A theme paper for an Environment Management conference in Delhi has sparked debate about the underlying assumptions.
The paper characterises city dwellers as materially rich compared to rural citizens described as ‘poor’ – but then considers the prospects for lifestyle values that would position rural citizens as environmentally rich and city dwellers as increasingly impoverished.
The author’s intent is clear – to challenge delegates with a potential reversal of fortunes – but the problems with these characterisations are two-fold.
Firstly, we are well aware of material deprivations in cities, towns and villages across the land – economic inequalities cannot be fully correlated geographically. There is no doubt, for example, that rural areas may have a raw deal in terms of transport and digital infrastructures but it is, at the same time, far from realistic to assume that city-zens are much better served. If you really want a life off-grid then 1 mile downstream from Tower Bridge in SE16 may be just the digital desert you desire.
Secondly, it is mistaken to assume that rural citizens value being less connected. Some may well luxuriate in leafy glades surrounded by natural wonders and wildlife but making a living, having and creating gainful employment, being able to access medical care and education, and contributing to wider society are not absent from non-urban family agendas.
The key to reconciliation between different environments lies in the priorities given to issues of resilience. You might imagine that cities need, for example, stronger environmental efforts and rural areas need better digital infrastructures – but those are a generalisations; policies based on averages are ‘merely average’ and, generally, unfit for purpose.
Places and peoples are different and have diverse needs. The presumed-to-be unstoppable tidal flow of humanity towards major conurbations is as much in need of thoughtful management as migrations between countries. The leadership effort surely needs to be directed towards ironing out the relative risks and inequalities that prompt these migrations. Leaving them to grow and fester will surely only fuel future problems.