[caption id="attachment_107015" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="”RURAL-URBAN LAND-USE TRIANGLE” (Pryor in Yunus, 2000: 165-167)"][/caption]
Land use as the product of human activity on Earth's surface show a very large variation, both within the local town and in the regional city. An understanding of the forms of land use that characterizes the built up area, urban-rural transition area and the countryside itself is a matter of principle to do its spatial structure differentiation. In addition, an understanding of the term "urban" and "rural" also need special attention. Two terms are generally considered to be contradictory. The word "urban" is an adjective relating to urban life and the word "rural" associated with countrified life. Aspects of life itself, both urban and countrified aspect of political, social, economic, cultural, psychological, technological, and physical. In discussing this morphological approach, someone always insisted on the physical aspect and one of which is land use.
To distinguish between types of urban and rural land use, in general these kinds of linkages with the agricultural-land became the main focus. It is recognized that most of the provincial land use type is always associated with agricultural activities, but also recognized that the existing urban land used for agricultural activities and some provincial lands which have more to do with the interests of agriculture. Thus, it appears the term "urban agricultural-land" and "rural agricultural-land." The first is that these lands are located in urban areas (morphologically) that are used for agricultural purposes. While for the "rural agricultural-land" lots of examples and is very common in rural areas, among others, rice field, dry land, garden mix, etc. Thus, identifying with the provincial agricultural or non-urban agriculture is not one hundred percent correct, but linking the proportion of "urban agricultural land" compared with "urban non-agricultural land" is very small, its presence is always ignored. Similarly, "rural non-agricultural land" in rural areas, and meanwhile "rural agricultural-land" types dominate the land use in rural and urban areas. On the basis of these two types of land use in rural and "urban non-agricultural land" to dominate the land use type is the label for the rural areas on the one hand, and urban on the other side. Definition of "dominance" is always used for any discussion of spatial structure in terms of land use type. The main problem lies in the transition area from the appearance of a real urban to rural real appearance. In this transition area domination problem seemed to blur. Especially for regions that show (gradual transformation) from urban to be rural. However, with certain approaches to differentiation and counting of each type of land use can be done, among others, with the "grid system approach," "administrative approach", or "physical approach." From the calculation of land use area in each cell (in the "grid system approach"), or "areal units" (in the administrative and physical approach), the percentage of land use orientation can be known and also can be determined to sub-zone of each cell (unit area) (Yunus; 2000:162-164).
Morphology of cities by Robin Pryor
Pryor in Yunus (2000:165-167) to calculate the percentage of urban land use, percentage of provincial land use and the percentage distance from the main urban area. These three components are combined in the rural-urban land use triangle. The creation of this model is based on the idea of gradual transformation from city to village. "Distant Decay Principle" also applies here, where the further away from the "real urban" appearance will increasingly blur the town and village became clear appearance. In other words can be expressed that has come closer to urban areas (in terms of morphology) the dominance of other forms of urban land use would be bigger.
Pryor suggested the term of 4 sub-zones for different in the "regional city" (the term of Russwurm, 1975): (1) urban areas, (2) urban fringe, (3) rural fringe, (4) rural areas. Urban areas are areas that form the use of land completely non-agriculture oriented, while rural areas are areas of land use completely oriented agriculture. The problem in an attempt to differentiate these zones are areas located between the urban areas and rural areas. In this case Pryor was named the area as rural-urban fringe, which is fully defined as follows:
"The rural urban fringe is the zone of transition in land use, social and demographic characteristics, lying between (a) the continuously built-up urban and sub-urban areas of the central city, and (b) the rural hinterland, characterized by the almost complete absence of non-farm dwellings, occupations and land use, and of urban and rural social orientation an incomplete range and penetration of urban utility services; uncoordinated zoning or planning regulations; area extension beyond although contiguous with the political boundary of the central city; and an actual and potential increase in population density, with the current density above that of surrounding rural districts but lower than the central city. These characteristics may differ both zonal and sectorally, and will be modified through time".
Based on rural-urban land use triangle, the rural-urban fringe can still be divided into two distinct sub-zones: (1) urban fringe and (2) rural fringe. Dominance of the morphological appearance of a main confluence of this differentiation. Each sub-zones are described as follows:
"The urban fringe is the sub zone the rural-urban fringe which is in contact and contiguous with the central city, exhibiting a density of occupied dwellings higher than the median density the total rural-urban fringe a high proportion of residential, commercial, industrial and vacant distinct, land use conversion, and commuting. The rural fringe is the zone of the rural-urban fringe which is the contiguous with the urban fringe, a high proportion of farm as distinct from non-farm and vacant land, and lower rate of increase in population density, land use conversion and commuting".
Although quantitatively, Pryor suggests dominance of land-use issues as a basis for the introduction of sub-zones, but there are still things that are confusing, especially in areas that the proportion of urban land use in balance with the proportion of village land use.
In these land-use model, the boundary between the urban fringe and rural fringe is on the line halfway between the two sub-zone. This barrier not only manifested in the line, but as a zone too.