Search results

This chapter brings new knowledge on the effects of transformation in metropolitan and urban ruralities, as well as focus on social sustainability in these localities. The case study Sundom, Vaasa, Finland, highlights areas under pressure of transformation. ‘Metropolitan ruralities’ is used here as an umbrella concept, subdivided into metropolitan ruralities and smaller (non-metropolitan) urban ruralities. Qualitative and quantitative research methods are combined in a triangular study. An octagon figure (Fig. 4), including the main variables of the triangular study, is configured, to visualize different variables as a whole. The statistical material is more limited in urban ruralities – for example fewer property trades, less inhabitants and fewer voters – which make these case studies more vulnerable for the impact of extremes. The core of the chapter is to study how and if current global trends in metropolitan ruralities are visible in localities further down the urban scale. A stricter rural gentrification is expected in metropolitan ruralities than in urban ruralities, as the Sundom case exemplifies transformation with mild gentrification. Both metropolitan and urban ruralities are considered ‘breeding grounds’ for new rurban identities, with variations on an urban-rural scale. Metropolitan ruralities are expected to attract more exurbanite migrants, and urban ruralities attract more ‘exruralite’ migrants. This chapter also outlines some practical and social implications, argues for strengthening social sustainability in metropolitan ruralities and puts some much needed focus on transformation in metropolitan as well as non-metropolitan urban ruralities.

Rural tourism agents and operators occupy a central role in the use and diffusion of certain social representations of rurality through the mobilization and utilization of specific (yet increasingly global) signs and symbols that, in the urban imaginary, characterize typical and traditional rural settings. Rural tourism promotional materials may contribute to the reconfiguration of the countryside more in accordance with an idealized rural than with the reality of local features. This chapter examines how rural areas and rurality are presented and commodified, using an exploratory content analysis of online and offline materials combined with a survey directed at rural tourism entrepreneurs in five municipalities of two different Italian regions – Campania and Tuscany. Evidence strongly suggests a discrepancy between the real and the portrayed rurality, pointing at the emergence or reinforcement of rural reconfiguration processes, shaped by external and often global images and imaginaries.

A series of changes have taken place over the past 20 years that have transformed the face of rural Greece. At the heart of these changes have been the rural farm household and the European agricultural and rural development policies.The processes of de-agriculturalization and rural restructuring in the early 1990s have been accompanied by ‘rurbanization’ and socio-economic integration of rural populations. These interrelated processes have internally transformed the rural areas, thus forming a ‘new rurality’ characterized by contraction of agriculture, expansion of tourism and construction, increased pluriactivity, increased employment of international migrant labour and the reorganization of farm family labour and operation. However, in the environment of economic crisis, the conditions of the ‘new rurality’ have been affected by falling incomes, contraction of public services and by a ‘back to the land’ movement. This ‘reverse mobility’ has the elements of both modernity and tradition: engagement with new methods of organization and work and rediscovery of traditional crops, products and cultures.The chapter will discuss the characteristics and dynamics of the changing physiognomy of rural Greece in the past 20 years focusing upon three paths: the de-agriculturalization of the countryside, the perplexity of rural mobilities and rural resilience during the economic crisis. The chapter moves from a theoretical analysis of these paths to a detailed account of secondary sources on the transformation of agriculture and the countryside in Greece before it discusses the implications of the crisis upon the population movements and the ‘rediscovery’ of the economic, social and cultural values of rurality.

This chapter introduces the theoretical and political-practical underpinnings of this volume. It also gives an outline of the editorial organisation of the book and the various chapters. The chapter examines the literature on rural-urban relations, city-near rural areas and current challenges and problems identified in these areas. We identify huge sustainability and resilience problems in current rural-urban relations and metropolitan ruralities. We also relate to writings about a transition from the current carbon-based economy and society to a post-carbon society with reduced ecological footprints. The contributions in this volume are based on the current situation and provide ideas to develop the debate on rural-urban relations, metropolitan ruralities and post-carbon transition.

This chapter concentrates on metropolitan governance, the use of projects (or ‘projectification’) in public administration and the development of metropolitan forms of citizen participation. The analysis is based on a case study from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area – a multi-actor policy programme called the Urban Programme, which included a specific participatory project named Citizen Channel. According to the analysis, the Urban Programme was a way to create consensus and collaboration between the municipalities of the area, whereas the Citizen Channel project created a ‘toolbox’ for metropolitan citizen participation. However, the relation between programme- and project-based development and municipal administration, especially the implementation of the results of short-term projects in permanent administration proved difficult. From the perspective of metropolitan ruralities, four kinds of conclusions are emphasised: the complexity and conflictuality of the issue of metropolitan governance; the use of relatively similar programmes and projects as policy tools both in urban and rural contexts; the ‘metropolitan dimension of everyday life’ of the inhabitants and its relation to municipal administrative cultures as well as the birth and strengthening of new actors such as local NGOs in projects. The originality of this chapter is to combine the frameworks of metropolitan governance, projectification and the development of citizen participation in an empirical study and to reflect them to the ‘metropolitan ruralities’ research.

The chapter focuses on rural-urban food links in the context of governance. We seek to understand a rural-urban innovator mechanism is emerging through the food system and the renewed question of proximity and relative autonomy in the alimentary supply of this type of space and local society. We present case studies from Paris and Budapest metropolitan rural areas exploring institutional and private actors of governance, their power networks, food and related cultural components of rural-urban relations, the function of food links and the way in which they are governed. We have found several differences in governance methods between the Paris and Budapest metropolitan ruralities. The areas surrounding Paris are characterised by multi-level governance methods. However, an isolated form of rural governance of the rural-urban local food link can be identified in Budapest’s rural areas. Understanding the complex and dynamic interaction of food links and related activities within metropolitan areas offers the possibility of a far greater understanding of the complex and multiple links between sustainability, renewal of social interaction and cohesion.