Making A Case for A New Definition of ‘Rural’
Posted on | November 2, 2009 | 2 Comments
A recent editorial in the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine reminded me why I began this blog, and makes a case for a new definition of ‘rural’ to aid policy planning, most notably for health and medical services.
“Since 1994, Australia has had five levels of “rural” that have been defined for purposes of policy planning. In Canada, we don’t even have a single level. Statistics Canada has arbitrarily defined urban as a population of 10,000 or more[.]“
- Peter Hutten-Czapski, MD
Although coming up with a new definition of ‘rural’ would not necessarily be a quick or easy process, there is a clear need to develop a more comprehensive index of what rural entails.
Not only would variations in definition aid health care policy, planning, and provision, it would also aid education, civic and social services, connectedness issues, transportation, infrastructure … the list goes on and on.
As much of the discussion about the future for rural areas revolves around questions of sustainability, a revised definition would give elected officials (amoung others) a more precise framework for exploring sustainable options.
One size does not fit all.
Related Posts:
Tags: Health > medical > rural > rural definition > rural doctor > rural-urban > rurban > Statistics Canada
Comments
2 Responses to “Making A Case for A New Definition of ‘Rural’”
Leave a Reply

April 7th, 2010 @ 9:49 am
[...] the nature of ‘what is rural?’ is changing, the concept of rural leadership must also change. Not only is rural leadership [...]
March 1st, 2011 @ 1:28 pm
[...] In 2009, I posted on how rural is currently viewed in Canada. Further information about what constitutes ”rural” in Canada can be found here. And while I know colleagues at both the federal and provincial levels of government have reviewed the existing definitions and policy constraints, to date, nothing has changed. [...]