Introduction
The dynamic interplay between urban and rural landscapes has long been a central concern in urban studies, reflecting the evolving nature of human settlements in response to economic, social, and environmental forces. This essay critically examines the intermediate landscapes that exist between city and countryside, focusing on the transition from traditional urban sprawl to the concept of desakota—a term coined to describe regions of mixed urban and rural characteristics, particularly in the context of rapid urbanisation in parts of Asia. The purpose of this analysis is to explore how these intermediary spaces challenge conventional categorisations of urban and rural, while assessing their implications for planning, sustainability, and social equity. By drawing on academic literature and case studies, this essay will first outline the historical development of urban sprawl, before delving into the emergence of desakota as a distinct landscape form. It will then critically evaluate the socio-economic and environmental impacts of such intermediary zones, ultimately arguing that these spaces demand innovative approaches to urban governance that transcend binary urban-rural distinctions.
Urban Sprawl: A Historical Foundation
Urban sprawl, often characterised by the unplanned and low-density expansion of urban areas into surrounding rural land, has been a prominent feature of industrialised societies since the 20th century. Typically driven by population growth, economic development, and the advent of motorised transport, sprawl became particularly pronounced in Western contexts such as the United States and parts of Europe. As Ewing (1997) notes, urban sprawl is often associated with fragmented land use, car dependency, and the erosion of agricultural or natural landscapes. In the UK, for instance, post-World War II suburban expansion reflected a desire for improved living conditions outside congested city centres, yet it also led to significant challenges, including the loss of green belts and increased infrastructure costs (Hall, 1996).
The implications of urban sprawl are multifaceted. On one hand, it has facilitated access to housing and amenities for growing populations; on the other, it has been critiqued for exacerbating social segregation and environmental degradation. For example, sprawling developments often prioritise private car use over public transport, contributing to higher carbon emissions—a concern that remains pertinent in the context of contemporary climate goals (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999). Moreover, sprawl tends to encroach on rural spaces, creating blurred boundaries where neither urban nor rural functions are fully realised. This transitional zone, often neglected in planning frameworks, sets the stage for understanding more complex intermediary landscapes such as desakota.
The Emergence of Desakota: A New Paradigm
The concept of desakota, derived from the Indonesian words ‘desa’ (village) and ‘kota’ (city), was introduced by McGee (1991) to describe regions in Southeast Asia where urban and rural activities coexist within the same geographical space. Unlike urban sprawl, which often implies a unidirectional spread of urban forms, desakota reflects a more integrated and dynamic interplay of agricultural and non-agricultural economies. These areas typically emerge in contexts of rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, where rural populations engage in urban-oriented employment while retaining ties to traditional farming practices (McGee, 1991). Indonesia’s Jabodetabek region, surrounding Jakarta, exemplifies this phenomenon, with villages becoming embedded within sprawling industrial and commercial networks.
Desakota zones challenge conventional urban-rural dichotomies, as they do not fit neatly into either category. As McGee (1991) argues, such regions are neither fully urbanised nor distinctly rural, but rather form a hybrid landscape shaped by global economic forces and local cultural practices. This hybridity, however, often leads to governance challenges. For instance, planning policies in desakota regions frequently struggle to balance the needs of industrial development with the preservation of agricultural livelihoods, resulting in uneven access to infrastructure and services. Arguably, the desakota model highlights the limitations of Western-centric urban theories, which often fail to account for the unique socio-economic conditions of the Global South (Roy, 2009). Therefore, understanding desakota requires a critical rethinking of urbanisation processes beyond traditional frameworks.
Socio-Economic Impacts of Intermediate Landscapes
Intermediate landscapes, whether characterised as urban sprawl or desakota, have profound socio-economic implications. In the case of urban sprawl, social stratification often becomes evident as wealthier populations move to suburban areas, leaving behind declining urban cores. This phenomenon, well-documented in UK contexts such as London’s commuter belts, can exacerbate inequalities in access to education, healthcare, and employment opportunities (Hall, 1996). Additionally, the economic cost of servicing sprawling areas—through roads, utilities, and public transport—places a significant burden on local governments, often at the expense of rural or inner-city investments.
In desakota regions, socio-economic dynamics are further complicated by the dual livelihoods of residents. While engagement in urban economies can provide income diversification for rural households, it also introduces vulnerabilities. For example, reliance on informal or precarious urban employment can leave communities exposed to economic downturns, as seen during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis when many desakota workers in Indonesia faced sudden job losses (McGee and Robinson, 1995). Furthermore, the influx of industrial activities into traditionally rural areas often disrupts social cohesion, as land use conflicts arise between agricultural and commercial interests. These issues underscore the need for policies that address the unique needs of intermediary zones, rather than applying uniform urban or rural models.
Environmental Challenges and Sustainability
The environmental consequences of intermediary landscapes are equally significant and warrant critical attention. Urban sprawl, for instance, is notorious for contributing to habitat destruction and reducing biodiversity. In the UK, the expansion of suburban housing into greenfield sites has been a persistent concern, with organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England highlighting the irreversible loss of agricultural land (CPRE, 2018). Moreover, sprawling settlements often promote car-centric lifestyles, leading to higher greenhouse gas emissions—a pressing issue in the context of net-zero targets.
Desakota regions, while distinct, face parallel environmental challenges. The coexistence of industrial and agricultural activities can result in severe pollution, as unregulated factories discharge waste into local water systems traditionally relied upon for farming (McGee, 1991). Additionally, the rapid conversion of farmland to urban uses in desakota zones often outpaces environmental planning, leading to flooding and other ecological risks, as evidenced in parts of Vietnam’s Mekong Delta (Kontgis et al., 2014). These challenges highlight a critical limitation in the management of intermediary landscapes: the lack of integrated spatial planning that considers both urban growth and environmental sustainability. Indeed, addressing these issues requires a shift towards more holistic frameworks that prioritise ecological balance alongside economic development.
Implications for Urban Governance
The complexities of intermediary landscapes necessitate innovative approaches to urban governance. Traditional planning models, often rooted in a clear urban-rural binary, are ill-equipped to address the hybrid nature of sprawl and desakota zones. Instead, as Roy (2009) suggests, urban studies must embrace more flexible and context-specific paradigms that account for local socio-economic and environmental conditions. In the UK, for instance, green belt policies have been partially successful in curbing sprawl, but they often fail to address the social inequalities perpetuated by suburban expansion (Hall, 1996). Similarly, in desakota regions, governance must prioritise participatory planning to ensure that the needs of diverse stakeholders—farmers, industrial workers, and urban planners—are adequately met.
Moreover, technology and data-driven approaches can play a pivotal role in managing intermediary landscapes. Geographic Information Systems (GIS), for example, can help map the intricate land use patterns of desakota zones, enabling more informed decision-making (Kontgis et al., 2014). However, such tools must be accompanied by policies that promote social equity and environmental protection, lest they merely serve economic interests. Ultimately, the governance of intermediary landscapes demands a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from urban studies, environmental science, and sociology to create sustainable and inclusive solutions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the transition from urban sprawl to desakota represents a profound shift in the conceptualisation of intermediary landscapes between city and countryside. While urban sprawl, rooted in Western industrialisation, highlights issues of inequality and environmental degradation, the desakota model reveals the complexities of rapid urbanisation in the Global South, where hybrid economies and cultures redefine spatial boundaries. Both forms of intermediary landscape challenge traditional urban-rural dichotomies, exposing the limitations of conventional planning frameworks. Socio-economically, they underscore the need for policies that address inequality and dual livelihoods, while environmentally, they demand urgent attention to sustainability and ecological balance. The implications for urban governance are clear: innovative, context-sensitive, and participatory approaches are essential to managing these dynamic spaces. As urban studies continues to evolve, further research into intermediary landscapes will be crucial in shaping resilient and equitable urban futures, ensuring that neither city nor countryside is left behind in the pursuit of sustainable development.
References
- Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). (2018) State of the Green Belt 2018. CPRE.
- Ewing, R. (1997) Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), pp. 107-126.
- Hall, P. (1996) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Blackwell Publishing.
- Kontgis, C., Schneider, A., Fox, J., Saksena, S., Spencer, J. H., and Castrence, M. (2014) Monitoring peri-urbanization in the greater Ho Chi Minh City metropolitan area. Applied Geography, 53, pp. 377-388.
- McGee, T. G. (1991) The Emergence of Desakota Regions in Asia: Expanding a Hypothesis. In: Ginsburg, N., Koppel, B., and McGee, T. G. (eds.) The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia. University of Hawaii Press.
- McGee, T. G. and Robinson, I. M. (1995) The Mega-Urban Regions of Southeast Asia. UBC Press.
- Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999) Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press.
- Roy, A. (2009) The 21st-Century Metropolis: New Geographies of Theory. Regional Studies, 43(6), pp. 819-830.
