain inference of change can be made. If
change does indeed occur, it would seem to be
a function of the selection-rejection process
rather than a function of the interaction of
pairs of individuals.

DEFINING THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE*

ROBIN J. PRYOR
Univer-sity of Malaya

ABSTRACT
This study is concerned with the rural-urban fringe as a complex transition zone on the
periphery of growing urban areas in Western countries. Case studies of the fringe and related
areas are reviewed, and a definition of the rural-urban fringe is suggested. Further, the urban
fringe is differentiatedfrom the rural fringe, the former constituting the subzone of most rapid
exurban invasion. Hypotheses are postulated regarding the residents, accessibility, and land
and dwellings in the fringe, and suggestions for future studies are outlined in the conclusion.

T L. Smith's discussion of the "urbanl As a landscape phenomenon, the fringe varies

fringe" around Louisiana in 1937 from city to city, and from one time to an-
marked the first use of this term sig- other. Around several cities in the Nether-
nifying "the built-up area just outside the cor- lands a fringe is barely recognizable; Paris is
porate limits of the city."' somewhat similar to the U.S.A. in the inter-
mingling and scatter of land use, but there is a
* The financial assistance and research super-
closer dependence on public transport; London
vision provided in the Department of Geography,
is different again, because of its Green Belt,
University of Melbourne, are gratefully acknowl-
edged by the author. Its Composition and Changes," Loulisiana Butlletini,
1 T. L. Smith, "The Population of Louisiana: 293 (November 1937).
 THE RURAL-URBAN
although there is some scattering of land use,
and some villages are located within this belt.
In general, Dickinson concludes that the mod-
ern European city "exhibits the same tendency
to extend and explode" as the North Ameri-
can metropolis, "but not nearly to the same
degree."2 Conversely, some American writers
now question whether the urban fringe prob-
lern is disappearing, because "laws permit more
cities to supervise zoning within a certain dis-
tance of their borders."3
Two features characterize the literature on
urban fringe over the past 30 years:
1. The general absence of explicit references
to the subject outside North America, al-
though there have been studies, for example,
in Sydney,4 Adelaide,5 Melbourne,6 and in Lon-
don7 and Johannesburg.8 The relatively in-
tegral urban nature (rather than nonoccur-
rence) of the fringe around European cities
emerges from Wissink's comparison of that
continent with the American urban scene.9
2 R. E. Dickinson, The City Region in Western
Etrope (London: Routledge Paperback, 1967).
3 E.g., R. E. Murphy, The Amterican City: An
Urban Geography (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1966).
4 N. R. Wills, "The Rural-Urban Fringe: Some
Agricultural Characteristics with Specific Refer-
ence to Sydney," Australian Geographer, 5 (1945),
pp. 29-35; and R. Golledge, "Sydney's Metropolitan
Fringe: A Study in Urban-Rural Relations," Aus-
tralian Geographer, 7 (1959), p. 243 ff.
5 D. L. Smith, "Market Gardening at Adelaide's
Urban Fringe," Economtic Geography, 42 (1966),
p. 19 ff.
6 R. J. Johnston, "The Population Characteris-
tics of the Urban Fringe: A Review and Example,"
Atustralian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology,
2 (1966), pp. 79-93.
7 R. E. Pahl, Urbs in Rure: The Mlfetropolitan
Frintge in Hertfordshire (London: London School
of Economics and Political Science, Geographical
Papers No. 2, 1965).
8 G. H. T. Hart and T. C. Partridge, "Factors in
the Development of the Urban Fringe North-West
of Johannesburg," South African Geographical
Journal, 48 (1966), pp. 32-44.
9 G. A. Wissink, Anmerican Cities in Perspective:
With Special Reference to the Development of
Their Fringe Areas, Sociaal Geografische Studies,
Hoogleraar aan de Rijksuniversiteitte Utrecht, Nr.
5 (Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum,
1962).
FRINGE 203
2. The confusion of terminiology and lack of
clear delineation in case studies. The problem
of evaluating and comparing cases is increased
by (1) their range in time, as prevailing eco-
nomic conditions influence the rate of growth
and internal characteristics of the fringe; (2)
the range in size of the urban center, from a
small village to a metropolis or Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, each with in-
herent differences in its fringe, according to
the rate of growth, functions, and hierarchical
relationship of the central place; (3) the
variation in type and degree of zoning control
of urban invasion beyond a city's corporate
limits, so that London's modified Green Belt
results in a very different form of guided "over-
spill" to Eugene-Springfield's "uncontrolled
population expansion" ;10 (4) the differing so-
cial, economic and political contexts of the
studies from different countries; ancd (5) the
differing aims and interests of various research
\vorkers.
A REVIEW OF RELATED TERMS
Because of this diversity, a number of at-
tempts have been made to clarify concepts,
and to differentiate between commonly used
terms. After reviewing some ten definitions,
Kurtz and Eicher1 differentiate between
"fringe" and "suburb"; Wissink12 defines
'fringe," "suburbs," "pseudo-suburbs," "satel-
lites" and "pseudo-satellites"; Schnore13 dis-
tinguishes between "satellites" and "suburbs";
and a number of writers have described dif-
ferent types of suburbs, some of which could
be synonomous with the "fringe" of anotlher
research worker. Martin discusses satellite
rural areas.14
Areal differentiations have also been made,
clualitatively, within the fringe: the "urban
10 W. T. Martin, The Rural-Urban Fringe: A
Study of Adjustmnent to Residence Location (Eu-
gene: University of Oregon Studies in Sociology,
No. 1, 1953).
11 R. A. Kurtz and J. B. Eicher, "Fringe and
Suburbs: A Confusion of Concepts," Social Forces,
37 (October 1958), pp. 32-37.
12Wissink, op. cit.
13 Leo F. Schnore, "Satellites and Suburbs,"
Social Forces, 36 (December 1957), pp. 121-127.
14 W. T. Martin, "Ecological Change in Satellite
Rural Areas," American Sociological Reviezo, 22
(April 1957), pp. 173-183.
204 SOCIAL FORCES

TABLE 1. THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE: DEFINITION AND DELINEATION

Structural Content Functional Content

Definition Delineation
Location Census categories (direct or
derived) e.g., non-village
RNF, urbanized area minus
central city
Contiguous census units e.g.,
"first-tier counties"
Administration Non-census areal units beyond
control of central city e.g.,
school, voting districts.
Population density Selected parameter e.g., 500
sq. mile
Zoninig regulations Zoned mixed land use (rural
and urban)
Lack of subdivision control
Dwelling age Selected parameters e.g.,
proportion in recent inter-
censal period
Definition Delineation
Land use Specific e.g., market gardens
Mixed e.g., between limits of
exclusively urban or rural
land
Valuation changes
Employment Census categoariese.g., RNF
Commuting zone beyond cetrtial
city bouncdary
Population density PIate of growth pei year or
iiiter-censal
Utility services Area not servedl by specific
seivices
Social orientation Rural location, urbalinorientation
of social activity
"Transitioi," Undeigoiing chaingee.g., increase
"dynamism" in population density or
vacant or urbaii land.

fringe" and the "rural-urban fringe" ;15 the
"limited fringe" and the "extendled fringe" ;16
the "suburban fringe zone" and the "outlying
adjacent zone" ;17 and inner and outer fringe
areas.18 American census categories
the differentiation of urban fringe, rural non-
farmn (RNF), and rural farm (RF) within
the Chicago fringe,19 and "true fringe," "par-
tial fringe," and "adjacent rural townlships"
outside incorporated Detroit ;20 the area be-
tween the Melbourne MWetropolitanArea and
Melbourne Statistical Division boundaries in
15 R. B. Andrews, "Elements in the Urbanl Fringe
Pattern," Jou1rtnal of Land and Public Utility Eco-
nomics, 18 (May 1942), pp. 169-183.
16 W. C. McKain and R. G. Burniight, "The So-
ciological Significance of the Rural-Urban Fringe:
From the Rural Point of View," Rural Sociolog3,
18 (June 1953), pp. 109-116.
17 M. W. Reinemann, "The Pattern and Distri-
bution of Manufacturing in the Chicago Area,"
Econ;oiomicGeography, 36 (1960), pp. 139-144.
18 Wissink, op. cit.
19 Q, D. Duncan and A. J. Reiss, "Suburbs and(l
Urban Fringe," in Social Characteristics of Urban
and Rutral CGomminn ities (Newx York: Jolhni Wk`iley
& Sons, 1956).
20 R. B. Myers and J. A. Beegle, "Delineationi
the 1966 Census of the Commonwealth of Aus-
tralia provides a colmiparablecensus zone. The
interest of human ecologists in the fringe lhas
a(lded the undefined terms "rurban fringe" and
permit "irurl)baizationf"to the literature; and "slurb,"
the "slopped-over suburb," is a miiore riecent
deviant from objective terminology.2'
DEFINITION AND DELINEATION
From a review of some 60 case studies of
fringe areas, four major and six miiinorcom-
ponents enmerge fromi previous (lefilmitions, to-
gether with a variety of delineatioln techlliques,
and these are summarizedI in Table 1. To (late,
ilo definition has successfully integrated tllese
various components of the fringe with (1)
theories of urban invasion, andI (2) practical
(lelineation techniques. It appears to the pres-
ent writer that these aspects should be inte-
gratecl, anid a proposal for this is miiadebelow
which will need to be validated quantitatively
b)y future research.
The heterogeneity wlhiclhwriters acknowledge
as characteristic of the fringe may be, fromiiolne
point of view, inconclusive in its very com-
plexity, yet it is better viewed as distinctive
21 H. Parsons, "Slurb is (sic)," paper presenitedt

and Analysis of the Rural-Urbani Fringe," Applied at the 39th Congress of ANZAAS., Melbourln-e,
Aiithiropology, 6 (Spring 1947), pp. 14-22. 1967.
 THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE 205

RURAL-URBANFRINGE

X URBAN FRINGE RURAL FRI NGE y

PERCENTAGEDISTANCE URBANTO RURALLAND

0 25 50 75 100
0/k\ ///\ // \\'

o lo

/ a/ /S4
/ / /

X=BOUNDARY / Y=BOUNDARY
OF BUILT-UP C OF SOLELY
URBANAREA ? < RURALLAND
rjr

SCHEMATICDIAGRAMOF LAN0DUSE IO THE

RURAL-URBAN FRINGE
FIGURE 1

in comparison with related urban and rural
clharacteristics. A rural-urban fringe can only
exist between a growing urban center and its
rural hinterland, so it is no diminution of the
concept to view it as the residual zone be-
tween two more readily defined poles. Charac-
teristics of the fringe need not be intermediate
nor on a continuum between rural and urban,
vet distinctive location and internal hetero-
gecneitv and transition. do make possible a uni-
tary if not uniform definition. Figure 1 com-
hines the concept of urban invasion with the
heterogeneous land use typical of the fringe;
it also introduces the possibility of the "rural-
urban fringe" being used as a collective term
for the "urban fringe" plus the "rural fringe."
The diagram can also be viewed as a process-
response model, with the process of urbaniza-
tion (growth in city size and the percentage
of the population urban) resulting in the re-
sponse of land use conversion, transition, and
invasion (decline in agricultural acreage and
percentage of the rural population). Differen-
tiation of "urban- fringe" and "rural fringe"
206 SOCIAL FORCES
will assist longitudinal studies of the urban in- exhibiting a density of occupied dwellings
vasion of rural areas, particularly in relation lower than the median density of the total
to Burgess' zone theory,22 and Sinclair's re- rural-urban fringe, a high proportion of farm
cent discussion of the influence of "anticipation as distinct from nonfarm and vacant land,
of urban encroachment" on rural land in prox- and a lower rate of increase in population
imity to a growing urban area.23 density, land use conversion, and commuting.
Bearing in mind previous definitions of the Turning from the general concept and defini-
rural-urban fringe and the essential com- tion of the rural-urban fringe to the detailed
ponents identified by them, the need to take findings of the large number of case studies,
account of the process of urban invasion, and there is a similar need for clarification, and
the desirability for the delineation technique ample scope for the construction of hypotheses
to be integral with the definition, the following which will subsequently contribute to more
definition is presented for further testing: objective research. Such hypotheses are sub-
The rural-urban fringe is the zonie of transition ject to the criticism that they attempt to relate
in lantd utse, social and demographic character- findiings from a diversity of locales and scales
-
analyzed and presented by diverse teclhniques,
istics, lying between (a) the continuously built-
and frequently unaccompanied by terminolog-
up irban and suburban areas of the central city,
ical definitions or statements of underlying as-
and (b) the rural hinterland, characterized by
the almost complete absence of nonfarmndwell- sumptions. Nevertheless, some generality ap-
land use, and of mi-rban pears, and hypotheses are presented here for
ings, occupations and
and ritral social orientation; an incomiplete testing in as rigorous a manner and in as wide
a field of case studies as possible.
range and penetrationt of urban utility services;
The hypotheses which result from a content
uncoordinated zoning or pla.nning regulations;
analysis of past case studies are summarized in
a-real extension beyond although contiguous
with the boundary of the central city; three sections: (a) the residents of the fringe;
political
and an actual and potential increase in popuila- (b) the factor of accessibility in the fringe;
and (c) land and dwellings in the fringe. Un-
tion density, with the current density above
that of surrounding rural districts but lozver less otherwise stated, the total rural-urban
than the central city. These characteristics m-nay fringe is being considered. In the space avail-
both zonally and sectorally, and will be able it is not practicable to indicate by foot-
differ
modified through tine. note the sources of each generalization, al-
though the more important references (ex-
Within the rural-urban fringe it may be
tracted from a larger study)24 are included.
possible to identify:
Similarly, many variables are operative, but
1. The urban fringe, that subzone of the rural- cannot be discussed in a paper of this length.
urban fringe in contact anad contiguous with
the central city, exhibiting a density of occu- A. The Residents of the Fringe
pied dwellings higher than the median density
Demographic and related parameters com-
of the total rural-urban fringe-a high pro-
monly reflect the attraction of the fringe of
portion of residential, commercial, industrial
an urban area to a particular group-young
and vacant as distinct from farmland-and a
couples in the early years of married life
higher rate of increase in population density,
establishing their first home. The age distribu-
land use conversion, and commuting; and
tion is positively skewed with a greater pro-
2. The rural fringe, that subzone of the rural-
portion in younger age groups. The sex ra.tio
urban fringe contiguous with the urban fringe,
of the fringe is higher than that of the urban
22 E. W. Burgess, "The Growth of the City," in area itself, but lower than the surrounding
R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie rural areas; the degree of male predominance
(eds.), The City (Chicago, University of Chicago may however vary from place to place within
Press, 1925).
23 R. Sinclair, "Von Thunen and Urban Sprawl," 24 R. J. Pryor, "City Growth and the Rural-
Annals of the Association of American Geogra- Urban Fringe," unpublishedM. A. thesis, Univer-
phers, 57 (1967), pp. 72-87. sity of Melbourne, 1967.
 THE RURAL-URBAN
the fringe. This reflects both the high propor-
tion of households with two or more persons
(married couples), and more employmeent op-
portunities for men.
The fertility ratio of the fringe is higher
than that of the urban place itself, but lower
than surrounading rutral areas; one variable is
the age of development of a specific location
within the fringe. Myers and Beegle25 con-
cluded that "the substantially higher ratio of
the fringe . . . points to the fringe as a sig-
nificant area where relatively larger numbers
of children are produced and a place in which
the problems of youth are of major impor-
tance." Johnston found the urban-rural gradi-
ent unsubstantiated in the case of Melbourne-
the differences "probably result from the age
of development variations."26
The fringe is characterized by a high pro-
portion of married residents as compared with
the adjacent urban and rural areas. A ma-
jority of residents have (a) moved to fringe
areas soon after marriage and have no chil-
dren, or (b) commenced families and can fi-
nance newer and/or larger homes. Only Rode-
haver27 appears to have documented the years
married before mitovingto the frinige: at least
50 percent of residents move to their fringe
residences within ten years of marriage, with
the mean number of elapsed years lower for
those of urban rather than rural background.
Size of households: households in the fringe
are on average larger than those of the urban
area itself, but smaller than those in sur-
rounding rural areas.
T. L. Smith in The Sociology of Rutral
Life28 hypothesizes an urban-rural continuum,
with a declining proportion of foreign-born
residenats with increasing distance from the
central city, and case studies of the fringe have
generally borne this out: the proportion of
foreign-born residents in the fringe is lower
than that of the urban area itself, but higher
than surrounding rural areas. Although in a
sense "decentralized," fringe residents are us-
25 Myers and Beegle, op. cit.
26 Johnston, op. cit.
27 M. W. Rodehaver, "Fringe Settlement as a
Two-Directional Movement," Rural Sociology, 12
(March 1947).
28 T. L. Smith, The Sociology of Rueral Life
(New York: Harper & Bros., 1947).
FRINGE 207
ually economically tied to the central city, but
there are few consistent findings on social and
economic characteristics. The residents in the
fringe exhibit a heterogeneous occupational
structure, with both zonal and sectoral com-
ponents, and a slightly greater proportion in
the commercial and skilled-worker classes than
urban or rural areas. Socioeconomic status,
a complexly derived index, is usually related
to occupation and income, but there is a lack
of reliable stanldardized measures. From the
varied evidence available, residents in the
fringe exhibit wide heterogeneity of socioeco-
nomic status, with sectoral rather than zonal
concentrations.
Incom-te distribuition, closely related to the
two preceding characteristics, does not differ
markedly from the central city, mainly be-
cause of the heterogeneity already discussecd.
The residents in the fringe exhibit a positively-
skewed income distributioln, and a mean an-
nual income per person or per household higher
than that of the associated urban and rural
areas. Another socioeconomic index analyzedl
l)y a number of writers is that of ed,ucationiial
achieven7eut. For example, Martin29 concludes
from his study of U. S. A. satellite rural areas
that there is an upward gradient from rural
to urban areas, and this can be related both to
exurban invasion, and to the occupational andl
income characteristics of the fringe; the resi-
dents in the fringe exhibit a lower educational
level, by various measures, thani residents of
the urban place itself, but higher than the sur-
rounding rural areas.
Analyses of length of residence in the fringe.
and of the resiclential background of fringe
dwellers, provide consistent evidence for both
the instability and transitional nature of this
exurban zone, and for the primarily urbaln
source of the population; these characteristics
support the concept of invasion from a growv-
ing urban center, and help to explain the
spatial appearance of the fringe, and the mo-
tivation of migration.
From studies of childhood residence loca7-
tion it is concluded that a higher proportion of
residents of the fringe have an urban rather
than a rural or rural/urban background. The
29 Martin, "Ecological Change in Satellite Rural
Areas."
208 SOCIAL FORCES
two v-ariables of sex and socioeconomnic status fringe, residelntial stability alnd satisfaction
are significant, a higher proportion of males will also vary. Studies of the degree of social
having a rural background, and a higher pro- acljustmnenlt,the participatioin of resiclents in
portioln of mniddle-class (wwhite-collar) resi- colmmiiiunityorganiizations and social activities,
(lents having an urban background. While anld of thei- attitudes toward living in fritnge
centripetal forces, or rural exodus, and intra- areas, provide somiie insight into the future
and inlterstate migration will mnakea small con- stalbility, or conversely, new intracity miigra-
tribution, it could be expected that the previous tiolns, of this low density residenlce zone. Per-
addr-ess of frinige residents woulcl provi(le even ceived advantages and (lisadvantages of the
strolnger support for the city beilng the mlain fringe, correlated with otlher characteristics of
source of migration, and this generally proves presenit residents, miiay thlrow light oln future
to le true: in a majority of cases the previous spatial features of the expanldinig city.
homliesof fringe residents were in the adjacent The residents in the fringe exhibit a low de-
urban area, with centripetal and other- migra- gree of social and coiii mlultity participatioti
tion patterns making a varied but smaller con- andl associationlal ties. A number of studies of
tribution. Length of r-esidence is a useful in- the fringe have documented the residelnts'
dex of the dynamiism and transitional nature of attitudes to Nvinig itt a fr-inge area. Outstand-
the fringe, and of its general age of develop- inlg amonlg these is Martin's study of adjust-
meint. While divergent time-periods have been menit to residlential location in the Eugene-
used in various studies, it is concluded that at Sprinigfield fringe.30 The residents in the
least 50 percent of the residents have been fringe are generally well satisfied with their
located in the fringe for less than five years. residenice location witlh the exception of unl-
The rural-urban fringe is populated by i11- satisfactory utility services.
dividcl.s who have made personal decisions to
B. The Factor of Accessibility ipn the Fritige
miiigrate,and who subsequently make their own
evaluationis of their new residential location. Distanlce operates as a major constraint in
In a sense, these individual decisions and 1mo- slhapiing anid facilitatinig urban growth, ancl
tivations are the r-aison d'etre of the fringe as a the friction of space experienced by the rural-
landscape phetnomenion,and in many ways re- urban fringe is but a particular example of a
flect the chalracteristics which have already principle generally accepted in humani ecology
been outlined. The most important reasons and geography: ". . . the layout of a metrop-
foirm1ovcemecnitto the fringe are the searclh for olis-the assigiinmenitof activities to areas-
less congestion and more privacy, to be near tends to be determinied by a principle wlhichi
emiiploymenit,anid for the benefit of clhildreln: may be termnedthe minimiiizinigof the cost of
differences are to be expected between previ- friction."'31 This situationl is of course com-
ously urban and rural families, and between in- plicated where there is not one point of maxi-
(liviidual localities because of differiing attrac- mulmi accessibility, but mlultiple urban nuclei,
tiolns. As well as the general mnotivation to anid where other advantages of residential lo-
move to a new area, specific site characteris- cationi, stuclhas the semi-rural environiment in
tics mllay also be sought, or even take pre- the fringe, outweigh sheer physical distance;
emiinenlce. The most important reasonis foir the as Clark and Peters state in a slightly dif-
clioice of a particula.r site in the fringe are ferent context "opportunities override dis-
tances."32 The accessibility of services is also
suitability of the house and desirable lot size.
Attraction to the general neiglhborhood, and 30 Martin, The Rnral- Urbam Fringe.
access to emiployment, schools, and the central 31 R. M. Haig, "Toward an Understanding of the

city will be important to a smaller proportion
of lhousehlolds, and differences miiaybe corre-
lated witlh socioeconomic status.
Because of tlhe varied residential anld socio-
ecolnomlic backgrounds of fringe residents, and
the diversitv of reasolns for moving to the
Metropolis: Some Speculations Regardinig the Eco-
nomic Basis of Urban Concentration," Quarterly
Joutrnial of Eco0nomics, 40 (1926), pp. 179-208 and
402-434.
32 C. Clark and G. H. Peters, "The 'Intervening
Opportunities' Method of Traffic Analysis," Traffic
Quacrterlv, 19 (January 1965).
 THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE 209
a reflection of the stage of development of an facturing or commercial enterprises requiring
area, so that the friction of space may operate large acreages; noxious, extractive or other
via distance from an extending network of industries zoned-out fromi the central city;
services rather than from one or more points vacant, "dead," or "tax delinquent" land; and
at one time. Public utilities and mass transport scattered urban settlement aligned along higlh-
modes, and the degree of access of an individ- ways, in nodes around railway stations, or in
ual to work places, schools and retail centers, other "leap-frog" pockets. Zoning and master
tend to be sources of dissatisfaction to fringe plans may assist more orderly invasion of the
residents due to the frequent incomplete range rural hinterlanid, cause uneconomic leap-frog-
and capacity of such services, at least in the ging, or if nonexistent, allow totally unco-
early stages of urban invasion. orclinated and piecemneal speculation and the
It is concluded from case studies that the juxtapositioning of incompatible land uses.
fringe is characterized by an incomplete range In rural areas, land values and rates increase
anld incomplete network of iitility services such with the anticipation of urbanization, and
as reticulated water, electricity, gas and sewer- various studies have identified distinctive char-
age mains, fire hydranits and sealed roads; this acteristics in nonfarmiidwellings as well as in
inadequate service somuetimesresults from dif- land use.
ficult physical terrain, and sometimes from On adnzinistration and plainning in fringe
inadequate finances to keep capital works in areas, case studies have identified (1) exces-
phase with low density urban encroachmlent. sive and premature subdivision in close prox-
For similar reasons, the fringe commonly has imlity to expanding urban centers; (2) the tax
an inadeqiate lnetwork of putblic transport delinquenicy of fringe areas undergoinig transi-
11vo(oes,and consequently there may be dissatis- tioni or stagnation in land use;33 (3) the gen-
faction with this service amonig some residents; eral need for planning and control, for order and
where public transport routes do exist, there is economy in the conversion from rural to land
often morplhological evidence of their contri- use; and (4) the significance of the urban or
bution to the formationi of the fringe via resi- rural backgrouncdof fringe residents in the ac-
dential and industrial invasion and ribbon de- ceptance of governmnental intervention in land
velopment. use zoning, and in determining the services
Presumablvr because of the inadequacy of desired and the attitude toward taxes provid-
public transport, and the needs of a commiuting ing these. It is concluded that the fringe is
population, the fringe area is characterized by characterized by inadequate control of sub-
relatively higlh car- ow7nership as compared with dlivision; tax delinquency; zoning inadequately
the associated urban and rural areas. A ma- geared to the present and future needs of the
jority of the work places of residents in the expanding urban place; and a conflict of in-
fringe are in the city itself, rather than in terest in the type and extent of control, be-
the fringe or surrounding rural areas, other tween long-established residents and new-
a(lvalntages of residence location outweighing comers, and between the central (metropolitan)
the friction of space involved in commuting. and local planning or aclmiinistrative authori-
The accessibilit\! of schools in terms of dis- ties.
tance traveledc, anid available transport modes, Agricultural land use: the fringe area is
is a problem for households in the fringe. chalracterized by a smaller proportion of farm
A miajority of the r etail centers patronized workers than rural areas; by a relatively high
hv fringe residents are in the urban area itself, proportion of part-time farmers; by intensive
rather thaanin the fringe or surrounding rural agrictiltural production in the form of market
areas. gardens, poultry farming, and to a lesser de-
C. Land(ianid Dwellings in. the Frinlge
33 E.g., H. G. Berkman, "Decentralization and
Land use in the r1ural-urban fringe is dis- Blighted Vacant Land," in H. M. Mayer and C. F.
tinctively intermingled and transitional, with Kohn (eds.), Readinilgs int Urbant Geographt (Chi-
an irregular transition from farm to non- cago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 287-
farm land. Here too may be found manu- 298.
210 SOCIAL FORCES
gree, dairying and fruitgrowing; by farms
considerably smaller in acreage than surround-
ing rural areas; by land values and rates
lower than those of the adjacent urban center,
but rising above those of the surrounding
rural areas as the urban invasion continues;
and by the gradual and irregular conversion
of farm to nonfarm to urban land use.
Most studies of the decentralization of mianu-
facturing land use have been oriented to "sub-
urbs" rather than the rural-urban fringe; how-
ever, the fringe area is characterized by a sig-
nificant though smaller proportion of manu-
facturing land use than the urban place itself;
by newly established or recently relocated
industries, frequently close to major highways;
and by the presence of noxious, extractive, and
related industries.
Dwellings and allotments reflect a number of
features already discussed, for example, in-
come, socioeconomic status, size of house-
hold, availability of utility services, and zon-
ing regulations such as those controlling lot
size. Lot sizes of residential properties in the
fringe are characteristically greater, in area
and frontage, than in the urban place itself;
families who have moved from the urban center
tend to have larger lots than other fringe resi-
dents. Lower population densities in fringe
than in urban areas are a result of both larger
lot size and the incorporation of nonurban
land. Dwelling size, in terms of number of
rooms, is lower in the fringe area than in the
city. The valve of dwellings in the fringe area
exhibits both a lower mean and a narrower
range than the urban area itself. Lantd r-ates
in the fringe are lower than for the urban area,
but as urban expansion continues there is a
tendenlcy for the gap between the rates, and
hence the attraction of lower rates in the
fringe, to diminish. Conversely, the cost of
the primary installation of utility services,
roads, etc., means that some fringe areas have
higher rates than longer establislhed urban
areas.
A higher proportion of dwellings arce fully
owzenedin the fringe, particularly in the outer
parts of the fringe, as compared with the urban
*area; there is a lower rate of renting or
leasing than in the urban area, and a higher
rate of renting, leasing, or being-purchased in
the inner part of the fringe than in the outer
more rural zone. Average house rents in the
fringe are lower than for the urban place,
but higher than for the surrounding rural
areas.
How,ie facilities anid the statc of repair of the
house, more than most other characteristics,
reflect the particular timie when the study was
made. Case studies of the fringe in the 1940's
and early 1950's indicated a significant propor-
tion of incomplete and temporary dwellings,
and buildings requiring major repairs; fewer
inside baths and toilets than in the main urban
area; considerable variation in the main fuel
used for cooking; and a lower proportion of
dwellings witlh a telephone than in the urban
area itself. It could be anticipated that cur-
rent studies would show less evidence of the
postwar housing shortage, and more evidence
of technological advances in amenities, anid
in imiiprovedpersonal spending capacity.
CONCLUSIONS
The two major aims here have been (1) to
arrive at a definition of the rural-urban fringe
which can be integrated with theories of urban
invasion, as well as giving some guidance for
the delineation of case study areas, and (2) to
summarize fromi previous studies the major
characteristics of the frilnge. Both the general
definition and the subsequent hypotheses have
been stated in a form suitable for further test-
ing, with the hope of consolidating the present
fragmented body of knowledge of the fringe.
In the light of the suggested internal differen-
tion into "urban fringe" and "rural fringe,"
future studies may be able to contribute knowl-
edge not only of these two subzones, but of
their respective relationships with the urban
area an(l the rural hinterland. There is a need,
too, to relate specific fringe characteristics to
the size, morphology, economic base, and rate
of growth of the associated central place, with
the prospect of identifying the key catalysts
and functional thresholds which are essential
to the invasion process in a specific locality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANNING OFFICIALS. "An-
nexation of Urban Fringe Areas," Inforii'iation
Report, 30 (September 1951).
ANDERSON, T. R. "Intermetropolitan Migration:
 THE RURAL-URBAN
A Comparison of the Hypotheses of Zipf and
Stouffer," American Sociological Reviezw, 20
(1955), pp. 287-291.
"IntermetropolitanMigration: A Corre-
lation Analysis," American Journal of Sociology,
61 (1956), pp. 459-462.
ANDERSON, T. R. and COLLIER, J. "Metropolitan
Dominance and the Rural Hinterland," Rural
Sociology, 21 (1956), pp. 152-157.
ANDERSON, W. A. Social Change il ant Urban
Fringe Area (Ithaca, New York: Department
of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, 1953).
. Fringe Families and Their Social Partici-
pation (Ithaca, New York: Agricultural Exten-
sion Station, Cornell University, 1955).
ANDERSON, W. A. and SIBLEY, D. N. The Social
Participation of Fringe Fanilies-A Second
Sttudy (Ithaca, New York: Departmentof Rural
Sociology, Cornell University, 1957).
ANDERSON, W. F. "A Method of Delineating the
Rural-Urban Fringe Surrounding Small Cities,"
unpublishedM.A. thesis, Pennsylvania State Col-
lege, 1951.
The Flight to the Fringe (Ithaca, New
York: Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell
University, 1956).
ANDREWS, R. B. "Elements in the Urban-Fringe
Pattern," Journal of Land and Public Utility
Econtom1zics,18 (1942), pp. 169-183.
. "Urban Fringe Studies of Two Wisconsin
Cities: A Summary," Journal of Lanid and Pub-
lic Utility Econsomtics, 21 (1945), pp. 375-382.
ANDREWS, W. H. and ESHLEMAN, J. R. "The New
Community: Characteristics of Migrant and
Non-Migrant Residents in the Rural Fringe of a
Metropolitan Area in Ohio," Research Bulletin,
929 (Ohio Agricultural Experimental Station,
1963).
16. "The New CommunityII: Adjustment to
Living in the Changing Rural Fringe of a
MetropolitanArea," Research Btulletin1,955 (Ohio
Agricultural Experimental Station, 1963).
ARPKE, F. "Land Use Control in the Urban
Fringe of Portland, Oregon," Journzal of Land
and Public Utility Ecoinomics, 18 (1942), pp.
468-480.
ASCHMAN, F. T. "Dead Land-Chronically Tax
Delinquent Lands in Cook County, Illinois,"
Land Economics, 25 (1949).
A. W. "The Effects of UrbaniGrowth on
ASHBY,
the Countryside," The Sociological Reviiezc, 31
(1939), pp. 345-369.
BAIN, C. W. "The Annexation of Fringe Terri-
tory," in A Place to Live: The Yearbook of
Agriculture, 1963 (Washington, D.C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1963).
FRINGE 211
BALK, H. H. "Rurbanizationof Worcester's En-
virons," Economic Geography, 21 (1945), p.
104 ff.
BEEGLE, J. A. "Characteristicsof Michigan's Fringe
Population," RutralSociology, 12 (1947), p. 254
ff.
BEEGLE, J. A. and SCHROEDER,W. "Social Organi-
zation and Land Use in the North Lansing
251 (Michigan Agri-
Fringe," Technical Bulletimt,
cultural Experimental Station, 1955).
BEIJER, B. Rural Migrants in UrbaniSetting (The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963).
BENNETT, C. F. "Mobility from Full-Time to
Part-Time Farming,"Rural Sociology, 32 (1967),
p. 154 ff.
BERKMAN, H. G. "Decentralization and Blighted
Vacant Land," in Mayer, M. H. and Kohn,
C. F. (eds.), Readings in Urban Geography,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964),
pp. 287-298.
BEST, R. H. "The Loss of Farm Land to Other
Uses in England and Wales," Town and Co?un-
try Planning, 26 (1958).
BLIZZARD, S. W. "Research onl the Rural-Urban
Fringe," Sociology and Social Researchi, 38
(1954), pp. 143-149.
. "Research on the Rural-Urban Fringe:
A Case Study," Journal, 1802 (Pennsylvania
Agricultural Experimental Station, 1954).
BLIZZARD, S. W. and ANDERSON, W. F. "Prob-
lems in Rural-Urban Fringe Research: Concep-
tualization and Delineation,"Progress Report, 89
(Pennsylvania Agricultural Experimental Sta-
tion, 1952).
BOGUE, D. J. Metropolitan Growth awedthe Con-
version of Land to Non-Agricuzltural Uses
(Scripps Foundation for Research in Population
Problems, Miami University, and the Univer-
sity of Chicago, 1956).
BOGUE,D. J. and SEIM, EMERSON. "Components
of Population Change in Suburban and Central
City Populations of StandardMetropolitanAreas
1940 to 1950," Rural Sociology, 21 (1956), pp.
267-275.
BOLLENS, J. C. "Metropolitan and Fringe Area
Developments in 1960," in The Municipal Year-
Book (Chicago: International City Managers'
Association, 1961).
BORG, N. "Overspill: A Short Study of Essen-
tials," Journal of the Town PlamtiniigInstitdte,
47 (1961), p. 116 ff.
BRADEMAS, T. B. "Fringe Living Attitudes,"
Journal of the American Institiuteof Planners, 22
(1956).
BRIEN, M. L. "The Shire of Croydon as a Rural-
212
Urban Fringe Zone," unpublished B.A. thesis,
University of Melbourne, 1965.
BURGESS,E. W. "The Growthi of the City," in
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., and McKensie,
R. D. (eds.), The City (CChicago: University
of Clhicago Press, 1925).
B'USCHE, L. M. and SMITH, H. E. "A Study of the
Rural-Urban Fringe Residents of Fort Wayne,
Allen County, Indiana," Stuidies Circnlar, 11 ani(l
12 (Purdue Agricultural Experimental Station,
1951).
CARROLL,R. L. an1d WHEELER, R. H. "Metropoli-
tan Influence on the Rural Non-Farm Popula-
tion," Rural Sociolog y, 31 (1966), p. 64 Hf.
CARVER, H. Citics i}?, thle Suburbs (Toronito:
versity of Toronto, 1962).
CJ-IRISTALLER, W. Die zentraleni orte i11 std-
deuttschland (Jena, Gustav Fischer, 1933).
CLARK,C. and PETERS,G. H. "The 'Intervening
Opportunities' Metlhod of Traffic Analysis,"
Traffic Quarterly), 19 (1965).
COLEMAN, B. P. "Agriculture oni the Urban
Fringe," in Wlhitelaw, J. S. (ed.), A4ucklauid in)
Ferm,nent (Melbourne: New Zealand Geograplh-
ical Society, 1967).
DALY, M. T. "Land Value Determiinanats: New-
castle, New South Wales," Au?str-alian ) Geo-
graphical Stud(lies, 5 (1967), pp. 30-39.
DAVIES, I. "Urban1 Farm1inig: A Study of Agri-
culture of the City of Birminglhanm,"(GeographY,
38 (1953), pp. 296-303.
DEWEY, R. "Periplheral Expansioln in Milwaukee
County," Auierican Journial of Sociology, 53
(1948), pp. 417-422.
"Tlhe Rural-Urban Continiuumii: Real but
Relatively Uniminportanit," Amnecrican J[ournial
Sociology, 66 (1960).
DICKINSON, R. E. The City, Reglio)n int Wcstern l
Ent-rope (London: Routledge Paperback, 1967).
D)IETRICH, T. S. "Nature alnd Directiolns of Sub-
Urban1ization in the Soutlh," Socia(l Forc's, 39
(1960), p. 181 ff.
DORN,H. F. "Migration and the Growth of Cities,"
Social Fo1rces, 16 (1938), pp. 328-337.
DORNBUSCII, S. M. "A Typology of Suburban
Commulities: Chicago Metropolitani District,
1940," Urban. A,uialysis Report, 10
Chicago Commllunity Inventory, 1952).
DOUGLAS, V. A. "Health and Sanitatioln Problems
of the Frilnge," in The Rural-Urban)i; Frinige:
Proceedinigs of the Commonwealtlh Conferenice
(Eugene: Uniiversity of Oregon, 1942).
DUCKERT, W. "Luftbild Darmstadt Stadtrand
N/NE," Die Erde, 96 (1965), p. 81 ff.
DUNCAN\, 0. D. "Gradients of Urban Influence
on the Rural Population," in Gibbs, J. P. (ed.),
SOCIAL FORCES
Urban Research Methods (Prilncetoln, Ne\w Jer-
sey: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1961).
DUNCAN, 0. D. anid REISS, A. J. "Suburbs anid
Urban Fringe," in Social Characteristics of Ur-
ba,n and Rural Comi.,munities,1950 (New York
JohbnWiley & Sons, 1956), chap. 11.
EDITORSOF "FORTUNE."The Exploding Metr-opolis
(New York: Doubleday & Co., 1958).
ETTER,0. "Legal Approaches to Problems of the
Rural-Urban Frinige," in 1lhc Ru?ral- U(1rban
Fringe: Proceediings of the Commoniwealth Coi-
ference, op. cit.
FAIRBAIRN,K. J. "Population MovemilenitsWithliin
the Christchurclh Urbani Area," Nezw Zealcnd
Uni- Geographers, 19 (1963).
FAITHFULL,W. G. 'Ribboni Development in Aus-
tralia," Traffiic Quarterly, 13 (1959).
FAUST, L. M. "The Eugenie, Oregoni, Rural-Urbani
Fringe," in 1The Rural-Urlban Friniil: Proceed-
ings of the Commoniwealtlh Conferenice, op. cit.
FAVA, S. F. "Suburbaiiismii as a Way of Life,"
Awncrican Sociological Rcziczcw, 21 (1956), pp.
34-38.
FIREY, WI. "Ecological Colnsiderationis in Plalnnilng
for Rurban Fringes," Ainerican Sociological Re-
viczc, 11 (1946), 1p.411 ff.
"Social Aspects to Lalnd Use Plannlling in
the Country-City Fringe," Special Bulletin, 339
(Michigain State College Agricultural Expelri-
mental Station, 1946).
-. Land Use in Central Bostoni (Camiibridge:
Harvard Ulniversity Press, 1947).
FIREY,W., LoomIis, C. P., an1dBEEGLE, J. A. "Tle
Fusion of Urbani alnd Rural," in Labatut, J. anid
Lalne, W. J. (eds.), Hig(hzcavs in. Our Natioallz
of Life (Princetoni, New Jersey: Prinlcetoln tTlUi-
versity Press, 1950), chap. 13.
FREEMAN, H. D. "Public Utility Problems in
Frinige Areas," in The Rutral-Urbani FringJe:
Proceedings of the ComilmoinwealtlhCoinferenice,
oP. cit.
FUGUITT, G. V. "Urban In1fluen1cean1dthe Extent
of Part-Tilme Farming," Ritral Sociology, 23
(1958), p. 392 ff.
. "Part-Time Farmling alnd the Puslh-Pull
Hypothesis," A nierican Journal of Sociolovy,
(Clhicago: 64 (1959), pp. 375-379.
"The Rural-Urban Fringe," in Proceed-
ings of the Americali Coulntry Life Associatioln,
1962.
- . "The City alnd Countryside," Riral So-
ciology, 28 (1963), 1p.246 ff.
GANS, H. J. "Effects of the Move from City to
Suburb," in Dulhl, L. J. (ed.), The Urban Con-
dition1 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), clhap. 14.
GILBERT, J. H. "Finianicial Problemiis of the Frilnge
 THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE 213
Area," in The Rural- Urban Fringe: Proceed- Along the C. B. & Q. Railroad,"Land Economzics,
ings of the Commonwealth Conference, op. cit. 33 (1957), pp. 177-181.
GIST, N. P. "The New Urban Fringe," Sociology HIGBEE, E. "Agricultural Land on the Urban
and Social Research, 36 (1952), pp. 297-302. Fringe," in Gottmann and Harper, loc. cit., pp.
GOLLEDGE,R. "Sydney's Metropolitan Fringe: A 57-66.
Study in Urban-Rural Relations," Au7straliant HILLER,E. T. "Extension of Urban Characteris-
Geographer,7 (1959), p. 243 ff. tics into Rural Areas," Rural Sociology, 6
GORDON, W. R. "Satellite Acres," Bulletin, 282 (1941), p. 242 ff.
(Rhode Island Agricultural Experimental Sta- HOUSE,P. W. "Preferential Assessment of Farm-
tion, 1942). land in the Rural-Urban Fringe of Maryland,"
GORDON, W. R. and MELDRUM, G. S. "Land, Peo- Bulletin, 8 (Washington, D C.: Government
ple and Farming in a Rurban Zone," Bulletin, Printing Office, 1961).
285 (Rhode Island Agricultural Experimental HUFFAKER,C. L. "School Problems of the Fringe,"
Station, 1942). in The Rural-Urban Fringe: Proceedings of the
GOTTMANN, J. Megalopolis, The Urbanized North- CommonwealthConference,op. cit.
eastern Seaboard of the United States (New HUGHES, I. H. Local Governtmentint the Frintge
York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1961). Area of Flint, Michigant (Ann Arbor: Univer-
GOTTMANN, J. and HARPER, R. A. Metropolis on1 sity of Michigan Press, 1947).
the Move: Geographers Look at Urban Sprawl JAcO,E. G. and BELKNAP,I. "Is a New Family
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967). Form Emerging in the Urban Fringe??' Aijier-
GREENE, S. E. Ferment on the Fringe: Studies of ican Sociological Reviezv',18 (1953), pp. 550-557.
Rural Ch trches in Transition (Philadelphia: JAUHARI, A. S. "Post Partition Expansion of Pre-
Christian Education Press, 1960). Existing Towns in the Sutlej-Yamuna Divide:
GREGOR,H. F. "Spatial Disharmonies in California A Study in the Development of Urban Fringe
Population Growth," Geographical Review, 53 and Suburbs,"National GeographicalJournlalof
(1963), p. 100 ff. India, 10 (1964).
GRIFFIN, P. F. and CHATHAM, R. L. "Urban Im- JEANS, D. N. and LOGAN,M. I. "The Problems of
pact on Agriculture in Santa Clara County, Cali- Growth in Sydney's New Suburbs," Australian?
fornia," Annals, Association of American Geog- Journal of Social Issues, 1 (1961), p. 30 ff.
raphers, 48 (1958), pp. 195-208. JOHNSTON,R. J. "The Population Characteristics
. "Population: A Challenge to California's of the Urban Fringe: A Review and Example,"
Changing Citrus Industry," Economiic Geog- Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociol-
raphy, 34 (1958), pp. 270-276. ogy, 2 (1966), pp. 79-93.
HAIG, R. M. "Toward an Understanding of the JONES, F. L. "Ethnic Concentrationand Assimila-
Metropolis: Some Speculations Regarding the tion: An Australian Case Study," Social Forces,
Economic Basis of Urban Concentration,"Qutar- 45 (1967), 412-423.
terly Journal of Economics, 40 (1926), pp. 179- KENYON,J. "Manufacturingand Sprawl," in Gott-
208 and 402-434. mann and Harper, op. cit.
HARRIS, C. D. "Suburbs," Americain Journal of KIMBALL,S. T. "The New Social Frontier: The
Sociology, 49 (1943), pp 1-13. Fringe," Special Bulletin, 360 (Michigan Agricul-
HART, G. H. T. and PARTRIDGE, T. C. "Factors tural Experimental Station, 1949).
in the Development of the Urban Fringe North- KUNKEL, J. H. "The Role of Services in the An-
West of Johannesburgh,"South African Geo- nexation of a Metropolitan Fringe Area," Laoud
graphical Journal, 48 (1966), pp. 32-44. Economics, 36 (1960), pp. 208-212.
HAUSER, F. L. "The Ecological Pattern of Four KURTZ,H. A. and EICHER,J. B. "Fringe and Sub-
European Cities and Two Theories of Urban urbs: A Confusion of Concepts,"Social Forces,
37 (1958), pp. 32-37.
Expansion," Journal of the American i1nstitutte
KURTZ, R. A. and SMITH, J. "Social Life in the
of Planners, 17 (1951), pp. 111-130.
Rural-Urban Fringe," Rutral Sociology, 26
HARVEY, R. C. and CLARK, W. A. V. "The Nature
(1961), p. 24 ff.
and Economics of Urban Sprawl," Land Eco- LAZERWITZ, B. "Metropolitan Residential
Belts,
nomics, 41 (1965). 1950 and 1956," American Sociological Review,
HAWLEY, A. H. and ZIMMER, B. G. "Suburbani- 25 (1960), pp. 245-252.
zation and Some of Its Consequences,"Land LINGE, G. J. R. The Delimzitationof UrbantBoun-
Economics, 37 (1961), pp. 88-93. daries (Canberra: Australian National Univer-
HAYES, C. R. "SuburbanResidential Land Values sity, 1965).
214 SOCIAL FORCES
LOOMIS, C. P., BEEGLE, J. A., and FIREY,
"Michigan's Country-City Fringe," Michigant
FarmiiEconomics, 42 (1946).
MCKAIN, W. "The Exurbanite: Why He Moved,"
in A Place to Live: The Yearbook of Agricul-
tttre, 1963 (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1963).
McKAIN, W. and BURNIGHT, R. G. "The Sociolog-
ical Significance of the Rural-Urban Fringe:
From the Rural Point of View," RutralSociology,
18 (1953), pp. 109-116.
MARSHALL, A. "The Growth in Subdivision in the
Adelaide Urban Area," Proceedings of the Royal
Geographical Society, Australia, S. A., 1961.
MARTIN, W. T. "A Considerationof Differences
in the Extent and Location of Formal Associa-
tional Activities of Rural-Urban Fringe Resi-
dents,"American Sociological Reviezw,17 (1952),
pp. 687-694.
. The Rural-Urban Fringe: A Sttudyof Ad-
juistm-entto Residence Location (Eugene: Uni-
versity of Oregon Studies in Sociology No. 1,
1953).
- . "Some Socio-Psychological Aspects of Ad-
justment to Residence Location in the Rural-Ur-
ban Fringe," American Sociological Rezview,18
(1953), p. 248 fif.
. "The Structuring of Social Relationships
Engendered by Suburban Residence," American
Sociological Review, 21 (1956), pp. 446-453.
. "Ecological Change in Satellite Rural
Areas," Anerican Sociological Review, 22
(1957), pp. 173-183.
MAXWELL, R. L. "An Analysis of Residential Sub-
divisions, Melbourne Metropolitan 1954-1962,"
unpublishedthesis, Melbourne University, 1963.
MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS,
The Future Growth of Melboulrne (Melbourne: ROHRER, W. C. and HIRZEL, R. " A Methodolog-
A Report to the Minister for Local Government,
1967).
MOORE, E. H. and BARLOWE, R. "Effects of Sub-
urbanization Upon Rural Land Use," Technical Rossi, P. H. Why Famtilies Move: A Study in
Bulletin, 253 (Michigan Agricultural Experi-
mental Station, 1955).
MUMFORD, L. The City in History (London: Pel-
ican Books, 1966).
MURPHY, R. E. The AmnericanCity: AS Urbant
Geography (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1966).
MYERS, R. B. and BEEGLE, J. A. "Delineation and
Analysis of the Rural-Urban Fringe," Applied
Anthropology, 6 (1947), pp. 14-22.
PAHL, R. E. Urbs in Rure: The Metropolitan SCHAFFER, A. "A Rural Community at the Urban
Fringe in Hertfordshire (London: London
'School of Economics and Political Science, Geo- SCHNORE, L. F "Satellites and Suburbs, Social
graphical Papers, No. 2, 1965).
W. PARSONS, H. "Slurb is (sic)," paper presented at
the 39th Congress of ANZAAS, Melbourne,
1967.
PIRENNE, H. Medieval Cities (Princeton, New Jer-
sey: Princeton University Press, 1948).
PRICE, P. H. and HILLERY, G. A. "The Rural-Ur-
ban Fringe and Louisiana's Agriculture: A Case
Study of the Baton Rouge Area," Bllletin., 526
(Louisiana Agricultural Experimeintal Station,
1959).
PRYOR, R. J. "City Growth and Rural-Urban
Fringe," unpublished M.A. thesis, University of
Melbourne, 1967.
. "Delineating Outer Suburbs and the Urban
Fringe," Geografiska Annaler, forthcoming.
- . "Accessibility in Melbourne's Urban
Fringe," Research Paper, Geographical Society
of New South Wales, forthcoming.
. "A Sampling Frame for the Rural-Urban
Fringe," The Professional Geog rapher, forthcom-
ing.
QUEEN, S. A. and CARPENTER., D. B. "The Socio-
logical Significance of the Rural-Urban Fringe:
From the Urban Point of View," Rutral Sociol-
ogy, 18 (1953).
RAESIDE, J. D. "Urban Sprawl," Proceedini-gs of
the Nezu Zealanzd Institute of Agricultitr-al Sci-
ence, 8 (1962).
REEDER, L. G. "Industrial Deconicelitration as a
Factor in Rural-Urban Fringe Development,"
Lanid Economtics, 21 (1955), pp. 275-280.
REINEMANN, M. W. "The Patterni and Distribu-
tion of Manufacturing in the Chicago Area,"
Economic Geography, 36 (1960), pp. 139-144.
RODEHAVER, M. W. "Fringe Settlement as a Two-
Directional Movement," Rutral Sociology, 12
(1947).
ical Note on Demographic Analysis of the Rural-
Urban Fringe," Rural Sociology, 22 (1957), pp.
71-73.
the Social Psychology of Urban Residential Mo-
l)ility (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955).
ROTERUS, V. and HUGHES, I. H. "Governmental
Problems of Fringe Areas," Public Managemnent,
30 (1948), pp. 94-97.
SALTER, L. A. "Land Classificationi Along the Ru-
ral-Urban Fringe," in Proceedings of the First
National Conference on Land Classificationt (Co-
lumbia: University of Missouri, 1940).
Fringe," Rural Sociology, 23 (1958), pp. 277-285.
Forces, 36 (1957), p. 121 ff.
 THE RURAL-URBAN
. "The Growth of Metropolitan Suburbs,"
Atm-tericanSociological Review, 22 (1957).
- "MunicipalAnnexations and the Growth of
Metropolitan Suburbs, 1950-60,"American Jotr-
nal of Sociology, 67 (1962), pp. 406-417.
SINCLAIR,R. "Von Thunen and Urban Sprawl,"
Annals, Association of AmtericanGeographers,57
(1967), pp. 72-87.
SMITH, D. L. "Market Gardening at Adelaide's
Urban Fringe," Economic Geography,42 (1966),
p. 19 ff.
SMITH, T. L. "The Population of Louisiana: Its
Composition and Changes," Louisiana Bulletin,
293 (1937).
. The Sociology of RutralLife (New York:
Harper & Bros, 1947).
STOCKER,F. D. "GovernmentalProblems on the
Urban Fringe," AgrictulturalEconomic Research,
13 (1961), p. 117 ff.
. "Taxing Farmland in the Urban Fringe,"
Journal of Farm Economics, 45 (1963), pp. 1131-
1139.
THROOP,V. M. The Suburban Zone of Metropol-
itan Portland, Oregon (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1948).
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BOARD OF VIC-
TORIA. Organisation for Strategic Planning
(Melbourne: A Report to the Minister for Local
Government, 1967).
AVALDO,A. D. "Farming on the Urban Fringe," in
-4 Place to Live: The Yearbook of Agricultutre,
1963 (Washington, D. C.: GovernmentPrinting
Office, 1963).
W'EHRWEIM, G. S. "Land Classification for Rural
Zoning," Proceedings of the First National Con-
ference on Land Classification, op. cit.
- ''The Land Uses of the Rural-Urban
Fringe," in The Rural-Urbai Fringe: Pro-
FRINGE 215
ceedings of the Commonwealth Conference, op.
cit.
. "Governmental Problems and Zoning in
the Rural-Urban Fringe," idem.
. "The Rural-Urban Fringe," Econo; ic Geo-
graphy, 18 (1942), pp. 217-228.
WHITNEY, V. H. "Urban Impact on a Rural
Township," in Sussman, M.P. (ed.), Community
Structure and Analysis (New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell Co., 1959).
WILLS, N. R. "The Rural-Urban Fringe: Some
Agricultural Characteristicswith Specific Refer-
ence to Sydney," Australian Geographer, 5
(1945), pp. 29-35.
WIRTH, L. "Urbanismas a Way of Life," Amer-
ican Joutrnalof Sociology, 44 (1938).
WISSINK, G. A. American Cities in Perspective:
With Special Reference to the Development of
Their Fringe Areas, Sociaal GeografischeStudies,
Hoogleraar aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht,
Nr. 5 (Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum,
1962).
WOLFE, R. I. "Nucleation on the Rural-Urban
Fringe," Ekistics, 20 (1965), pp. 228-231.
WOOLLEY, L. Ur of the Chaldees (Middlesex:
Pelican Books, 1938).
ZIMMER, B. G. and HAWLEY, A. H. "Approaches
to the Solution of Fringe Problems; Preference
of Residents in the Flint Metropolitan Area,"
Public Administratio-nReview, 16 (1956), pp.
258-268; reprinted in Theodorson, G. A. (ed.),
Studies in Hmnan Ecology (Evanston, Illinois:
Row, Peterson & Co., 1961).
. "Local Government as Viewed by Fringe
Residents,"Rural Sociology, 23 (1958), p. 363 ff.
. "Suburbanizationand Church Participa-
tion," Social Forces, 37 (1959), p. 348 ff.
. "Suburbanizationand Some of Its Conse-
quences," Land Econtomics,37 (1961), p. 88 ff.