LUCRĂRI ŞTIINŢIFICE, SERIA I, VOL.

XXII(2)

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ROMANIAN RURAL AREA IN A EUROPEAN

CONTEXT

ADAMOV TABITA CORNELIA1, IANCU TIBERIU*1, PÎRVULESCU LUMINIȚA1, PEȚ

ELENA1, NICOLETA MATEOC-SÎRB1, COSMIN SĂLĂȘAN1, PASCARIU LUCIAN1
1
Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine “King Michael I of
Romania” from Timisoara, Faculty of Management and Rural Tourism
*Corresponding author's e-mail: iancutiberiu10@gmail.com

Abstract: The complexity of the economic, social and ecological characteristics of the rural
environment determines deep implications in the substantiation of sustainable rural
development policies [1,5]. The rural area occupies an important place in the history,
civilization and national identity of the Member States of the European Union, both in
terms of economic and social dimensions and the cultural and ecological dimensions. Thus,
in the sustainable development policy of the European Union, the rural area occupies an
important place, the future of the EU being marked by the sustainable use of the rural area.

Key words: rural area, economic, social and cultural dimension

INTRODUCTION
The rural area is characterized by certain distinct elements and activities that give it
authenticity, specificity and individuality, compared to other areas.
The set of activities, of economic, social and cultural nature, carried out in rural
areas, can represent the three main functions of the rural space.
The economic function is the basic function of the rural area. This materializes in
the initiation and development of agricultural and non-agricultural activities, located
upstream and downstream of the agricultural production process, in rural areas [6, 14].
Thus, this function aims to promote the production of the primary sector, the sustainable
capitalization of natural resources specific to rural areas, the development of agritourism as
an activity related to agricultural activity, the establishment and operation of small and
medium enterprises in the field of production and services and promoting handicraft
activity [2, 8].
In the modern sense, the economic dimension is considered complex, being
characterized by pluriactivity, currently, the rural area is no longer an "eminently
agricultural" area. The increasingly complex and diversified structure of the rural economy
is translated into important social implications on the quality of life of rural residents [10,
11]. Thus, it can be observed: a reduction of the migration of the rural population towards
the urban centers; the possibility of carrying out economic activities, in different non-
agricultural branches, materializes in maintaining young people in rural areas, creating
different sources of income for the inhabitants of these areas, more complex use of labor
and, the possibility of practicing part-time agricultural activities, in private-family farms
[4, 7].
The economic development of rural areas is translated into a set of actions with a
negative impact on the environment, which have resulted in increased pollution of rural
areas, disturbance and destruction of the ecological balance, among agricultural and forest
ecosystems, deterioration of landscapes and the alarming decline in the fauna and flora of
these areas [9, 13]. The measures which must be taken to achieve ecological balance,
return to a certain level of rurality and eradicate or reduce the negative effects, presented
above, indicate the ecological function of rural space as an important element in improving
this area [3, 15].
The nature of human activity, as well as the interpersonal relations within rural and
intra-community communities, give to the rural area a pronounced social character.
5
 FACULTATEA DE MANAGEMENT AGRICOL

Compared to the urban environment, where the dominant feature is anonymity, in

rural areas, the inhabitants of these settlements know each other, in all aspects. The
phenomenon of "urbanization", encountered mainly in peri-urban rural areas, is a negative
factor, in terms of preserving the traditions and customs specific to rural communities and
degrading their authenticity. However, there are quite a few areas, where we could say,
where the authenticity of the village is still found, in the treasures of ethnography and
folklore, in crafts, which constitute a real wealth of the rural world. In fact, rural
authenticity is represented by popular culture, traditions and customs, ethnography and
folklore [12].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This paper aims to characterize the European rural area and identify its main
defining elements. The study is based on the consultation of numerous specialized studies
conducted at both national and European level, as well as the statistical interpretation of
existing data.

RESEARCH RESULTS
The area of the EU-28 is about 4.5 million km2. Over half of the total area of the
European Union, 52% is represented by rural areas, 38.2% by intermediate regions and
9.8% by urban regions. [2, 8, 12]
If we analyze the structure of the territory for the EU-N13 (accession states after
2004, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia), the rural regions represent 58,3% of the
territory, more than the European average, while urban regions cover only 6.3%.
At EU level, we have Member States, such as Ireland, Finland, Estonia, Portugal
and Austria, where predominantly rural areas represents for about 80%. Opposite peoples
are states such as Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta, where according to the classification
method based on NUTS 3 regions, no predominantly rural regions are registered.

Table 1.
Characteristics of the Romanian rural area, according to the EUROSTAT-OECD typology
Romania Mostly rural Intermediate Mostly urban
regions regions regions
Specification Total % Total % Total % Total %
Total area-km2 238,391 100 142.545 59.79 94.025 39,44 1821 0.76
Total area used - km2 230.021 100 136.443 59.32 91.819 39.92 1759 0.76
Population-millions of 20.020 100 9012 45.02 8726 43.58 2258 11.40
inhabitants
Population density-place/ 87.0 - 66.1 - 95.0 - 1297.5 -
km2
Source: Dona I., 2015 [2]

In relation to the area owned, Romania ranks seventh among the Member States of
the European Union, 87% of the area being represented by rural areas. An analysis of the
area occupied by rural areas, taking into account the OECD classification for rural areas
NUTS 3, indicates that the predominantly rural areas account for 59.79% of the country's
surface, a value higher than both the European average (52%) and the EU -N13 average
(58.3%). If we add to these territories the area of intermediate areas, 39.44% (Table 1.), we
can say, therefore, that in Romania, the rural area represents 99.24% of the total area.
The importance of rural areas and the primary sector. In the analysis of the
economic importance of rural areas and the primary sector, in the European Union

6
 LUCRĂRI ŞTIINŢIFICE, SERIA I, VOL. XXII(2)

economy, we used a series of indicators such as: GDP/inhabitant, share of primary sector
in GVA, branch structure of the economy and employment.
The economic dimension of rural area
The value of GDP/inhabitant in urban and rural areas shows significant differences.
Even if it represents an important sector of the economy of each state, agriculture indicates
different values, in the structure of GDP, depending on the regions of the rural area. In
2014, the value of GDP/ inhabitant was lower in rural areas than in other areas,
representing 72% of the EU average, compared to 88% in intermediate areas and 121% in
urban areas. In the predominantly rural regions of Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia the value
of this indicator was less than 40% of the EU-28 average, in the period 2011-2013, while
in the Netherlands this value was 113%.
The structure of the rural economy is different in the regions of the European
Union. In the EU-28 economy as a whole, the primary sector accounted for only 1.5% of
GVA in 2016.

Figure 1. The structure of the economy by branches of activity, in EU-28, 2016

Source: [15]

In rural areas, the share of the primary sector in total Gross Value Added, at EU-28
level, was, in 2016, on average 4.2%, registering different values from one Member State
to another. For EU-15 Member States, the share of this sector was lower than the EU-28
average, only 3.7%, while in EU-N13 Member States, the value was higher - 7.1%.
On a more detailed analysis of the share of the primary sector in total GVA, in rural
areas, we will see that there are countries where this sector exceeds 10%, Bulgaria,
Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, countries such as Romania, Hungary and Greece, where
value is in the range of 8-10%, but also countries where the value is very low, below 3%,
Germany, Belgium and Ireland.
Employment. At EU level, most jobs are concentrated in the tertiary sector
(73.8%), regardless of the reference area. However, the value differs in EU-28 Member
States, 77.6% for EU-15 Member States and 58.8% for EU-N13 Member States.
The primary sector still holds an important share in the overall employed
population, in rural areas, in some EU-28 Member States, such as Romania, Bulgaria,
Greece and Poland, where the agricultural population represents more than 10% of the total
employed population, Figure 2.

7
 FACULTATEA DE MANAGEMENT AGRICOL

Figure 2. Share of the population employed in agriculture in total

employed population, 2016
Source: [15]

The employment rate differs by region at EU-28 level. The employment rate in
rural areas is lower than in the urban and intermediate regions.
Starting with 2010, the share of employment in agriculture indicates a decrease in
rural areas from 16.2% in 2010 to 12% in 2016 and maintaining it at a low level in urban
areas, varying between 1.2% - 1.6% in the period 2010-2016. In the period 2010-2016, at
EU-28 the share of employment in agriculture decreased on average by 3.7%.
Among the EU-28 countries we find countries where the employment rate in rural
areas is very high - Denmark, but also countries with a lower employment rate (Croatia,
Italy and Spain), which tend to have the highest population employment rates, in densely
populated areas, urban areas.
The analysis of employment and unemployment rate, by area, allows to be drawn
the following conclusions:
 the employment rate of the population is generally higher in urban than in rural
areas;
 employment in cities is close to the EU-28 average, while in rural areas it is lower;
 starting with 2012, the urban-rural gap in employment has begun to narrow;
 starting with 2012, there has been an increase in the unemployment rate in cities;
 in 2016, unemployment in rural areas is at the same level as in the intermediate
area, being lower than in cities;
 the youth unemployment rate is significantly higher than the total unemployment
rate;
 the highest level of unemployment was recorded in urban areas, as in the case of
global unemployment;
 after 2013, the youth unemployment rate is declining in all areas;

8
 LUCRĂRI ŞTIINŢIFICE, SERIA I, VOL. XXII(2)

 the share of unemployed young people who do not attend any form of education is
higher in rural areas compared to the other two areas;
 the unemployment rate is higher in cities than in intermediate and rural areas, for
both men and women;
 in intermediate and rural areas there are higher unemployment rates for women,
while in urban areas high unemployment rates are recorded among men.
The social dimension of rural area
Demographic aspects. In 2016, the EU-28 population was around 510.3 million
inhabitants, marked by a slow but steady growth of about 0.3% per year since 2000. Out of
the total EU population, 79.5% live in EU-15 countries and 20.5% in EU-N13 countries.
At the level of the European Union, in 2016, in predominantly rural regions were
registered a number of 97,364 thousand inhabitants, less than in the intermediate areas,
where 183,924 thousand people were registered and urban areas where 288,480 thousand
people live.

Figure 3. Population distribution, by types of regions, EU, 2016

Source: [15]

The majority of the EU-28 population lives in predominantly urban regions,

50.63% and in the intermediate regions, 32.28%, Figure 3. Exceptions are the EU-N13
countries where most of the inhabitants are in intermediate regions, 44.94%, and
predominantly rural 33.80%, the two regions concentrating more than 2/3 of the population
of these countries (78.74%).
The distribution of the population on the three regions (mostly rural, intermediate
and mostly urban) varies greatly from one country to another (Figure 4.).Thus, over 50%
of the population of Ireland, Slovenia and Romania, live mainly in rural areas. In
opposition, there are 7 other Member States, Malta, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Spain, Belgium, Latvia, and Sweden, where most people live in urban areas.

9
 FACULTATEA DE MANAGEMENT AGRICOL

Figure 4. Share of rural population, total population, EU-28, 2016,

Source: [15]

The share of the rural population in the total population varies from one Member
State to another. At the level of 2016, in Ireland, Slovenia and Romania, more than half of
the population of these countries lived in rural areas.
At EU level, we also find countries such as Italy, Sweden, Lithuania, Belgium, the
United Kingdom, Spain and the Netherlands, where the rural population represents less
than 10% of the total population.
In the period 2006-2016, there is a decrease in the number of people living in rural
areas, a situation encountered in all EU countries, except Greece, Poland and Slovakia,
where there are small increases. The largest decrease in the rural population was recorded
in Estonia and Romania.
A relevant indicator in the analysis of the situation of the rural space is represented
by the population density. At the level of 2015, the population density in the EU-28 was
117 inhabitants per km2. Thus, we meet countries where the population density is very high
(Malta, the Netherlands and Belgium), but also countries such as Finland and Sweden
where the lowest population densities are registered.
Between 2010 and 2015, at EU level, population density remained largely stable as
a whole, but decreased in rural and intermediate regions. It is also known that in rural areas
the population density is lower than in intermediate and urban regions (the classification of
regions in rural, intermediate and urban areas is based on population density).
Between 2010 and 2015, population density remained largely stable in the EU as a
whole, but decreased in rural and intermediate regions. In rural areas, population density is
lower compared to intermediate and urban areas.
Structures by age groups of the population
In 2016, 16% of the EU-28 population was in the under-15 age category, 65% in
the 15-64 age group and 19% in the elderly (65 years and over).
Since 2011, in all EU-28 regions, there has been an increase in the share of older
people and, at the same time, a decrease in the share of young people, except in urban areas
where it has increased slightly, + 0.1%.
The analysis of the age structure of the population, at the level of EU Member
States, indicates that the young people age group has the highest value in the urban regions
of the EU-15 (16%) and the lowest value in the urban regions of the EU-N13 (14.5%). In
2016, Ireland had the highest share of young people - 22%, followed by France (18.5%)
and the United Kingdom (18%), while the lowest values were recorded in Germany (13%).
%) and Italy (14%).

10
 LUCRĂRI ŞTIINŢIFICE, SERIA I, VOL. XXII(2)

Elderly people category is more widespread in rural and intermediate areas of the
EU-15, where the difference from the EU-N13 regions is 4.3% in rural areas and 4.0% in
intermediate areas, Figure 5.
Regarding the share of the elderly, countries such as Italy, Greece and Germany
indicated the highest values, approximately 21-22%, all increasing after 2011: + 0.4% for
Germany, + 1.5% for Italy and + 2% for Greece. However, the largest increase in the share
of older people was recorded in Hungary (+ 3.3%) and Finland (+ 3%).

Figure 5. Structure by age groups and areas of the population

Source: [15]

The share of children and young people is approximately equal in rural,

intermediate and urban areas, with the exception of urban areas in the EU-15. Also, in the
EU-15, a high share is indicated by the elderly, 21% - in rural areas and 20% in
intermediate areas. The share of the working age population at EU-15 level is slightly
lower in rural areas compared to urban and intermediate areas. In the EU-N13 Member
States, the share of the active population indicates higher values than in the EU-15, with
the highest values being recorded in urban and intermediate areas.
Education. Levels of education and training in rural areas are generally lower than
in the other two areas. In 2015, the highest percentage of early school leaving in the EU-28
was reported in rural areas (12.2%), while the lowest was reported in urban areas (just
under 10%). The same model of educational achievement, lower, is reflected in the share
of adults participating in education or training. In 2012, only 6.6% of adults aged between
25 and 64 in rural areas took part in education or training, while globally the value was
11%.
Internet access. In the European Union, in the last 10 years, there can be a
significant increase in the endowment with internet, of housing. Thus, for the European
Union as a whole, the increase was over 100%, high values being recorded in rural areas,
where the growth rate of this indicator was over 150%, from 31% in 2007 to 79%, in 2017.
The share of EU-28 housing, Figure 6., who have access to the internet at home,
reached, in 2017, a level of 85%, in rural areas, being registered a lower value, only 79%.

11
 FACULTATEA DE MANAGEMENT AGRICOL

Figure 6. Share of households from rural areas with internet access, 2017
Source: [15]

The situation regarding access to the internet in rural areas of the EU-28 is different
in the Member States. Thus, in 14 countries, less than 75% of households have internet
access at home, in Bulgaria, every second rural household has no internet access.
Poverty. In the European Union, the rural-urban exodus is a rising phenomenon, in
2016, 41.2% of the inhabitants of the European Union lived in the city, 30.6% of them in
intermediate areas and only 28.2% in rural areas. The phenomenon of urbanization and
exodus from the village to the city is booming.
Regarding living standards, social exclusion and poverty, the incidence is higher in
rural areas, with 25.5% of the population at risk of poverty. In the case of the other two
areas, the values are lower, 24.0%, in urban areas and 22.1% in intermediate areas.

Figure 7. Poverty by area, EU-28, 2016,%

Source: [15]

At national level, the share of the population in rural areas, who face the risk of
social exclusion or poverty, is over 50% (51.7%), a value much higher than the European
average. Regarding the intermediate and urban areas, the share of the population at risk is
lower, 33.3% in the intermediate regions and 24.3% in the urban area.

12
 LUCRĂRI ŞTIINŢIFICE, SERIA I, VOL. XXII(2)

In the last 8 years, the percentage of the total population at risk of poverty has
decreased in all rural areas of the EU-28, from 29.0% in 2010 to 25.5% in 2016, which has
reduced the gap between rural and other areas, Figure 7.
At the level of the EU-28 Member States, the situation was very different. Thus, in
terms of the risk of social exclusion and poverty, 12 EU-28 member states with low values
of these indicators were registered in urban areas (Slovakia - 13%, Czech Republic -
13.8%, Poland 16.2% and Finland 17.2%), another 10 Member States with lower values in
rural areas and another 6 states with lower values in intermediate areas.
An important element in the life of the village is the culture. This, mainly popular
culture, ethnography and folklore, is what gives the true value and dimension to local
creation, authenticity and local specificity, it is in fact the defining element of the rural
community and also a way to maintain the attractiveness of the village for young people
[12] .

CONCLUSIONS
The economic and social transformations produced, lately, have imprinted on the
rural area, a heterogeneous character, fact due to the not uniform development of the
villages. Thus, at present, the profile of the European rural area is marked by the existence
of evolutionary models, going from the developed rural, specific to peri-urban areas, to the
traditional rural from the rural areas proper, characterized by practicing, mainly, a
subsistence agriculture and poor development of rural infrastructure.
Even if the modernization of rural areas has had a positive effect in terms of
increasing the living standards of the inhabitants of these areas, it is also appropriate to
have a negative effect in terms of changing architecture, abandoning traditions and
customs, destroying the specificity of the Romanian village. In this sense, we must pay
more attention to actions on preserving traditions and customs, the authenticity of folk art
and the promotion of traditional products, in fact, to put traditional culture at the center of
sustainable development policies of the Romanian village.

REFERENCES

[1]. ADAMOV TABITA CORNELIA, IANCU T., 2019, Economia spațiului rural,
Editura Agroprint, Timișoara
[2]. DONA I., 2015, Economie rurală, Editura Economică, București
[3]. FEHER ANDREA, 2016, Imperatives for the development of non-agricultural
activities in Romanian rural area, Lucrări Ştiinţifice Management Agricol, vol. 18(1)
[4]. HURMUZACHE TABITA, IANCU T., FEHER ANDREA, RAICOV
MIROSLAV, 2014, Aspects regarding the quality of life in roumanian rural space,
Scientific Journal of the University of Szeged, Faculty of Agriculture, Vol. 3(1)
[5]. IANCU T., 2007, Economie agrară, Editura Agroprint, Timișoara
[6]. IANCU T., BRAD I., MILIN ANDA, HURMUZACHE TABITA-CORNELIA,
IOSIM IASMINA, 2011, Aspects that characterize the quality of life in romanian rural
area, Lucrări ştiinţifice. Seria Agronomie, vol. 54
[7]. IANCU T., 2014, Issues characterizing romanian agricultural production Journal of
Horticulture, Forestry and Biotechnology, Vol 18 (3)
[8]. MAN T.E., MATEOC-SÎRB NICOLETA, 2007, Dezvoltarea rurală și regională a
satului românesc, Editura Politehnică, Timișoara

13
 FACULTATEA DE MANAGEMENT AGRICOL

[9]. MANESCU CAMELIA, MATEOC T., IANCU T., CRISTINA ADA-FLAVIA,

POPESCU A., MATEOC-SIRB NICOLETA, 2014, Research on the influence of
regional policy development of rural communities, Scientific Papers-Series Management
Economic Engineering In Agriculture And Rural Development, Volume: 15, Issue: 1
[10]. SATTERTHWAITE, 2007, The transition to a predominantly urban world an
underpinning, Human Settlements, Discussion Paper - Urban Change 4, IIED, London
[11]. RENTING H., SCHAER B., 2006, From Productivism to Mutifunctionality: Rural
Development in France, In: Driving Rural Development – Policy and Practice in Seven EU
Countries (O’Connor D., Renting H., Gorman M., Kinsella J. (Eds..), Royal Van Gorcum,
the the Netherlands
[12]. OTIMAN P.I., 2019, Viața rurală românească pe lungul drum între flămânzi și
Uniunea Europeană sau Drama satului și a țăranului roman, într-un secol de iluzii,
dezamăgiri și speranțe, Editura Academiei Române, Editura Artpress
[13]. OTIMAN P.I., MATEOC-SÎRB NICOLAETA, MĂNESCU CAMELIA, 2013,
Economie rurală, Editura Mirton, Timișoara
[14]. SÎRBULESCU CLAUDIA, PÎRVULESCU LUMINIȚA, IANCU T., 2015, The
financial resources of agriculture, Lucrări ştiinţifice Management Agricol, vol. XVII(3)
[15]. EU - Rural areas and the primary sector in the EU

14