The Interaction between Urban and Rural Areas: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Sirius Huang and Version 2 by Carmen Delgado-Viñas.

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 rurban-ruralal–urban relations and interactions requires the fundamental assumption that some spaces can be classified as “urban” and others as “rural”. WhileAlthough this is indeed true, urban and rural areas do not constitute two separate territories that can be neededconsidered in isolation. On the contrary, they are suretrongly interrelated in many ways, and their connections must be investigated, theoretically and empirically, in terms of identity, causality, and effects. Terms likesuch as  rural  vs.  urban  and  rthe countral y vs.  the city  are commonly used to identify the main types of geographical spaces, both in academic circles and colloquial circlesly. Defining them, in both cases frequently, impli, usually involves a simplifying conceptual approach to address interdependent and complementary realities, focusing on the main characteristicsfeatures of their interconnections; hence, the numerous and continuousing attempts to derive an almost impossible conceptual delimitation that, until recently, and especially in the case of rural spaces, frequentusually lacked exhaustivs completeness and precisionaccuracy [ 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 [ 10 [3][4], 11 ], from a dichotomous binary perspective based on alterity withto 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.
S The spatial reality is much more complex than the prabovevious notion. FurthermoreMoreover, this issue of complexity is increasing, and a fullcomplete understanding of the need forquestion would require multiple interdisciplinary analyses. This is especially trueparticularly so today, when hybrid spatial environments [[5] 12 ] and numerous multifunctional rural landscapes [ 13 ] are betaking configuredshape [6]. 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 towith urban ones are also experiencing the impact of cities, albeit indirectly; for example, as the drop in falling levels of population levels caused by rural-–urban migration [[7]. As 14 ].
Rregardings the first aspect, many rural areas are now witnessing the birth of a differentiatedstinct spatial reality. The term “new rurality” [[8][9][10][11] 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] refers to the reconstructed forms of organizsation 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. [ 19 , 20 ][12][13]. Although the meanings assigned to this term by different theorists do not always coincide, —in particular, there are significant conceptual differences between European [ 21 ][14] and Latin American [authors 22 ] 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 a greatern increased mobility of people and merchandisegoods, the diversification of economic activities and a modification of the use of the land. soil land use [ 29 , 30 ][22][23]. A major socioeconomic transformation that has taken place in many areas is that of “deagrarianizsation” [ 31 [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31], 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37or , 38], that is, the reduction in the importance of agriculturalrarian activities, in terms of employed population and income, and the correspondingly greater weight of non-agriculturalarian forms of employment. The degrarizoccupation. Deagrarianisation leads to a progressive loss of traditional ways of life, souch that agriculturalarian 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 globalizsed economy and that hahas been associated with deruralizsation [ 39[32] ] from a perspective based on the premise—tquite questionable in our opinion—that the rural environment can be fully identified with agricultural activity. As far aconcerns Spain is concerned, deagrarianizsation [[33][34][35] 40 , 41 , 42] has been cited among the structural causes of the rural exodus, with specialarticular reference to the modernizsation of agriculturalrarian activity [ 43 ][36]. For this reason, it is often svieen as a wed as an effect that is generalized effect sed and not exclusive to urbanizsed rural areas. Another significant change, as a generally rule complementary to the previous onabove, 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 , 45 , 46 ][37][38][39]. The historical interaction between rural and urban spaces has been constantly evolvingvolved incessantly, profoundly transforming the relationships between the countryside and the city [[40] 47 ] and blurring the boundaries between urban and rural environments. HowNevertheless, significant differences persistremain, and few authors question the existence of a rural-–urban gap. Furthermoredivide. Moreover, scholars have observed the gradual consolidation of fissures between different types of rural spaces [ 48 [41][42][43], 49 , 50 ], although thesey may be maskconcealed by the regular occupational mobility of a large part of the rural population [ 51 , 52 ][44][45]. It is almost universally reacognizknowledged that the main driver of these changes is '“rural urbanization'sation”. This process has multipleany consequences, including the physical modification of the territory and changes in its socioeconomic structures [ 53 , 54 , 55 ][46][47][48]. This urbanizsation is functional, morphological, landscape-based and cultural, and occursit takes place not only in areas bordering or with easreadily accessible to large cities, but also in more remote areasterritories and those bordering medium-sized and even small cities [ 56 [49][50][51], 57 , 58which ] , thus configuringe micropolitan areas [ 59 ][52]. The fact that urbanizsation processes are the main factor triggering the territorial mutations that have occurred in many contemporary societies [ 60 , 61 , 62[53][54][55] ] explains the primacy of the urban-centric approachstandpoint that has been adopted in most studies. about of rural areas, both past and past. present [ 63 , 64 ][56][57]. Thus, it is very widely accepted that the revitalizsation of rural spaces goes throughtakes place via logics according to which they are modified physically and socially modified. These logics also have an , moreover, impact on the strategies used to obtain the economies of urban agglomeration, such as spatial externalities, from which some rural areas also benefit [65[58][59][60][61][62][63]. ,In 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ]. Cconvetrselyast, other spaces, typicgenerally those in peripheral and marginal locations, may suffer from the adverse effects of refluxfrom backwash, a process associated with the core-entre–periphery paradigm [ 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. 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 settingenvironments: “suburbanizsation” [ 82 [75][76], 83 ], “peri-urbanizsation” [ 84 [77][78], 85 ], “rurbanizsation” [ 86 [79][80][81], 87 , 88 ], “exurbanizsation” [ 89 ][82], “rural urbanity” [ 90 ][83], “rural gentrification” [ 91 , 92 [84][85][86], 93 ], “urban countryside”, “infiltration of the city into the countryside” [ 94][87], etc. FurIn addithermoreion, some of these terms are closely related to a process that has been calltermed “counter-urbanizsation” [ 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 ][88][89][90][91]. 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 , 105 [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103], 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 ], characterized by the absence of vertical territorial hierarchies from the centrer to the periphery, which are replaced by horizontal connections betweenamong population centerres and by the dispersion of functions [ 111 , 112 ][104][105]. It is now widely accepted that the foldrmer elements of differentiation between urban and rural contexts are no longerhave ceased to be operational and that alternative approaches to spatial realities are required. One of thesesuch approaches involves the functional integration of the two types of geographical spaces, whose hallmarkssigns of identity, such as agricultural activities, are weakening but have not completentirely disappeared [ 113 ][106]. One resoulttcome of these changes is the creation of multifunctional spaces and hybrid landscapes [ 114 [107][108][109], 115 , 116 ], ambiguous spaces in which urban and rural fecharaturecteristics fade or even disappear as clearly legible spatial units within the landscape [ 117, 118 , 119 ][110][111][112]. Recent studies onf these issuesquestions have adopted a more fully integrated perspective of geographic space, movgoing beyond the dichotomous viewstandpoint, which many believe reflects an anachronistic static perspective [ 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 ][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125]. Geographical space has long been viewed and analyzsed as a continuum, containing a gradual transition from urban to rural and vice versa, without noticeremarkable territorial discontinuities [ 133 ][126]. However, this interpretation has been quchallestionnged by some authors [[127] 134 ] and updated and reformulated by others [ 135 , 136 , 137 ][128][129][130]. HowNevertheless, for most experts, the concept of a spatial continuum is accepted as a gradient of urban levels of urbanity/rurality levels[131] [ 138 ] or as cyclical phases of urbanizsation [ 139 ][132]. Some authors even deny the usefulness of the traditional terminology for different types of spaces (suburban, peri-urban and rururban), affirclaiming that what has been configured is a new model of a detachthe disassociated city that is post-industrial or even post-urban [ 140 , 141 [133][134][135][136][137][138], 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 ], which should be undviewerstood as an integrated joined-up mosaic of urban elements within a territorial matrix [[139] 146 ] as athe result of a “metastatic metropoliticizanisation” [ 147 , 148 , 149 ][140][141][142]. The question of how rural and areas and zoning inre interrelated has attracted increasgrowing interest since the late 20end of the twentieth century [ 150 ][143], withand increasing snumbers of studies inhave been undertaken in this regard, influencing socio-economic and land-use planning policies. for rural areas and leading to the adoption of new paradigmatic and methodological approaches. This new standpoint of view could might be seen as a "“rejuvenation"” of rural geographic studies, based on a scientific and epistemological renewal achieved through dialogue and debate betweenamong rural and urban researchers seeking to improvenhance our understanding of developments in this area[ 151][144]. Although the contemporary approach to rural geography maintains some classical criteria, it also reveals new perspectives and itakes increasingly interested in the diverse practices and representations of the rural environment and its inhabitants [ 152 , 153 , 154 ][145][146][147]. This evolving research focus first became apparent in the United States and Europe [ 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169[148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164] , 170 , 171 ] and then later in Latin America [ 172 , 173 [165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172], 174 , 175 , 176 ,177 , 178 , 179 ], and it is currently becoming accepted in Asia, especially in China [ 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 ][173][174][175][176]. In the latter country, afterollowing the accelerated urbanizsation of the countryside under the model of state capitalism applied in China since the end of thlate 1970s [ 184 ][177], dramathereic changes have been drastic changestaken place in land use, with a large-scale conversion offrom agrarian to urban practices. This development has attracted the attention of numerous researchers from different areas of knowledge, including geography, economics, and e and the environmental sciences [ 185 , 186 , 187, 188 , 189 , 190 ][178][179][180][181][182][183]. Numerous recent studies have analyzsed and interpreted the functional territories [[184] 191 ] resulting from rural-–urban integration or hybridizsation [[185][186][187][188] 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 ] in the so-carealled termed the “rural-urban fringe”, understooviewed as a space with its own unique characteristics character[189][190]. [ 196 , 197 ]. This entity has also been described as the “rural-urbanban-rural interface” and as being composed of urbanizsed rural areas, intermediate territories, intermediate-between territories (TiBs), the territories of a new modernity [[191][192] 198 , 199 ] or “hybrid geographies”. Most studies onf these issuesquestions have focused on the territorial transformations derivedarising from economic and technical changes (degrarizagrarianisation and outsourcingtertiarisation, in particular) in the distribution of services and production centerres, in physical and virtual accessibility and, especially, in mobility [ 200 ][193]. On the other hand, some recent analyzses of rurality and urbanity [ 201 ,[194][195] 202 ] continue to address quantifiable data such as population size [ 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 [196][197][198][199][200], 207 ], population density and/or distances between settlements of different categories [203, 204, 205, 206, 207] 208 , 209 ][201][202]. However, these indicators are relatively ineffective as a means of describing rurality [ 210 [203][204][205], 211even ,the 212], including multivariate ones that incorporateing not only population density but also factors such as demographic dynamics, mobility patterns, migrations, and distances to major service centerres [ 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 ][206][207][208][209][210]. Very few analyzses have also used geographic information techniques for territorial measurement [ 218 , 219 ][211][212]. It has been observed that the effects of the urbanizsation of rural spaces mustshould be considered according to the specific conditions of both the rural and the urban spaces in which the process takes place [ 220 ][213]. The reasontionale for this is that the dynamics of urbanizsation 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 evolveing dynamically, while others are characterizsed by stagnation and decline.

References

  1. Delgado-Viñas, C. Espacio rural. In Diccionario de Geografía Aplicada y Profesional: Terminología de Análisis, Planificación y Gestión del Territorio; López Trigal, L., Ed.; Universidad de León: Leon, Spain, 2015; pp. 226–228.
  2. Paniagua, A. Rurality, identity and morality in remote rural areas in northern Spain. J. Rural. Stud. 2017, 35, 49–58.
  3. Champion, T.; Hugo, G. Introduction: Moving beyond the urban–rural dichotomy. In New Forms of Urbanization: Beyond the Urban-Rural Dichotomy; Champion, T., Graeme, H., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2004; pp. 3–24.
  4. Molinero, F. Dinámica, discursos, valores y representaciones: La diferenciación del espacio rural. In Espacios Rurales y Retos Demográficos. Una Mirada Desde los Territorios de la Despoblación; Asociación Española de Geografía: Madrid, Spain, 2021; pp. 7–37.
  5. Sáez Pérez, L.A. Rural y urbano, inseparables frente a la despoblación. Presup. Gasto Público 2021, 102, 93–110.
  6. Banzo, M. Del espacio al modo de vida. La cuestión periurbana en Europa Occidental: Los casos de Francia y España. In Lo Urbano-Rural, ¿Nuevas Expresiones Territoriales? Ávila Sánchez, H., Ed.; CRIM—UNAM: Cuernavaca, Mexico, 2005; pp. 207–244.
  7. Delgado Urrecho, J. Mª. Más allá del tópico de la España vacía: Una geografía de la despoblación. In Informe España; Universidad Pontificia Comillas: Madrid, Spain, 2018; pp. 233–295.
  8. Halfacree, K.H. Rurality and Post-Rurality. Int. Encycl. Hum. Geogr. 2009, 9, 449–456.
  9. Irwin, E.G.; Bell, K.P.; Bockstael, N.E.; Newburn, D.A.; Partridge, M.D.; Wu, J. The economics of urban-rural space. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2009, 1, 435–459.
  10. Barkin, D. The New Rurality: A Framework for Social Struggle in the Face of Globalization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Land, Poverty, Social Justice and Development, México City, Mexico, 9–14 January 2006.
  11. Sanz, B.G. Ruralidad Emergente: Posibilidades y Retos; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural: Madrid, Spain, 2011.
  12. Kayser, B. La Renaissance Rurale. Sociologie des Campagnes du Monde Occidental; Armand Colin: Paris, France, 1990.
  13. Camarero, L.A.; Oliva, J. Hidden Disparities in Rural Transition: Cosmopolitanism, Socioeconomic Decline and Accesibilities. Ager 2021, 32, 65–92.
  14. Rieutort, L. Du rural aux nouvelles ruralités. Rev. Int. Éduc. Sèvres 2012, 59, 43–52.
  15. Delgado, J. Transición rural-urbana y oposición campo ciudad. In Urbanización, Cambio Tecnológico y Costo Social. El Caso de la Región Centro de México, 1st ed.; Aguilar, A., Ed.; Instituto de Geografía UNAM: Mexico City, Mexico, 2003; pp. 73–118.
  16. De Grammont, H.C. La nueva ruralidad en América Latina. Rev. Mex. Sociol. 2004, 66, 279–300.
  17. Ruiz, N.; Delgado, J. Territorio y nuevas ruralidades: Un recorrido teórico sobre las transformaciones de la relación campo-ciudad. EURE 2008, 34, 13–48.
  18. Kay, C. Estudios rurales en América Latina en el periodo de globalización neoliberal: ¿Una nueva ruralidad. Rev. Mex. Sociol. 2009, 71, 607–645.
  19. Pérez, E. Hacia una nueva visión de lo rural. In ¿Hacia una Nueva Ruralidad en América Latina? Giarraca, N., Ed.; CLACSO: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2005; pp. 17–29.
  20. Pérez, E. América Latina: Nueva ruralidad y exclusión social. Polígonos. Rev. De Geogr. 2005, 15, 171–199.
  21. Teubal, M. Globalización y nueva ruralidad en América Latina. In ¿Hacia una Nueva Ruralidad en América Latina? Giarraca, N., Ed.; CLACSO: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2005; pp. 45–65.
  22. Querol, V.A.; Sánchez, X.G.; Aparici, A. Nueva ruralidad y generación de discursos sociales desde el ámbito productivo: Pastoreando significados. AGER: Revista de Estudios sobre Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural. J. Depopulation Rural. Dev. Stud. 2019, 28, 161–183.
  23. Segrelles, J.A.; Vásquez, J. Multifuncionalidad Rural y Nueva Ruralidad: La Experiencia Europea y la Potencialidad de Colombia; Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 2012.
  24. Camarero, L.A.; Oliva, J. Rural Global Transition: From Agricultural Villages to New Ruralities. Ager 2021, 32, 9–13.
  25. Jonard, F.; Lambotte, M.; Ramos, F.; Terres, J.M.; Bamps, C. Delimitations of Rural Areas in Europe Using Criteria of Population Density, Remoteness and Land Cover; Scientific and Technical Report EUR 23757; ISPRA, Joint Research Center, European Commission: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2009.
  26. Verburg, P.H.; van Berkel, D.B.; van Doorn, A.M.; van Eupen, M.; van den Heiligenberg, H.A.R.M. Trajectories of land use change in Europe: A model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc. Ecol. 2010, 25, 217–232.
  27. Goerlich, F.J. Áreas Rurales y Coberturas del Suelo; BBVA/Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas: Valencia, Spain, 2013.
  28. Bryceson, D.F. Deagrarianisation in sub-Saharan Africa: Acknowledging the inevitable. In Farewell to Farms: Deagrarianisation and Employment in Africa; Bryceson, D.F., Jamal, V., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 1997; pp. 3–20.
  29. Rigg, J. Land, Farming, Livelihoods, and poverty: Rethinking the links in the rural south. World Dev. 2006, 34, 180–202.
  30. De Grammont, H. Hacia una ruralidad fragmentada. Nueva Soc. 2016, 262, 51–63.
  31. Camarero, L. Trabajadores del campo y familias de la tierra. Instantáneas de la desagrarización. Ager 2017, 23, 163–195.
  32. Wallerstein, I. Después del Liberalismo, 4th ed.; Siglo XXI: Mexico City, Mexico, 2001.
  33. García, B. La Sociedad Rural ante el Siglo XXI; MAPA: Madrid, Spain, 1997.
  34. García, B. Del agrarismo a la terciarización: Modelos de actividad en la sociedad rural. In Agricultura y Sociedad en la España Contemporánea; González Rodríguez, J.J., Gómez Benito, C., Eds.; CIS: Madrid, Spain, 1997; pp. 635–652.
  35. Collantes, F. La desagrarización de la sociedad rural española, 1950–1991. Hist. Agrar. 2007, 42, 251–276.
  36. Abad, C.; Naredo, J.M. Sobre la ‘modernización’ de la agricultura española (1940–1995): De la agricultura tradicional hacia la capitalización agraria y la dependencia asistencial. In Agricultura y Sociedad en la España Contemporánea; González Rodríguez, J.J., Gómez Benito, C., Eds.; CIS: Madrid, Spain, 1997; pp. 249–316.
  37. Ortega Valcárcel, J. Residencias Secundarias y Espacios de Ocio en España; Departamento de Geografía de la Universidad de Valladolid: Valladolid, Spain, 1975.
  38. Gómez, L.M. La segunda residencia: Espacios fragmentados e interconectados. Perspect. Geogr. 2010, 15, 113–124.
  39. Del Pino, J.A. Estructuras Residenciales y Movilidad: Más allá de la Segunda Residencia; CIS-Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
  40. Kayser, B. El espacio rural y el nuevo sistema de relaciones ciudad-campo. Rev. Geogr. 1972, VI, 209–217.
  41. Malecki, E.J. Digital development in rural areas: Potentials and pitfalls. J. Rural. Stud. 2003, 19, 201–214.
  42. Camarero, L.A.; Oliva, J. Thinking in rural gap: Mobility and social inequalities. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 95.
  43. Molinero, F. Caracterización, representación cartográfica y perspectivas del espacio rural de España. In La España Rural: Retos y Oportunidades de Future; Moyano, E., Ed.; Cajamar: Alicante, Spain, 2022; pp. 19–44.
  44. Orfeuil, J.-P.; Ripoll, F. Accès et Mobilités. Les Nouvelles Inégalités; Infolio: Gollion, Switzerland, 2015.
  45. Peacock, A.; Pemberton, S. The paradox of mobility for older people in the rural-urban fringe. J. Rural. Stud. 2019, 70, 9–18.
  46. Santos, M. Metamorfosis del Espacio Habitado: Fundamentos Teóricos e Metodológicos da Geografía; Oikos-Tau: Barcelona, Spain, 1996.
  47. Dijkstra, L.; Poelman, H. A Harmonised Definition of Cities and Rural Areas: The New Degree of Urbanization; Regional Working Paper; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2014.
  48. Ruddick, S.; Peake, L.; Tanyildiz, G.S.; Patrick, D. Planetary urbanization: An urban theory for our time? Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2018, 3, 387–404.
  49. Tacoli, C. Bridging the Divide: Rural-Urban Interactions and Livelihood Strategies; Gatekeeper Series 77; International Institute for Environment & Development: London, UK, 1998.
  50. Satterthwaite, D.; Tacoli, C. The Role of Small and Intermediate Urban Centres in Regional and Rural Development: Assumptions and Evidence. In The Earthscan Reader in Rural-Urban Linkages; Tacoli, C., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; pp. 155–183.
  51. Katz, C. Splanetary Urbanization. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2021, 45, 597–611.
  52. Scott Thomas, G. Micropolitan America. Am. Demogr. 1989, 11, 20–24.
  53. Gollin, D.; Jedwab, R.; Vollrath, D. Urbanization with and without industrialization. J. Econ. Growth 2016, 21, 35–70.
  54. Camarero, L.; de Grammont, H.; Quaranta, G. El cambio rural: Una lectura desde la desagrarización y la desigualdad social. Rev. Austral Cienc. Soc. 2020, 38, 191–211.
  55. Luca, D.; Terrero-Davila, J.; Stein, J.; Lee, N. Progressive Cities: Urban-Rural Polarisation of Social Values and Economic Development Around the World; International Inequalities Institute Working Papers Series; London School of Economics and Political Science: London, UK, 2022; Volume 74, pp. 1–39.
  56. Jiménez, V.; Campesino, A. Deslocalización de lo urbano e impacto en el mundo rural. Cuad. Geográficos 2018, 57, 243–266.
  57. Castro, E.; González, M.; Munévar, C.A. Paradigmas y tendencias en la organización del espacio rururbano: Una revisión teórica. Ciudad Territ. Estud. Territ. 2018, 196, 187–200.
  58. Evans, H.E. Rural-Urban Linkages and Structural Transformation; Report INU 71; Infrastructure and Urban Development Department, The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1990.
  59. Partridge, M.; Bollman, R.D.; Olfert, M.R.; Alasia, A. Riding the wave of urban growth in the countryside: Spread, backwash, or stagnation? Land Econ. 2007, 83, 128–152.
  60. Dijkstra, L.; Poelman, H. Remote Rural Regions. How Proximity to a City Influences the Performance of Rural Regions. Reg. Focus 2008, 1, 1–8.
  61. Brezzi, M.; Piacentini, M. Labor Mobility and Development Dynamics in OECD Regions; OCDE: París, France, 2010.
  62. Andersen, H.T.; Møller-Jensen, L.; Engelstoft, S. The End of Urbanization? Towards a New Urban Concept or Rethinking Urbanization. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2011, 19, 595–611.
  63. Veneri, P.; Ruiz, V. Urban-To-Rural Population Growth Linkages: Evidence from OECD Tl3 Regions. J. Reg. Sci. 2016, 56, 3–24.
  64. Myrdal, G. Teoría Económica y Regiones Subdesarrolladas; FCE: México City, Mexico, 1957.
  65. Parr, J.B. Growth Poles, Regional Development, and Central Place Theory. Pap. Reg. Sci. Assoc. 1973, 31, 173–212.
  66. Gaile, G.L. The Spread-Backwash Concept. Reg. Stud. 1980, 14, 15–25.
  67. Barkley, D.L.; Henry, M.S.; Bao, S. Identifying“ spread“ versus“ backwash“ effects in regional economic areas: A density functions approach. Land Econ. 1996, 72, 336–357.
  68. Tacoli, C. The links between urban and rural development. Environ. Urban. 2003, 15, 3–12.
  69. Cheshire, P.; Leunig, T.; Nathan, M.; Overman, H. Links Between Planning and Economic Performance: Evidence Note for LSE Growth Commission; LSE, Growth Commission and Institute for Govermment: London, UK, 2012.
  70. D’Amour, C.B.; Reitsma, F.; Baiocchi, G.; Barthel, S.; Guneralp, B.; Erb, K.-H.; Haberl, H.; Creutzig, F.; Seto, K.C. Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 8939–8944.
  71. Cloke, P. Country Backwater to Virtual Village? Rural Studies and “the Cultural Turn”. Rural. Crit. Essays Hum. Geogr. 2017, 13, 311–319.
  72. Rodriguez-Pose, A. The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2018, 11, 189–209.
  73. Guilluy, C. No Society. La Fin de la Clase Moyenne Occidentale; Flammarion: Paris, France, 2018.
  74. Le Tourneau, F. Sparsely populated regions as a specific geographical environment. J. Rural. Stud. 2020, 75, 70–79.
  75. Champion, T. Urbanization, Suburbanization, Counterurbanization and Reurbanization. In Handbook of Urban Studies; Paddison, R., Ed.; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 143–161.
  76. Pieretti, G. Suburbanization. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2014; pp. 6468–6470.
  77. Harris, R. Suburbanization and Suburbanism. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Wright, J.D., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 23, pp. 660–666.
  78. Juillard, É. L’urbanisation des campagnes en Europe occidentale. Études Rural. 1961, 1, 18–33.
  79. Bauer, G.; Roux, J.-M. La Rurbanisation ou la Villeéparpillée; Editions du Seuil: Paris, France, 1976.
  80. Du Puy, G. L’urbanisme des Réseaux, Théories et Méthodes; Armand Colin: Paris, France, 1991.
  81. Pinchemel, P.; Pinchemel, G. Lo Spazio Antropico. Fondamenti di Geografia Umana; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 1996.
  82. De Souza, E.A.L. Relación ciudad-campo y turismo rural: Ensayos teórico-metodológicos. Estud. Perspect. Tur. 2012, 21, 1–19.
  83. Donadieu, P. Campagnes Urbaines; Actes Sud: Arles, France, 1998.
  84. Phillips, M. Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonization. J. Rural. Stud. 1993, 9, 9123–9140.
  85. Phillips, M. Other geographies of gentrification. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2004, 28, 5–30.
  86. Krivokapic-Skoko, B.; Reid, C.; Collins, J. Rural Cosmopolitism in Australia. J. Rural. Stud. 2018, 64, 153–163.
  87. Naranjo, G. El rol de la ciudad infiltrada en la reconfiguración de la periferia metropolitana de Santiago de Chile. Estud. Geogr. 2009, 70, 205–229.
  88. Berry, B. Urbanization and Counterurbanization; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1976.
  89. Berry, B. The Counterurbanisation Process: Urban America since 1970. In Urbanization and Counterurbanization; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1976; pp. 17–30.
  90. Halfacree, K. To Revitalise Counterurbanisation Research? Recognising an International and Fuller Picture. Popul. Space Place 2008, 14, 479–495.
  91. Rowe, F.; Bell, M.; Bernard, A.; Charles-Edwards, E.; Ueffing, P. Impact of Internal Migration on Population Redistribution in Europe: Urbanisation, Counter-urbanisation or Spatial Equilibrium? Comp. Popul. Stud. 2019, 44, 201–234.
  92. European Environment Agency (EEA). Urban Sprawl in Europe: The Ignored Challenge; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2006.
  93. Couch, C.; Leontidou, L.; Petschel-Held, G. Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes, Land-Use Change and Policy; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2007.
  94. Małgorzata, H. Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes, Land-use Change and Policy. Plan. Pract. Res. 2010, 25, 273–274.
  95. Indovina, F. La Città Diffusa; Dipartimento di Analisi Economica e Sociale del Territorio, Istituto Universitario di Architettura: Venice, Italy, 1990.
  96. Indovina, F. Algunes consideracions sobre la ciutat difusa. Doc. Anàlisi Geogr. 1998, 33, 21–32.
  97. Indovina, F. La ‘metropolizzazione del territorio’. Nuove gerarchie territoriali. Econ. E Soc. Reg. 2003, 21, 46–85.
  98. Indovina, F.; Fregolent, L.; Savino, M. L’esplosione della Città; Editrice Compositori: Bologna, Italy, 2005.
  99. Indovina, F. La Ciudad de Baja Densidad: Lógicas, Gestión y Contención; Diputació de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2007.
  100. Indovina, F. Dalla Città Diffusa All’arcipelago Metropolitano; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 2009.
  101. Indovina, F. Del Análisis del Territorio al Gobierno de la Ciudad. Las Ciudades en el Siglo XXI; Centre de Cultura Contemporánea: Barcelona, Spain, 2016.
  102. Secchi, B. La periferia. Casabella 1991, 583, 20–21.
  103. Kajima, M. Made in Tokyo; Kajima Institute Publishing: Tokio, Japan, 2001.
  104. Ingersoll, R. Sprawltown: Looking for the City on Its Edges; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  105. Rubiera, F.; González, V.M.; Pérez, J.L. Urban sprawl in Spain: Differences among cities and causes. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 207–226.
  106. Torreggiani, D.; Dall’Ara, E.; Tassinari, P. The urban nature of agriculture: Bidirectional trends between city and countryside. Cities 2012, 29, 412–416.
  107. Hoggart, K. Not a Definition of Rural. Area 1988, 20, 35–40.
  108. Hoggart, K.; Paniagua, A. What Rural Restructuring? J. Rural. Stud. 2001, 17, 41–62.
  109. Beltrán, F. El paisaje híbrido en los nuevos territorios rururbanos del S. XXI. In Treinta Años de Política Agraria Común en España: Agricultura y Multifuncionalidad en el Contexto de la Nueva Ruralidad; Ruiz, A.R., Serrano, M.A., Plaza, J., Eds.; AGE: Ciudad Real, Spain, 2016; pp. 512–522.
  110. Raffestin, C. Territorializzazione, deterritorializzazione, riterritorializzazione e informazione. In Regione e Regionalizzazione; Turco, A., Ed.; Angeli: Milano, Italy, 1984.
  111. Raffestin, C. Paysages Construits et Territorialités, Convegno Internazionale Disegnare Paesaggi Costruiti; DIPRA: Torino, Italy, 1999.
  112. Raffestin, C. Espacio, territorio y territorialidad, Medio Ambiente y Planificación. Soc. Espacio 2012, 30, 121–141.
  113. Cloke, J.P. An index of rurality in England and Wales. Reg. Stud. 1977, 11, 31–46.
  114. Cloke, P. Counterurbanization: A rural perspective. Geography 1985, 70, 13–23.
  115. Cloke, P.; Johnston, R. Deconstructing human geography’s binaries. In Spaces of Geographical Thought: Deconstructing Human Geography’s Binaries; Cloke, P., Johnston, R., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2005; pp. 1–41.
  116. Cloke, P. Conceptualizing rurality. In The Handbook of Rural Studies; Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2006; pp. 18–28.
  117. Funnell, D.C. Urban-rural linkages: Research themes and directions. Geografiska Annaler. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 1988, 70, 267–274.
  118. Hoggart, K. Lets do away with rural. J. Rural. Stud. 1990, 6, 245–257.
  119. Davoudi, S.; Stead, D. Urban-rural relationships: An introduction and brief history. Built Environ. 2002, 28, 269–277.
  120. Lynch, K. Rural–Urban Interaction in the Developing World; Routledge: London, UK, 2004.
  121. Brown, D.; Cromartie, J. The nature of rurality in postindustrial society. In New Forms of Urbanization: Beyond the Urban-Rural Dichotomy; Champion, T., Graeme, H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 269–283.
  122. Bowler, I. Rural alternatives. In An Introduction to Human Geography: Issues for the 21st Century; Daniels, P., Ed.; Prentice Hall: Harlow, UK, 2005; pp. 230–245.
  123. Lichter, D.T.; Brown, D.L. Rural America in an urban society: Changing spatial and social boundaries. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011, 37, 565–592.
  124. Lichter, D.T.; Brown, D.L.; Parisi, D. The rural–urban interface: Rural and small town growth at the metropolitan fringe. Popul. Space Place 2020, 27, e2415.
  125. Jacquet, J.B.; Guthrie, E.; Jackson, H. Swept out: Measuring rurality and migration intentions on the upper Great plains. Rural. Sociol. 2017, 82, 601–627.
  126. Sorokin, P.A.; Zimmerman, C.C. Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology; Holt: New York, NY, USA, 1929.
  127. Pahl, R.E. The rural–urban continuum. Sociol. Rural. 1965, 6, 299–329.
  128. Baigorri, A. De lo rural a lo urbano. Hipótesis sobre las dificultades de mantener la separación epistemológica entre Sociología Rural y Sociología Urbana en el marco del actual proceso de urbanización global. In Actas V Congreso Español de Sociología; Federación Española de Sociología: Granada, Spain, 1995; pp. 1–14.
  129. Cardoso, M.M.; Fritschy, B.A. Revisión de la definición de espacio rururbano y sus criterios de delimitación. Contribuciones Científicas, GAEA. Soc. Argent. Estud. Geogr. 2012, 24, 27–39.
  130. Sancho, J.; Reinoso, D. La delimitación del ámbito rural: Una cuestión clave en los programas de desarrollo rural. Estud. Geogr. 2012, 273, 599–624.
  131. Lévy, J. L’espace Légitime; Presses de Sciences Politiques: Paris, France, 1994.
  132. Seto, K.C.; Golden, J.S.; Alberti, M.; Turner, B.L. Sustainability in an urbanizing planet. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 8935–8938.
  133. Webber, M. The Post-City Age: Daedalus, 1968; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2011; Volume 97, pp. 91–110.
  134. Fernández, A. Las pautas del crecimiento urbano posindustrial: De la rururbanización a la ciudad difusa. Ería 2003, 60, 88–92.
  135. Fernández García, A. Difusión urbana y ordenación del territorio. In Espacio Metropolitano y Difusión Urbana: Su Incidencia en el Medio Rural; Consejo Económico y Social del Principado de Asturias: Oviedo, Spain, 2012; pp. 13–24.
  136. Choay, F. Le règne de l’urbain et la mort de la ville. In La Ville, Art et Architecture en Europe, 1870–1993; Dethier, J., Guiheux, A., Eds.; Centre Georges Pompidou: Paris, France, 1994; pp. 16–35.
  137. Brenner, N.; Schmid, C. The ‘urban age’in question. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 731–755.
  138. Brenner, N.; Schmid, C. Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City 2015, 19, 151–182.
  139. Llop, C. Paisajes metropolitanos: Policentrismo, dilataciones, multiperiferias y microperiferias. Del paisaje cliché al paisaje calidoscopio. Papers 2008, 47, 8–13.
  140. Ascher, F. Métapolis, ou L’avenir des Villes; Èditions Odile Jacob: Paris, France, 1995.
  141. Ascher, F. Los Nuevos Principios del Urbanismo; Alianza: Madrid, Spain, 2004.
  142. Cheshire, P. A New Phase of Urban Development in Western Europe? The Evidence for the 1980s. Urban Stud. 1995, 32, 1045–1063.
  143. Gaile, G.L. Improving Rural-urban Linkages through Small Town Market-based Development. Third World Plan. Rev. 1992, 14, 131–148.
  144. Poulot, M. Espaces Ruraux et Périurbains en France: Populations, Activités, Mobilités; Géoconfluences: Lyon, France, 2018.
  145. Delfosse, C.; Poulot, M. Les espaces ruraux en France: Nouvelles questions de recherches. Bull. L’assoc. Géogr. Français 2019, 96.
  146. McCarthy, J. Rural Geography: Globalizing the Countryside. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2008, 32, 129–137.
  147. Camarero, L. La Población Rural de España. De los Desequilibrios a la Sostenibilidad Social; Obra Social Fundación la Caixa: Murcia, Spain, 2009.
  148. García de León, M.A. El Campo y la Ciudad: Sociedad Rural y Cambio Social; Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Secretaría General Técnica: Madrid, Spain, 1996.
  149. Dematteis, G. Periurbanizzazione mediterranea e suburbanizzazione anglosassone. Vecchie e nuove forme della città estesa. In Temi e Problemi di Geografia in Memoria di Pietro Mario Mura; Viganoni, L., Ed.; Gangemi: Roma, Italy, 1998; pp. 71–75.
  150. Dematteis, G. Suburbanización y periurbanización. Ciudades anglosajonas y ciudades latinas. In La Ciudad Dispersa. Suburbanización y Nuevas Periferias; Monclús, F.J., Ed.; Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 1998; pp. 17–33.
  151. Hoggart, K.; Paniagua, A. The restructuring of rural Spain? J. Rural. Stud. 2001, 17, 63–80.
  152. Entrena, F. Procesos de periurbanización y cambios en los modelos de ciudad: Un estudio europeo de casos sobre sus causas y consecuencias. Papers 2005, 78, 59–88.
  153. Entrena, F. Rururbanización y transformaciones en los usos y los significados de los espacios rurales. In El Cambio Social en España: Visiones y Retos de Future; Bericat Alastuey, E., Ed.; Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Consejería de la Presidencia, Junta de Andalucia: Sevilla, Spain, 2006; pp. 145–160.
  154. Entrena, F. Deagrarianization, the growth of the food industry and the construction of new ruralities. In Food Production and Eating Habits from Around the World: A Multidisciplinary Approach; Entrena-Duran, F., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 3–27.
  155. Bengs, C.; Schmidt-Thomé, K. Urban–Rural Relations in Europe; Final Report; ESPON 2000–2006 Programme Centre for Urban and Regional Studies and Helsinki University of Technology: Helsinki, Finland, 2007.
  156. Buciega, A.; Pitarch, M.D.; Esparcia, J. The Context of Rural–Urban Relationships in Finland, France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2009, 11, 9–27.
  157. Wandl, D.I.A.; Nadin, V.; Zonneveld, W.; Rooij, R. Beyond urban–rural classifications: Characterising and mapping territories-in-between across Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 130, 50–63.
  158. Reig, E.; Goerlich, F.J.; Cantarino, I. Delimitación de Áreas Rurales y Urbanas a Nivel Local. Demografía, Coberturas del Suelo y Accesibilidad; Fundación BBVA: Bilbao, Spain, 2016.
  159. Jean, Y.; Rieutort, L. Les Espaces Ruraux en France, Paris; Armand Colin: Paris, France, 2018.
  160. Majewska, A.; Małgorzata, D.; Krupowicz, W. Urbanization chaos of suburban small cities in Poland: Tetris development. Land 2020, 9, 461.
  161. Gómez, J.M.; de Sá Marques, T.M.V.; Aja, A.H. Procesos urbanos funcionales en Iberia. Cuadernos Geográficos 2020, 59, 93–128.
  162. Gutiérrez, E.; Moral, E.; Ramos, R. Tendencias Recientes de la Población en las Áreas Rurales y Urbanas de España; Banco de España: Madrid, Spain, 2020.
  163. Paumelle, A. Exploring the Evolutions of Historical Very Small Towns in Rural Change: A Focus on Their Socio-spatial Reconfigurations in Pays de Caux, France (1960–2020). Ager 2021, 32, 15–38.
  164. Rózycka-Czas, R.; Czesak, B.; Staszel, A. Which Polish Cities Sprawl the Most. Land 2021, 10, 1291.
  165. Rubio, R. Transformaciones Urbanas y Procesos Territoriales: Lecturas del Nuevo Dibujo de la Ciudad Latinoamericana. Rev. Geogr. Norte Grande 2005, 34, 107–109.
  166. De Grammont, H. El concepto de nueva ruralidad. In La Nueva Ruralidad en América Latina. Avances Teóricos y Evidencias Empíricas; Pérez, E., Farah, M.A., de Grammont, H.C., Eds.; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana y CLACSO: Bogota, Colombia, 2008; pp. 23–44.
  167. Kay, C. The Agrarian Question and the Neoliberal Rural Transformation in Latin America. ERLACS 2015, 100, 73–83.
  168. Frediani, J.C. Lógicas y Tendencias de la Expansión Residencial en Áreas Periurbanas; Universidad Nacional de la Plata: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2010.
  169. Romero, J. Lo rural y la ruralidad en América Latina: Categorías conceptuales en debate. Psicoperspectivas 2012, 11, 8–31.
  170. Canales, A.; Canales, M. De la metropolización a las agrópolis: El nuevo poblamiento urbano en el Chile actual. Polis Rev. Latinoam. 2013, 12, 31–56.
  171. Ubilla, G. Rururbanización, suburbanización y reconcentración de la tierra: Efectos espaciales de instrumentos rurales en las áreas periurbanas de Chile. Ager 2019, 28, 75–106.
  172. Duque, J.C.; Lozano-Gracia, N.; Patino, J.E.; Restrepo, P.; Velasquez, W.A. Spatiotemporal dynamics of urban growth in Latin American cities: An analysis using nighttime light imagery. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 191, 103640.
  173. Liu, Y. Research on the Urban-Rural Integration and Rural Revitalization in the New Era in China. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2018, 73, 637–650.
  174. Yansui, L.; Yang, R.; Long, H.; Gao, J.; Wang, J. Implications of land-use change in rural China: A case study of Yucheng, Shandong province. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 111–118.
  175. Roca, E.; Pesoa, M.; Martí, M.; Galindo, J. Algunos retos de la urbanización reciente en China, cinco fenómenos y un proyecto. Archit. City Environ. 2018, 12, 177–200.
  176. Zhang, K.H.; Song, S. Rural–urban Migration and Urbanization in China: Evidence from Time-Series and Cross-Section. China Econ. Rev. 2003, 14, 386–400.
  177. Wang, L.; Li, C.; Ying, Q.; Cheng, X.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Hu, L.; Liang, L.; Yu, L.; Huang, H.; et al. China’s urban expansion from 1990 to 2010 determined with satellite remote sensing. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2012, 57, 2802–2812.
  178. Peng, L.; Liu, S.; Sun, L. Spatial–temporal changes of rurality driven by urbanization and industrialization: A case study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area in Chongqing, China. Habitat. Int. 2016, 51, 124–132.
  179. Deng, J.S.; Wang, K.; Hong, Y.; Qi, J.G. Spatio-temporal dynamics and evolution of land use change and landscape pattern in response to rapid urbanization. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92, 187–198.
  180. Long, H. Land use transition and rural transformation development. Prog. Geogr. 2012, 31, 131–138.
  181. Long, H.; Qu, Y.; Tu, S.; Wang, J. Land use transitions under urbanization and their environmental effects in the farming areas of China: Research progress and prospect. Adv. Earth Sci. 2018, 33, 455–463.
  182. Zhang, D.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; He, S.; Zhou, X. Study on sustainable urbanization literature based on Web of Science, Scopus, and China national knowledge infrastructure: A scientometric analysis in Cite Space. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121537.
  183. Yang, Z.; Shen, N.; Qu, Y.; Zhang, B. Association between Rural Land Use Transition and Urban–Rural Integration Development: From 2009 to 2018 Based on County-Level Data in Shandong Province, China. Land 2021, 10, 1228.
  184. Berdegué, J.A.; Carriazo, F.; Jara, B.; Modrego, F.; Soloaga, I. Cities, territories, and inclusive growth: Unraveling urban–rural linkages in Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. World Dev. 2015, 73, 56–71.
  185. Antrop, M. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 67, 9–26.
  186. Gallent, N.; Shoard, M.; Andersson, J.; Oades, R.; Tudor, C. Inspiring England’s Urban Fringes: Multi-Functionality and Planning. Local Environ. 2004, 9, 217–233.
  187. Gallent, N.; Bianconi, M.; Andersson, J. Planning on the edge: England’s rural—Urban fringe and the spatial-planning agenda. Environ. Plan. 2006, 33, 457–476.
  188. Woods, M. Engaging the global countryside: Globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2007, 31, 485–507.
  189. Carr, M. New Patterns: Process and Change in Human Geography; Nelson Thornes: Oxford, UK, 1997.
  190. Hart, J.F. The Rural Landscape; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1998.
  191. Viganò, P. Territori della Nuova Modernità; Electa: Naples, Italy, 2001.
  192. Viganò, P. New Territories; Officina Edizioni: Rome, Italy, 2004.
  193. Brezzi, M.; Dijkstra, L.; Ruiz, V. OECD Extended Regional Typology: The Economic Performance of Remote Rural Regions; OECD: Paris, France, 2011.
  194. Johansen, P.H.; Nielsen, N.C. Bridging between the regional degree and the community approaches to rurality: A suggestion for a definition of rurality for everyday use. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 781–788.
  195. Isserman, A.M. In the national interest: Defining rural and urban correctly in research and public policy. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2005, 28, 465–499.
  196. Waldorf, B.S. A Continuous Multi-Dimensional Measure of Rurality: Moving beyond Threshold Measures. Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc. 2006, 379, 21891.
  197. Cromartie, J.; Bucholtz, S. Defining the “Rural” in Rural America; Economic Research Service/USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; Volume 1.490, pp. 28–34.
  198. Sancho, R.; Regidor, J.G.; Ruiz, L. Medio rural y agricultura. In Desarrollo Rural Sostenible: Un Nuevo Desafío. Ley para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Medio Rural; Regidor, J.G., Ed.; Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2008.
  199. Reig, E.; Goerlich, F.J.; Cantarino, I. Construcción de una tipología rural/urbana para los municipios españoles. Investig. Reg. 2016, 35, 151–173.
  200. Nieto-Masot, A.; Cardenas, G.; Engelmo, A. Spatial analysis of the rural-urban structure of the Spanish municipalities. Int. J. GeoInform. 2020, 9, 213.
  201. Mountrakis, G.; AvRuskin, G.; Beard, K. Modeling rurality using spatial indicators. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on GeoComputation, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 31 July–3 August 2005.
  202. Minore, B.; Hill, M.E.; Pugliese, I.; Gauld, T. Rurality Literature Review: Prepared for the North West Local Health Integration Network; Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research, Lakehead University: Orillia, ON, Canada, 2008.
  203. Clout, H.D. What Is the Rural? In European Experience of Rural Development; The Rural Development Commission, Mimeo: London, UK, 1993.
  204. Clout, H.D. The European countryside: Contested space. In Modern Europe. Place, Culture and Identity; Graham, B., Ed.; Arnold: London, UK, 1998; pp. 287–309.
  205. Schmit, B.; Goffette-Nagot, F. Définir l’espace rural? De la difficulté d’une définition conceptuelle à la nécessité d’une délimitation statistique. Econ. Rural. 2000, 257, 42–55.
  206. Nieto-Masot, A.; Engelmo, A.; Cárdenas, G.; Mora, J. Índice de ruralidad para los municipios españoles (Censo del 2011). In Nuevas Realidades Rurales en Tiempos de Crisis: Territorios, Actores, Procesos y Políticas; Cejudo García, E., Ed.; AGE: Granada, Spain, 2018; pp. 223–234.
  207. Larrubia, R.; Navarro Rodríguez, S. Tipificación del espacio rural a través de métodos multivariantes: Ejercicio en el espacio rural malagueño. Cuad. Geogr. Univ. Granada 2020, 59, 247–278.
  208. Doogan, N.J.; Roberts, M.E.; Wewers, M.E.; Tanenbaum, E.R.; Mumford, E.A.; Stillman, F.A. Validation of a new continuous geographic isolation scale: A tool for rural health disparities research. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018, 215, 123–132.
  209. Weinert, C.; Boik, R.J. MSU rurality index: Development and evaluation. Res. Nurs. Health 1995, 18, 453–464.
  210. Harrington, V.; O’Donoghue, D. Rurality in England and Wales 1991: A replication and extension of the 1981 rurality index. Sociol. Rural. 1998, 38, 178–203.
  211. González, V.M.; Pérez, J.L.; Rubiera, F. Propuesta de un procedimiento para la delimitación del espacio urbano y rural mediante Sistemas de Información Geográfica. Aplicación al caso de Asturias. ACE Archit. City Environ. 2017, 12, 213–222.
  212. De Cos, O. SIG y evaluación multicriterio: Propuesta metodológica para cuantificar el grado de metropolización en el territorio. Mapp. Interact. 2007, 116, 6–12.
  213. Catalán, D.; Saurí, D.; Serra, P. Urban sprawl in the Mediterranean? Patterns of growth and change in Barcelona Metropolitan Region 1993–2000. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 85, 174–184.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Feedback