Encyclopedia
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Carmen Delgado-Viñas and Version 4 by Sirius Huang.
The relationships and interactions between rural and urban spaces have long been of interest to territorial sciences. However, approaches to these issues have evolved in line with the changing characteristics of the two types of territories, reflecting new relationships and structures.
- urban sprawl
- rural–urban integration
- countryside urbanisation
- deagrarianisation
- land use
1. Introduction
Any study of rural–urbanban-rural relations and interactions requires the fundamental assumption that some spaces can be classified as “urban” and others as “rural”. AlthoughWhile this is indeed true, urban and rural areas do not constitute two separate territories that can be considereneeded in isolation. On the contrary, they are strongurely interrelated in many ways, and their connections must be investigated, theoretically and empirically, in terms of identity, causality, and effects.
Terms suchlike as rural vs. urban and the co runtryal vs. the city are commonly used to identify the main types of geographical spaces, both in academic circles and colloquially circles. Defining them, in both cases, usually involv frequently, implies a simplifying conceptual approach to address interdependent and complementary realities, focusing on the main featurecharacteristics of their interconnections; hence, the numerous and continuingous attempts to derive an almost impossible conceptual delimitation that, until recently, and especially in the case of rural spaces, usualfrequently lacks completed exhaustiveness and accuracyprecision [ 1 , 2 [1][2]].
2. Interaction between Rural and Urban Spaces: Updating of the Theoretical Framework
The terms “"rural” and “urban”" and "urban" refer to spatial realities that have often been interpreted as opposed, or even antagonistic and divergent [3][4][ 10 , 11 ], from a dichotomous binary perspective based on alterity witoh the urban environment. This approach not only represents a simplification in various aspects, but also expresses a non-existent homogeneity of rural and urban spaces, as if there were only one model of each category.
The s
Spatial reality is much more complex than the abprevioveus notion. MoreoverFurthermore, this issue of complexity is increasing, and a completefull understanding of the question would requireneed for multiple interdisciplinary analyses. This is particularly soespecially true today, when hybrid spatial environments [5][ 12 ] and numerous multifunctional rural landscapes [ 13 ] are takbeing shape [6]configured. Although the most intense interactions are taking place in rural spaces that have becomen integrated into functional urban and peri-urban areas, rural spaces that are more distant or less well connected withto urban ones are also experiencing the impact of cities, albeit indirectly; for example, as falling levels ofthe drop in population levels caused by rural–-urban migration [7][ 14 ].
As r
Regardsing the first aspect, many rural areas are now witnessing the birth of a distinctfferentiated spatial reality. The term “new rurality” [8][9][10][11][ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] refers to the reconstructed forms of organiszation and the functional transformations that are being observed in spaces that previously had a rural identity and that are now evolving towards a different category of rural space. [12][13][ 19 , 20 ]. Although the meanings assigned to this term by different theorists do not always coincide—, in particular, there are significant conceptual differences between European [14][ 21 ] and Latin American [ authors22 ] authors., 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]]—, it is generally accepted that the essential features of this “new rurality” consist of an increased greater mobility of people and goodsmerchandise, the diversification of economic activities and a modification of land usethe use of the land. soil [ 29 , 30 [22][23]].
A major socioeconomic transformation that has taken place in many areas is that of “deagrarianiszation” [ 31 [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31], 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , or38], tha t is, the reduction in the importance of agrarianicultural activities, in terms of employed population and income, and the correspondingly greater weight of non-agrarianicultural forms of occupation. Deagrarianisaemployment. The degrarization leads to a progressive loss of traditional ways of life, sucho that agrarianicultural activity ceases to constitute the economic base and the main hallmark of rurality. It is a process that responds to the new productive and territorial logics of the globaliszed economy and hathat has been associated with deruralisationzation [ 39 [32]] from a perspective based on the premise —that the rural environment can be fully identified with agricultural activity. As concernfar as Spain is concerned, deagrarianisationzation [ 40 , [33][34][35]41 , 42] has been cited among the structural causes of the rural exodus, with sparticularecial reference to the moderniszation of agrarianicultural activity [36][ 43 ]. For this reason, it is often visewed as an effect that is en as a generalised zed effect and not exclusive to urbaniszed rural areas.
Another significant change, as a general rulely complementary to the abovprevious one, is the shift in patterns of employment and economic activity towards the services sector, together with the acquisition of a subsidiary residential function with the construction of second homes for the urban population [ 44 [37][38][39], 45 , 46 ].
The historical interaction between rural and urban spaces has bevolved incessantlyen constantly evolving, profoundly transforming the relationships between the countryside and the city [40][ 47 ] and blurring the boundaries between urban and rural environments. NHowevertheless, significant differences remain,persist and few authors question the existence of a rural–-urban divide. Moreovergap. Furthermore, scholars have observed the gradual consolidation of fissures between different types of rural spaces [41][42][43][ 48 , 49 , 50 ], although theyse may be concealmasked by the regular occupational mobility of a large part of the rural population [44][45][ 51 , 52 ].
It is almost universally arecknowledgognized that the main driver of these changes is “'rural urbanisation”zation'. This process has manyultiple consequences, including the physical modification of the territory and changes in its socioeconomic structures [ 53 , [46][47][48]54 , 55 ]. This urbaniszation is functional, morphological, landscape-based and cultural, and it takes place occurs not only in areas bordering or readilwith easy accessible to large cities, but also in more remote territories and thoseareas bordering medium-sized and even small cities [ 56 [49][50][51], 57 , 58 which] , thus configureing micropolitan areas [52][ 59 ].
The fact that urbaniszation processes are the main factor triggering the territorial mutations that have occurred in many contemporary societies [53][54][55][ 60 , 61 , 62 ] explains the primacy of the urban-centric standpointpproach that has been adopted in most studies of. about rural areas, both past and past. present [56][57][ 63 , 64 ]. Thus, it is very widely accepted that the revitaliszation of rural spaces takes place via goes through logics according to which they are modified physically and socially modified. These logics, moreover, also have an impact on the strategies used to obtain the economies of urban agglomeration, such as spatial externalities, from which some rural areas also benefit [65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , [58][59][60][61][62][63]69 , 70 ]. In cContrastversely, other spaces, genertypically those in peripheral and marginal locations, may suffer from the adverse effects from backwashof reflux, a process associated with the centre–ore-periphery paradigm [ 71 [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74], 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ].
The urban-centric notion is also related to numerous concepts and words that have been coined to define the changing relationships between rural and urban environmentsettings: “suburbaniszation” [ [75][76]82 , 83 ], “peri-urbaniszation” [77][78][ 84 , 85 ], “rurbaniszation” [ 86 [79][80][81], 87 , 88 ], “exurbaniszation” [ [82]89 ], “rural urbanity” [83][ 90 ], “rural gentrification” [ 91 , 92 [84][85][86], 93 ], “urban countryside”, “infiltration of the city into the countryside” [ [87]94], etc. In addiFurtionhermore, some of these terms are closely related to a process that has been termecalled “counter-urbaniszation” [ 95 , [88][89][90][91]96 , 97 , 98 ]. The proliferation of recent studies that addressing these concepts highlights their conceptual interest and underlines the presence of a renewed dialogue between rural and urban geographies.
Another relevant consideration is the territorial concept of a sprawltown [ 99 [92][93][94], 100 , 101 ], also identified as “ città diffusa, campagna urbanizzata ” [ 102 , 103 , 104 , [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 ], characterized by the absence of vertical territorial hierarchies from the centere to the periphery, which are replaced by horizontal connections amongbetween population centreers and by the dispersion of functions [104][105][ 111 , 112 ].
It is now widely accepted that the formerld elements of differentiation between urban and rural contexts have ceased to beare no longer operational and that alternative approaches to spatial realities are required. One suchof these approaches involves the functional integration of the two types of geographical spaces, whose signs of identityhallmarks, such as agricultural activities, are weakening but have not entircompletely disappeared [ [106]113 ]. One oresutcomelt of these changes is the creation of multifunctional spaces and hybrid landscapes [107][108][109][ 114 , 115 , 116 ], ambiguous spaces in which urban and rural chfearacteristicstures fade or even disappear as clearly legible spatial units within the landscape [ 117, 118 [110][111][112], 119 ].
Recent studies ofn these questionsissues have adopted a more fully integrated perspective of geographic space, gomoving beyond the dichotomous standviewpoint, which many believe reflects an anachronistic static perspective [ 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , [113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125]130 , 131 , 132 ].
Geographical space has long been viewed and analyszed as a continuum, containing a gradual transition from urban to rural and vice versa, without remarknoticeable territorial discontinuities [126][ 133 ]. However, this interpretation has been challquengstioned by some authors [127][ 134 ] and updated and reformulated by others [128][129][130][ 135 , 136 , 137 ]. NHowevertheless, for most experts, the concept of a spatial continuum is accepted as a gradient of levels of urbanityurban/rurality levels [ 138 [131]] or as cyclical phases of urbaniszation [132][ 139 ].
Some authors even deny the usefulness of the traditional terminology for different types of spaces (suburban, peri-urban and rururban), claiaffirming that what has been configured is a new model of the disassociata detached city that is post-industrial or even post-urban [ [133][134][135][136][137][138]140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 ], which should be viundewerstood as a joined-upn integrated mosaic of urban elements within a territorial matrix [139][ 146 ] as thea result of a “metastatic metropolitanisicization” [140][141][142][ 147 , 148 , 149 ].
The question of how rural and areas arend zoning interrelated has attracted growincreasing interest since the end of the twentietlate 20th century [ [143]150 ], andwith increasing numbers of sstudies have been undertaken in this regard, ininfluencing socio-economic and land-use planning policies. for rural areas and leading to the adoption of new paradigmatic and methodological approaches. This new standpoint mightpoint of view could be seen as a “"rejuvenation”" of rural geographic studies, based on a scientific and epistemological renewal achieved through dialogue and debate amongbetween rural and urban researchers seeking to enhance theimprove our understanding of developments in this area[ [144]151]. Although the contemporary approach to rural geography maintains some classical criteria, it also reveals new perspectives and takeis increasingly interested in the diverse practices and representations of the rural environment and its inhabitants [145][146][147][ 152 , 153 , 154 ].
This evolving research focus first became apparent in the United States and Europe [ 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 [148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164], 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 ] and then later in Latin America [165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][ 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 ,177 , 178 , 179 ], and it is currently becoming accepted in Asia, especially in China [173][174][175][176][ 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 ]. In the latter country, afollowingter the accelerated urbaniszation of the countryside under the model of state capitalism applied in China since the lat end of the 1970s [ [177]184 ], dramatic changeshere have taken placebeen drastic changes in land use, with a large-scale conversion fromof agrarian to urban practices. This development has attracted the attention of numerous researchers from different areas of knowledge, including geography, economics and the e, and environmental sciences [178][179][180][181][182][183][ 185 , 186 , 187, 188 , 189 , 190 ].
Numerous recent studies have analyszed and interpreted the functional territories [ [184]191 ] resulting from rural–-urban integration or hybridisationzation [ 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 [185][186][187][188]] in the so-carea termed thelled “rural-urban fringe”, vieweunderstood as a space with its own unique characteristics character. [ 196 , 197 [189][190]]. This entity has also been described as the “rurban-ruralal-urban interface” and as being composed of urbaniszed rural areas, intermediate territories, in-betweentermediate territories (TiBs), the territories of a new modernity [191][192][ 198 , 199 ] or “hybrid geographies”.
Most studies ofn these questionsissues have focused on the territorial transformations arisingderived from economic and technical changes (deagrarianisagrarization and tertiarisationoutsourcing, in particular) in the distribution of services and production centreers, in physical and virtual accessibility and, especially, in mobility [193][ 200 ].
On the other hand, some recent analyszes of rurality and urbanity [194][195][ 201 , 202 ] continue to address quantifiable data such as population size [196][197][198][199][200][ 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 ], population density and/or distances between settlements of different categories [203, 204, 205, 206, 207] [201][202]208 , 209 ]. However, these indicators are relatively ineffective as a means of describing rurality [203][204][205][ 210 , 211 , 212], eveincludin the g multivariate oness that incorporatinge not only population density but also factors such as demographic dynamics, mobility patterns, migrations, and distances to major service centresers [ 213 , [206][207][208][209][210]214 , 215 , 216 , 217 ]. Very few analyszes have also used geographic information techniques for territorial measurement [ 218 [211][212], 219 ].
It has been observed that the effects of the urbaniszation of rural spaces shouldmust be considered according to the specific conditions of both the rural and the urban spaces in which the process takes place [213][ 220 ]. The reationaleson for this is that the dynamics of urbaniszation do not occur in the same way or with the same intensity in all territories. In recent times, both the variety and the complexity of rural spaces have intensified; some are evolvinge dynamically, while others are characteriszed by stagnation and decline.
