Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11189/10945
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSikhosana, Phindokuhleen_US
dc.contributor.authorMashalaba, Yandisa Bavuleleen_US
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-22T07:09:47Z-
dc.date.available2026-10-22T07:09:47Z-
dc.date.issued2025-
dc.identifier.citationSikhosana, P. & Mashalaba, Y.B. 2025. Rethinking rural development research: gaps, frameworks, and emerging directions (2010-2025). Town and Regional Planning, 87: 7-23. [https://doi.org/10.38140/trp.v87i.9898]en_US
dc.identifier.issn2415-0495 (Online)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11189/10945-
dc.description.abstractRural human-settlement planning faces persistent theoretical and methodological challenges that weaken policy design and implementation. Despite extensive scholarship, the field remains fragmented by inconsistent definitions of ‘rural’, limited theoretical integration, and methodological heterogeneity, all of which constrain comparative analysis and evidence-based decision-making. This review of literature (2010-2025), based on a qualitative desktop approach and thematic analysis, identifies four critical gaps. First, definitional ambiguity produces widely divergent rural population estimates, complicating programme targeting and evaluation. Secondly, theoretical fragmentation prevents the development of integrated frameworks that address social, economic, and environmental priorities collectively. Thirdly, methodological practice is dominated by single-case studies, limiting cross-context learning and the transferability of findings. Fourthly, environmental and governance dimensions are unevenly incorporated into sustainability research, reducing its relevance for resilience building and institutional reform. These shortcomings have practical consequences, namely unclear classifications risk excluding intended beneficiaries, siloed theory undermines coordination, and narrow methods weaken the evidence base for scaling interventions. Advancing the field requires context-sensitive rural classifications, integrated socio-ecological-governance frameworks, and methodological innovation – particularly comparative, longitudinal, and mixed-methods designs – to enable systematic learning across diverse rural settings and respond effectively to pressures such as climate change, urbanisation, and technological transformation.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of the Free Stateen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTown and Regional Planningen_US
dc.subjectRural developmenten_US
dc.subjectHuman settlement planningen_US
dc.subjectSustainabilityen_US
dc.subjectGovernanceen_US
dc.subjectSpatial heterogeneityen_US
dc.subjectPlace-based developmenten_US
dc.subjectInterdisciplinary researchen_US
dc.titleRethinking rural development research: gaps, frameworks, and emerging directions (2010-2025)en_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.38140/trp.v87i.9898-
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:Eng - Journal articles (DHET subsidised)
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Rethinking_rural_development_research.pdf3.39 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Digital Knowledge are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.