The migratory movement towards urban areas implies a transformation process that causes a decrease of income generation and employment in agriculture.
This leads to less labor participation in the primary sector, which can cause a reduction in agricultural production and threaten food security in some territories. Thus, for example, the countryside may lack a young and dynamic workforce, also registering an ageing population, which can compromise a sufficient and varied food production.
In rural areas of Mexico , for example, the migration of young people, and the consequent decrease in the fertility rate, has caused a variation among the population groups: while in there were 21 adults over 60 years for every children, predictions indicate that by there will be older adults for every children.
Likewise, the increase in urban poverty responds to the abundant migratory flows to cities: migrants may not find work in urban areas although the search for employment opportunities was the reason for mobilizing ,and this generates a vicious circle of scarcity and needs.
The high percentages of informal work in the region also indicate a lack of social protection, which aggravates the situations of poverty and precariousness of internal migrants. These settlements are usually located in areas that are vulnerable to natural disasters , such as floods, landslides and earthquakes. This shows how rural migration, also fostered by the effects of climate change, needs special attention to avoid a reproduction of existing vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, while conflicts over natural resources can provoke rural migration, migrants find new forms of violence in cities. In the Northern Triangle of Central America, violence is a mainly urban phenomenon , aggravated by causes such as poverty, segregation, inequality and lack of opportunities.
Farmers in poverty conditions and unemployed people can be new victims of criminal groups in cities. This situation can cause new migratory flows of people who migrated to the cities and, as they do not find an adequate situation, they decide to migrate abroad. Hence, rural-urban migration has crucial implications not only for rural, but also urban development and sustainability. For example, current challenges such as urban overpopulation or the loss of traditional crops and agrobiodiversity depend directly on rural migratory flows.
He noted that different motives account for rural-urban migration amongst rural dwellers. These include the following:. Rural areas are mostly disabled at various levels by inaccessibility, seclusion, underdevelopment, extreme poverty, ignorance, depopulation, hunger and all types of incapacities.
Coupled with these is that migration from rural to urban areas leads to a reduction in the number of the rural populace with a negative effect on rural agricultural output and slowed pace of development in the rural areas. With the exit of youths and young adults from the villages and rural communities, the aged, women and children are left behind to labour on the farms which lead to reduction in agricultural output with its attendant effect on the gross domestic product of the nation, lowered funds for development, income and standard of living of rural inhabitants, underdevelopment, and total desertion of the rural areas.
Constant reduction in rural population over the years will invariably lead to gross rural neglect by government as they tend to concentrate on developing the more obviously populated urban centres. This further reinforces the vicious cycle of gross rural neglect and underdevelopment as reflected in the lack of rural industrialization and poor physical, social and institutional infrastructures. Also, Lykke opined that rural-urban migration makes the highly educated and most agile people migrate from rural to urban areas, leaving behind the feeble and uneducated people who are not able to combat poverty successfully.
This he argues consequentially increases the differences in the standards of living of the rural and urban inhabitants. Several authors such as Lykke , McCarthy , Adejugbe , Badru , Uma et al , Eliss and Harris , have stated that the incessant drift of the rural populace to the urban areas has led to social, economic, environmental, physical, and other severe problems such as congestion in the urban centres with attendant consequences such as spread of communicable diseases, overstretched social amenities such as electricity, health facilities, educational, recreational facilities, motorable roads, pipe borne water, housing etc.
Other consequences of rural-urban migration includes urban traffic congestion, unemployment, high crime rate such as advance free fraud, political and civil unrests, armed robbery, alcoholism, drug abuse, prostitution, hooliganism, health hazards from pollution; air, water, and noise, inadequate refuse and sewage disposal system, poor drainage system resulting in flooding.
Growth of slums leading to shanty settlements, cultural changes, juvenile delinquency and an overall decline in traditional values, are all attendant effects of rural-urban migration. Current findings in the field of rural development have led to the conclusion that rural-urban migration could be reduced with the involvement of the rural communities and rural beneficiaries of a rural development project at all stages or phases of the project Ocheni and Nwankwo, Again, studies from the developed world where policy makers explore all possible options and adopt inclusive practices in the rural development policies and where appropriate institutional framework are put in place to strengthened and ensure rapid realization of rural developmental goals, the trend in rural-urban migration has been stemmed.
It is also instructive to note that in the developed world where government is seen and viewed as continuum, rural development project are not abandonment. Since major finding note that the major causes of rural-urban migration are search for better education, employment, and business opportunities, poverty, unemployment, famine, and inadequate social amenities in the rural areas, it follows therefore that with conscious effort towards rural development, the trend of rural —urban migration will be drastically reduced.
Finding reveals that rural development is significant to combating rural-urban migration in Nigeria and indeed it is capable of changing the ways through which we manage the rural areas which will make a difference in governance practice in Nigeria. In conclusion, this paper shows that through appropriate rural development programme by government, rural-urban migration can be curtailed.
As part of the findings of this paper, the impediments to rural development is majorly the non-commitment to policies initiated by government in Nigeria, while the absence of rural development does facilitate rural-urban migration due to lack of basic social amenities and infrastructures.
The findings also revealed that Government needs to do more to stem rural-urban migration. Government must intensify rural development in Nigeria as expected by majority of the rural populace. People in the rural areas have no need to migrate to the urban centers, if basic social amenities and other variables to make them comfortable are provided for in the areas. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.
Withdrawal Guidlines. Publication Ethics. Withdrawal Policies Publication Ethics. Research Article Volume 2 Issue 5. Challenges of rural development The challenges threatening rural communities especially in developing countries are numerous and cut across all spheres of life. Umeabali and Akubuilo as cited by Leah et al, summarized the challenges of rural development to include the following:- High population density. What about those, who do not flee their homes because of conflict or disasters, but for whom migration is still their only option?
Poverty is forcing families from their farms and villages. Real rural development is key to a better shared future, where young people have more opportunities at home that can compete with those in cities. This is not to say that migration is not beneficial.
It overwhelmingly is when well-managed, and especially as a risk reduction, adaptation and socio-economic development strategy - benefitting both home and host community. Inclusive policies are key to making migrants more resilient, and more resilient migrants help reduce risk for both communities of origin and of destination. Proactive and inclusive urban planning at the local level and effective national mobility management policies are essential not only to reduce the vulnerabilities linked with movement into cities, but also to leverage the socio-economic potential of migration for the development of migrants and host societies.
A vital change that needs to happen to make the future of migration wholly beneficial to migrants and host communities is ensuring that all migrants — internal and international — feel like they have a real choice to stay or to go.
At a strategic level, this is emphasized through our upcoming joint co-chairmanship of the Global Migration Group GMG in Broadly, there are five factors, which determine the push and pull conditions operating in the decision of people to migrate to urban centers:.
The rural areas, which are less developed, have poor agricultural conditions and greater population pressure on land, push the surplus population to urban centres. According to an ILO report, cited by N. Sovani in his book Urbanization and Urban India , the main push factor causing the worker to leave agriculture is the lower level of income. In almost all countries, incomes in agriculture are lower than in other sectors of the economy.
On the contrary, better economic conditions, including employment opportunities available in urban areas, operate as pull factors to attract rural people towards them. Rates of migration to different cities are generally different depending upon the capacity of urban centres to absorb the incoming population and provide them sufficient livelihood.
While some cities have greater industrialization and economic development, others do not have so much of development and employment opportunities. In India, cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Ahmadabad and Hyderabad had been pulling largest number of people from rural areas. Till s the trend of migration had been towards such big cities. But, due to capacity saturation of such cities, the trend of migration has now detoured to the state capitals and other regional urban centres.
Exodus of rural population to a few big urban centres of the country continues though not to the extent it was earlier. About 60 per cent of Indian urban population, therefore, lives in class I towns of the country. The economists, like Colin Clark and Lester Brown, have opined that the public sector expenditures in India and other less developed countries have been urban-biased.
The migration towards urban centres is not due to economic opportunities but also because of many other amenities and avenues. Educational and health services, higher wages, entertainments and better standard of living available in cities also pull the rural people towards them.
Since both the factors, push and pull, determine who, why, where and to what extent migrates, it is debatable whether push factors are more important or the pull factors.
Most of scholars are of the view that rural-urban migration is largely due to poverty and lack of economic opportunities in villages are more significant factors than the availability of employment and other facilities. The push factors thus are more important to determine rural-urban migration. However, recent urban conditions have ceased to attract a large number of rural populations.
0コメント