Critical Understanding of the Rural Actors’ Behaviour for Rural Transformation: A Systematic Literature Review

Authors

  • Seng Boon Lim College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Mara Perak Branch
  • Nurul Alia Nasuha Samsudin
  • Mohd Fadzil Abdul Rashid
  • Muhamad Asri Abdullah Kamar
  • Muhamad Azrul Azwan Azman
  • Wilmar Salim Department of Regional and City Planning, School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

Keywords:

behavioural study, rural development, social cohesion, social network

Abstract

Rural development has received less attention than urban areas yet is critically important in supplementing balanced social and environmental capital development sources. In most cases, top-down policies are implemented to assist in the transformation of rural actors’ lives and quality environments. Besides the physical rural planning, rural actors’ behaviour is crucial to materialising top-down policies for rural transformation. However, limited studies have clarified the meaning and conceptualised the scope of rural actors’ behaviour. Therefore, this study aims to understand rural actors’ behaviour towards empowering their roles in enhancing rural transformation. The systematic literature review methodology was applied where related WoS and Scopus databases were quantified, and critical themes were analysed through a qualitative thematic analysis using Atlas.ti. The findings reveal five important themes of economy, environment, physiology, social, and technology of the behaviour of rural actors that shed light on scoping the typology of the rural transformation. The manifestation of rural actors’ behaviours could lie in the spectrum of negative, neutral, and positive and mutually exclusive responses to the digital, economic, environmental, and social milieu of rural transformation. This finding underscores the complexity and diversity inherent in rural contexts, where actors encompass various entities such as individuals, communities, organisations, and institutions operating within rural settings. Multiple definitions and perspectives reflect rural communities’ intricacies, multifaceted nature, and transformation directions. The discussions suggest that rural actors’ behaviour cannot be simplified or reduced to a single framework or explanation. Instead, rural transformation requires a comprehensive and multidimensional approach that considers these actors’ varied motivations, needs, and decision-making processes. The study highlights the significance of social networks and community ties in shaping the behaviour of rural actors and the impact of cultural norms and values on their decision-making processes. This study contributes to developing a comprehensive framework for conceptualising the meaning and scope of rural actors’ behaviour in rural development initiatives. Policymakers and rural planners can consider these insights to design contextually relevant strategies promoting sustainable development, social cohesion, and well-being in rural areas in developing and developed countries.

Author Biographies

Nurul Alia Nasuha Samsudin

Postgraduate student

Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Mara Perak Branch, Malaysia

Mohd Fadzil Abdul Rashid

Associate Professor

Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Mara Perak Branch, Malaysia

Muhamad Asri Abdullah Kamar

Senior Lecturer

Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Mara Perak Branch, Malaysia

Muhamad Azrul Azwan Azman

Lecturer

Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Mara Perak Branch, Malaysia

Wilmar Salim, Department of Regional and City Planning, School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

Associate Professor

Department of Regional and City Planning, School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

References

Abbas, A., Ekowati, D., & Suhariadi, F. (2022). Social perspective: Leadership in changing society. In Social morphology, human welfare, and sustainability (pp. 89–107). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96760-4

Adam-Hernández, A., & Harteisen, U. (2020). A proposed framework for rural resilience – How can peripheral village communities in Europe shape change? AGER: Revista de Estudios Sobre Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural (Journal of Depopulation and Rural Development Studies), 2020(28), 7–42. https://doi.org/10.4422/ager.2019.05

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Berdegué, J. A., Rosada, T., & Bebbington, A. J. (2013). The rural transformation. In Evolving concepts of development through the experience of developing countries (pp. 1–44).

Burton, R. J. F. (2004). Reconceptualising the “behavioural approach” in agricultural studies: A socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001

Chekmarev, O., Lukichev, P., & Konev, P. (2020). Gasification model as a factor in sustainable development of rural areas. 80–86. https://doi.org/10.22616/ESRD.2020.54.010

Chen, C., Gao, J., & Chen, J. (2022). Behavioral logics of local actors enrolled in the restructuring of rural China: A case study of Haoqiao Village in northern Jiangsu. Journal of Rural Studies, 93, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.01.021

Chen, L., Hoey, J., Nugent, C. D., Cook, D. J., & Yu, Z. (2012). Sensor-based activity recognition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C 42(6), 790–808.

Chițea, L. (2021). Rural household in the process of modernization-development of the Romanian rural area. Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, 21.

Elgin, D., Murdoch, J., Payton Scally, C., & Hahn, H. (2021). Defining “rural” for the study on human services programs in rural contexts. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.

Fang, Y. gang, Shi, K. jian, & Niu, C. cheng. (2016). A comparison of the means and ends of rural construction land consolidation: Case studies of villagers’ attitudes and behaviours in Changchun City, Jilin province, China. Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.04.007

Frederick M. E. Grouzet. (2022). Proenvironmental Behavior. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 5081–5084). Springer Science+Business Media.

Gladek, E., Fraser, M., Roemers, G., Sabag Muñoz, O., Kennedy, E., & Hirsch, P. (2017). The global food system: An analysis. Metabolic.

Goodwin, J., & J. M. Jasper. (2009). The social movements reader: Cases and concepts. (2nd ed.). Wiley- Blackwell.

Hwang, D., Stewart, W. P., & Ko, D. wan. (2012). Community behavior and sustainable rural tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287511410350

Jiao, Y., Tan, M. L., Yusof, N., & Ghazali, S. (2022). A review of behaviour mechanisms between government and society in bargaining water pollution issues. Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 18(3), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.17576/geo-2022-1803-04

Kaufman, S., Saeri, A., Raven, R., Malekpour, S., & Smith, L. (2021). Behaviour in sustainability transitions: A mixed methods literature review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40, 586–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.010

Kementerian Pembangunan Luar Bandar. (2019). Dasar Pembangunan Luar Bandar.

Kivett, V., Stevenson, M., & Zwane, C. (2000). Very-old rural adults: Functional status and social support. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 19(1), 58–77.

Lim, S. B., & Kamaruddin, K. A. (2023). Violated factors in building citizen-centric e-government websites: insights from the performance of the federal, state and local governments websites in Malaysia. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, ahead-of-p, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-12-2021-0262

Ma, L., Zhang, Y., Shi, Z., & Dou, H. (2022). The Rural Livability Evaluation and Its Governance Path Based on the Left-Behind Perspective: Evidence from the Oasis Area of the Hexi Corridor in China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116714

Malek, J. A., Baharudin, R. A., Alfitri, & Tahir, Z. (2022). Rural youth local champions support for rural development policy and program. Planning Malaysia, 20(2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v20i21.1108

McGuire, R., Longo, A., & Sherry, E. (2022). Tackling poverty and social isolation using a smart rural development initiative. Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.010

McIntosh, C. (Ed. ),. (2013). Cambridge Advanced Learner’s dictionary (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Meder, B., Fleischhut, N., & Osman, M. (2018). Beyond the confines of choice architecture: A critical analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 68, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.08.004

National Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Social sciences in Nigeria. The NBS publications.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/ D. C. Heath and Company.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). The basic toolkit: Tools and ethics for applied Behavioural Insights. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9ea76a8f-en.

Pérez, D. I., & Ciccia, L. G. (2019). Natural kinds, normative kinds and human behavior. Filosofia Unisinos, 20(3), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.4013/FSU.2019.203.04

Rashid, M. F. A., Muhamad, A. K., Rashid, K., Ahmad, A. L., & Azman, M. A. A. (2021). Formulation of a Malaysia modern rural development framework: Synergising rural for change. Planning Malaysia, 19(2), 14–26.

Sahrir, S., Ponrahono, Z., & Sharaai, A. H. (2022). Modelling the community adaptive behaviour towards air pollution: a confirmatory factor analysis with PLS-SEM. Planning Malaysia, 20(3), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.21837/PM.V20I22.1139

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–891.

Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Houghton-Mifflin.

Sherval, M., Askew, L. E., & McGuirk, P. M. (2022). Human Cost of Drought. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 3005–3010). Springer Science+Business Media.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (n.d.). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole.

USDA’s Economic Research Service. (n.d.). What is rural? Retrieved May 26, 2023, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural/

Vercher, N. (2022). The role of actors in social innovation in rural areas. Land, 11(5), 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050710

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. J. Theory Soc. Behav , 36, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2006.00297.x

Wang, X., Wang, X., Wu, J., & Zhao, G. (2017). Social network analysis of actors in rural development: A case study of Yanhe Village, Hubei Province, China. Growth and Change, 48(4), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12195

Wood, W., Mazar, A., & Neal, D. T. (2021). Habits and goals in human behavior: Separate but interacting systems. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(2), 590–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621994226

World Bank Group. (2015). Mind, society, and behavior.

World Tourism Organization. (2018). UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2018 Edition. UNWTO. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284419876

Yildiz, B., Kaptan, Z., Yildiz, T., Elibol, E., Yildiz, H., & Ozbilgin, M. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analytic synthesis of the relationship between compulsory citizenship behaviors and its theoretical correlates. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1120209

Yu, Z., Du, H., Yi, F., Wang, Z., & Guo, B. (2019). Ten scientific problems in human behavior understanding. CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction, 1(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42486-018-00003-w

Zavratnik, V., Kos, A., & Duh, E. S. (2018). Smart villages: Comprehensive review of initiatives and practices. Sustainability, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072559

Downloads

Published

2024-09-29

How to Cite

Lim, S. B., Samsudin, N. A. N., Abdul Rashid, M. F., Abdullah Kamar, M. A., Azman, M. A. A., & Salim, W. (2024). Critical Understanding of the Rural Actors’ Behaviour for Rural Transformation: A Systematic Literature Review. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 9(30). Retrieved from https://ebpj.e-iph.co.uk/index.php/EBProceedings/article/view/6044