Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #3. Typical scenarios

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Well, a possible solution is to define “urban” first (there are some
definitions), and say that “rural” is the opposite (according to what Rute
says).
 
What about this?
 
   o  Urban zone.  The definition of "urban" does vary between
      countries, as shown in [UNStats].  For example, in the United
      States they are defined as "Agglomerations of 2 500 or more
      inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000
      persons per square mile or more."  In China the term "city" is
      proper of those designated by the State Council.  In Liberia they
      are "Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants."  In France they are
      "communes containing an agglomeration of more than 2 000
      inhabitants living in contiguous houses or with not more than 200
      metres between houses."  In Guam, they are "agglomerations of 2
      500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of
      1 000 persons per square mile or more, referred to as "urban
      clusters"".
 
   o  Rural zone.  The document will use this term as oposed to "urban".
      A definition of "rural " was proposed by G.  P.  Wibberley in 1972
      [Wibberley]: "The word describes those parts of a country which
      show unmistakable signs of being dominated by extensive uses of
      land, either at the present time or in the immediate past.  It is
      important to emphasise that these extensive uses might have had a
      domination over an area which has now gone because this allows us
      to look at settlements which to the eye still appear to be rural
      but which, in practice, are merely an extension of the city
      resulting from the development of the commuter train and the
      private motor car" [Clot].
 
Jose
PS: I think this would be more than enough. Everyone has an idea of “rural”
in his mind, but we cannot aspire to arrive to a tight definition of that
term in an IRTF document ;-) 
 
De: Rute C. Sofia [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 14:36
Para: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[e-mail]>; Jim Forster
<[e-mail]>
CC: gaia <[e-mail]>; Eric A. BREWER <[e-mail]>; Mitar
<[e-mail]>; Jose Saldana <[e-mail]>; Henning Schulzrinne
<[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar
review, question #3. Typical scenarios
 
Hello Arjuna, Henning, Jim,

The rural area definition relates with density. In the USA,
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html
The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas: 
*	Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
*	Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.
“Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included
within an urban area.
In Europe
(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2014_01_new_urban
.pdf)
Thinly populated area (alternative name: rural area)
     •    More than 50 % of the population living in rural
grid cells.

So, defining rural as thinly populated areas is relevant (and then, defining
"thinly" :)). Despite the fact that (some) rural areas may be sustainable,
the fact is that rural areas, due to lack of density/capilarity should be
treated as a specific type of "smart" communities...

BR
Rute
On 04/13/2016 01:24 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:les 
Hello Jim & Henning - 
 
I think Henning has raised an interesting & thought provoking question - how
do we define rural?
 
I agree - if you see in the UK and other "developed" countries - many multi
billionaires live in rural areas -
look at weybridge in the UK:
http://www.hamptons.co.uk/forsaleoffice/weybridge/1599/ 
 
:)
 
should we consider from a "network access" perspective areas like Weybridge
as really rural - 
 
should rural be classified from an affordability angle? but in urban areas
affordability is also an issue - so that leads me to
 
maybe - we should have new classification probably not by geography but
rather socio-economic status?
 
regards
 
On 13 April 2016 at 02:37, Jim Forster <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
(Perhaps covered already in the draft…)
 
Sometimes, especially in developing countries, rural also loosely implies a
poorer economic situation (average income per capita) than metro areas in
the same country, and frequently reduced general infrastructure (roads,
water systems, grid power) than the metro areas.  I think one of the drivers
for migration to cities in developing counties is somewhat better
infrastructure in cities than in the rural areas. 
 
 
On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
 
Defining "rural" is surprisingly difficult - the US government is rumored to
have 50 definitions. From a networking perspective, it's very different
whether you connect isolated rural dwellings, separated by miles, or
villages, with clusters of a few hundred residences. (In the US, think
Vermont small town vs. individual farms in Kansas or Oklahoma or homes along
rural streets in West Virginia.) 
 
One distinction is the average (or median) distance between network end
points.
 

_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



 
-- 
Arjuna Sathiaseelan 
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/>  
N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/n4d> 




_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



-- 
Melhores Cumprimentos/Best Regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Rute Sofia
............................
COPELABS - Association for Research and Development in Cognition and
People-centric Computing
Senior Researcher/Director
http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt
 
http://copelabs.ulusofona.pt/~rsofia
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/rute-sofia
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rute_Sofia