According to Johnson (2010: 1) characteristics of rural settlements are identical to the nature of the rural landscape. Johnson elaborates on three characteristics of rural settlements:
33
2.4.1. Land use
This is dictated by nature as good soil and access to water. Land users are the major human forces that shape and organize rural communities. Continuation of land use may lead to a general understanding of how people have interacted with their environment. It provides clues about the kinds of physical features and historic properties that should be present in rural areas.
2.4.2. Spatial organization
This reflects the existence or non – existence of farming resources, field use and the network of roads that are shaped and the modes of the fields. The organization of land on a large scale depends on the relationship among the major physical components, predominant landforms and natural features. This is influenced by politics, economics, technology and the natural environment. It also determines community settlement patterns, proximity markets and the availability of transport.
2.4.3. Culture
Rural culture celebrates tight communities that exist on cultural survival. Cultural traditions affect the ways that land is used, occupied and shaped. Therefore religious beliefs, social customs, ethnic identity and trends and skills may be evident today in both physical features and uses of the land. Hence cultural traditions determine the structure of communities by influencing the diversity of buildings, the location of roads and village centres.
It has been widely acknowledged that rural areas throughout the world tend to have similar characteristics. Populations are spatially isolated, agriculture is often the dominant - and sometimes the exclusive - economic sector, and opportunities for resource - mobilization are limited. Urbanization is happening everywhere in the world, although at different rates (Todaro and Smith 2009: 321). This trend shows that people living in rural areas face harsh realities that create major challenges to all developmental efforts undertaken by governments and the private sector. The spatial distribution of the population in rural areas often increases the cost and difficulty in
34 providing rural goods and services effectively, while the economic conditions in rural areas result in fewer opportunities available than in urban locations. These realities lead to the limitations, or even the shrinkage of the tax base, leaving the rural areas often not being able to mobilize sufficient resources to finance their own developmental programmes. This leaves them with no choice but to depend on transfers from the urban areas.
Rural areas are characterized by high levels of poverty, poor local economies with a weak manufacturing base, undeveloped infrastructure and a limited tax base that offers limited opportunities for employment. This escalates the high cost of basic social services. It leads to poor access to natural resources that support subsistence, and the low levels of skills development. A high percentage of poor people living in rural areas, have an income that is controlled because the rural economy is not vibrant enough to provide them with remunerative jobs or self - employment opportunities as their urban counterparts. This shows that their cost of living is high because they spend more on basic social services.
According to The Presidency (2007: 7) the scars of the apartheid policies are evident in rural areas in the form of high concentrations of the population areas and dislocated settlements where people live in horrible poverty. These so - called ghettos are located far from economic opportunities. They incur high transport costs between home and work. Basic daily costs are also high. Types of homes that have been developed in the rural areas are of a substandard nature, located far from the cities, thereby forcing many rural people to be migrants in urban areas, resulting in the rural – urban band created between the two areas. Therefore this causes a level of dependence between the rural and urban areas.
Another characteristic of the South African rural areas is the existence of the resettled communities, where there are different types of people from former homelands and people in mining towns. The majority of migrant workers live in hostels around the mining towns with few amenities, while others, including those in the so-called white rural areas, live around these areas in poverty and with no facilities at all. Moreover farm labourers suffer from a lack of basic services. The state of poverty in South Africa is exacerbated by the execution of the policies of the
35 apartheid regime. Therefore, it can be safely said that if apartheid policies were not adopted in South Africa, rural poverty would have not became such an all-inclusive feature of our present.
According to the Presidency (2007: 18) South Africa‟s commercial agriculture has followed a more capital - intensive growth path than should have been the case. Hence agricultural resources lie unused in the former homeland areas. This has affected the income earning potential of rural people in many different ways. It is evident that the entrepreneurial abilities of African farmers were covered up in the rural areas by their elimination from the commercial land market and in the former homelands, where commercially viable farming became almost impossible. This shows that employment opportunities in the agricultural sector are limited to unskilled workers and, in this way, they are poorly paid. More importantly most of the employment in the agricultural sector is of a seasonal and temporary nature. In this sector there is no job security, and there is a high rate of exploitation of farm workers. Hence the Department of Labour, through Sectoral Determination, is trying to set minimum wages and minimum employment standards for this category of workers (The Presidency 2007: 18).
According to the Presidency (2000: 6) participation by local communities in the development of policies cannot be overemphasized. It is because of their inputs that government is able to put food on their tables. Rural areas are often politically marginalized, and this leaves them with little influence on government policies. The major objective of tackling rural poverty in a cross cultural manner is through integrated rural development projects. This has been discussed above. The focus has been to integrate the efforts of all the stakeholders towards the development of rural as well as urban areas. Thus it is important to work with the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community - based organizations (CBOs). Public- private partnership (PPP) and community participation are important because they ensure the commitment amongst all stakeholders and the buying in. This process also calls for rural communities to be well prepared for this purpose and be trained to enable them to fulfill their roles and responsibilities.
36 Marginalization in agriculture needs to be addressed, acknowledging the role of women and gender issues in general. Poverty in South Africa is rooted in the rural areas, and women, from the majority of the rural population and female - headed households, are disadvantaged. According to Casele and Posel (2002: 170) women are being pushed into the market with less access to make money. This has been attributed to an increase in male unemployment and cause migrants to settle in urban areas. This may be associated with the reduction in remittance transfers to women in rural areas. Households that are regarded as poor in rural areas are seen as those having low levels of literacy and education. They have serious difficulties in accessing resources and few opportunities of gaining employment because of their level of education. These realities result in the high mortality rate of children, malnutrition and morbidity. Large households „size, low incomes, poor living conditions and poor access to social services are characteristics of rural areas (Casele and Posel 2002:170).
According to the Presidency (2006: 11) 11 % of rural households have adequate housing, piped water and acceptable sanitation. There is little time spent on water collection. On the other hand, 22 % of the rural population lives in miserable poverty with virtually no access to social services. HIV/AIDS must also be incorporated into policies in order to respond to the consequences on rural households and those who are at the highest risk. Government should work hand in hand with the key stakeholders in order to fight HIV/AIDS and that should include rural areas.
In view of the above arguments, The Presidency (2006: 12) suggests the following: Firstly, poverty in both rural and urban areas represents various adaptable, multi- faceted and vibrant realities. These are often difficult to define with statistics and other descriptive and measuring devices. Government should accommodate this diversity and complexity in its strategic planning. Secondly, analyses of rural poverty need to take rural – urban linkages into account. Thirdly, the marginalization of agriculture, particularly in former households needs to be addressed. Lastly, a strategy is needed to lessen the impact of HIV/AIDS, since it has a high impact on vulnerable households in the rural areas.
37