Can our past failures at community development be traced back to something as elementary as having accurate definitions of urban rural, and suburban environments? While there are no universal quantitative parameters defining these descriptors, generally, they are used in terms of comparing population density relative to other spaces with different density. What we consider urban areas only exist because we are able to distinguish them from other areas that are noticeably less dense. The density difference is so noticeable that we believe the characteristics of daily life in these areas are different enough that we cannot call them urban areas, but rather rural areas. However, in the last few decades, we have seen a new human environment be created in the space between the urban and the rural in which elements of both environments are combined to form suburban environments that are not quite rural or urban yet are both rural and urban at the same time. This is a widely accepted understanding, but what if its wrong? After further study, anthropologists reveal that the characteristics that define these environments are much more diverse. Economic activity, social diversity, and access to natural resources all contribute to the establishment of urban, rural, and suburban environments. In fact, after reading this section, I would argue that proximity to resources and economic activity exist as two ends of a scale. Areas that have a close proximity to resources and economic activity are urban. Areas that have a close proximity to resources but less economic activity are rural. Areas that do not have a close proximity to resources but have relatively higher economic activity are suburban. Anthropologists and urbanists have to understand that these definitions are fluid with time and subject to change.