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.

This study explores the role of both trait-like (i.e. adaptability) and situational (previous small business ownership and rurality) variables, on entrepreneurial identity (EI) through a social identity theory lens.

Path analysis was used on 376 individuals from across the United States who met various criteria and were recruited using Prolific.

Adaptability and previous small business ownership were found to be predictors of EI. Findings also highlight the moderating role of adaptability on the previous small business ownership-EI and rurality-EI links. Notably, highly adaptable individuals who have previously owned businesses tend to hold more of an EI, and those who are less adaptable and live in rural locations also tend to hold less of an EI.

Understanding the conditions under which individuals are likely to hold more of an EI may provide several benefits to organizations and individuals within society, including information that can be used to develop more fine-tuned career counseling and training, risk management strategies, and a more calculated allocation of finite resources.

Despite both personal trait-like (i.e. focus/adaptability) and situational (i.e. rurality and previous small business ownership experience) factors likely playing a crucial role in the formation of individuals' perceptions, previous work has largely ignored their interaction in the development of EI. The authors test a model encompassing trait-like (i.e. focus/adaptability) and situational (rurality, previous small business ownership experience) predictors of EI, along with their interactive effects, and illuminate a more holistic picture of EI's antecedents.

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.

Several risk factors have been identified in ongoing efforts by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to mitigate high rates of homelessness among veterans. To date, no studies have examined the relationship of rurality and distance to nearest VA facility to risk of homelessness. Due to challenges in accessing available services, the hypothesis was that rural-residing veterans are at greater risk for homelessness. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The cohort consisted of veterans who had separated from the military between 2001 and 2011. The authors used a forwarding address provided by the service member at the time of separation from the military to determine rurality of residence and distance to care. The authors examined differences in the rate of homelessness within a year of a veteran’s first encounter with the VA following last military separation based on rurality and distance to the nearest VA facility using multivariable log-binomial regressions.

In the cohort of 708,318 veterans, 84.3 percent were determined to have a forwarding address in urban areas, 60.4 and 88.7 percent lived within 40 miles of the nearest VA medical center (VAMC), respectively. Veterans living in a rural area (RR=0.763; 95 percent CI=0.718-0.810) and those living between 20 and 40 miles (RR=0.893; 95 percent CI=0.846-0.943) and 40+ miles away from the nearest VAMC (RR=0.928; 95 percent CI=0.879-0.979) were at a lower risk for homelessness.

The unique data set allowed the authors to explore the relationship between geography and homelessness. These results are important to VA and national policy makers in understanding the risk factors for homelessness among veterans and planning interventions.

This purpose of this study was to investigate how consumers’ degree of rurality and preference for specific ad types are associated with their attitude toward femvertising (pro-female advertising).

An online survey of US-based respondents over 18 years of age was administered by Qualtrics Panels from February 7 to February 15, 2018. The final sample included 418 respondents.

The more urban the respondents’ location was, the more educated they were, leading to more support for gender equality but not a more positive attitude to femvertising. Liking of ads described as “funny,” “with a message” and “emotional” was associated with a more positive attitude toward femvertising.

The findings were limited by the use of a convenience sample and the limited variance in participants’ rurality owing to the prevalence of respondents based in or near metropolitan areas. Future research should seek to understand how, if at all, femvertising has affected rather than only reflected social change across a variety of cultural settings.

Marketers can expect femvertising appeals to be relatively effective across the rural–urban divide. Femvertising campaigns should consider using or continue to use humor, inspiration/moral reasoning, and emotion in their messages.

The relative lack of controversy surrounding femvertising indicates gender equality may be embraced across social divides, possibly because in the current economic environment, women’s empowerment is linked to monetary gains for both companies and households.

As the demand for companies to take a stance regarding socially charged issues increases, there is a critical need to understand the factors that impact consumer demand in the context of pro-female messaging. This study expands the literature on the effects of two such factors – rurality and ad type preferences – on attitudes toward advertising promoting egalitarian values. No previous research has investigated the role of these variables in cause-related marketing.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by analyzing articles in the leading journals of the two main research fields, entrepreneurship studies, and rural studies, through the concept of rural proofing.

The systematic literature review centers on the two main fields where rural entrepreneurship is studied and covers papers in nine leading journals in entrepreneurship studies and two leading journals in rural studies, between the years 1989 and 2020. In total, 97 papers were reviewed and we utilize and operationalize the rural proofing concept based on Fahmy et al.'s (2004) 3 characteristics of rural: remoteness, accessibility, and rural locale and sense of place. The authors take stock of the dimensions of rural proofing addressed within each of the research fields to find similarities and differences; that is, if articles are rural proofed (or not) when discussing rural entrepreneurship.

The classification of articles across the three dimensions of rural proofing shows that the field of rural entrepreneurship is being addressed mainly in the dimensions of remoteness and accessibility, while few authors in rural studies journals give priority to the rural locale and sense of place dimension. The results of the authors' review reveal that out of a total of 97 articles on rural entrepreneurship, 56 articles address at least one dimension of rural proofing and 41 articles do not address any dimension. Among the 41 articles not rural proofed, rurality is not problematized when discussing rural entrepreneurship. Instead, the authors focus on specific topics such as social capital, community entrepreneurship/networks, entrepreneurs'/farmers' identity, illegality in rural areas, and institutional framework. The number of non-rural-proofed articles in entrepreneurship journals is almost double that in rural studies journals. This means that authors in entrepreneurship journals do not problematize rurality to the same extent as authors in rural studies journals when addressing rural entrepreneurship.

The authors emphasize the need for increased cross-fertilization between the fields of entrepreneurship and rural studies as an avenue to develop the entrepreneurship field in the direction towards rural proofing. A close collaboration with academia and policymakers is essential to promote interdisciplinary research in order to make a distinctive contribution to rural development. Scholars in either of the two fields will benefit from our review and identification of similarities and differences in the research. The review is one step towards promoting a closer dialog between the two fields.

Previous reviews have focused mainly on what rural entrepreneurship entails (e.g. what topics are discussed) rather than how rural entrepreneurship is discussed. This paper centers on the differences and similarities of the two main fields and provides an in-depth qualitative analysis of how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by utilizing the rural proofing concept.

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.

Rural education research has historically been cast in a deficit lens, with rural places characterized by their problems or shortcomings, as if the way of understanding rural itself is to compare it to nonrural locales. These intransigent and narrow perceptions of rurality hinders recognition of the assets and possibilities of rural places. The purpose of this paper is to apply community-empowering, transgressive knowledge to analyses of rural communities to advance rural education research and practice.

In this conceptual paper, the authors propose an asset-based, conceptual framework to ground rural research and education practices: rural cultural wealth.

The authors describe and explore the concept of rural cultural wealth within the context of education. Furthermore, the authors discuss the dynamics of rurality and propose four constructs that comprise the rural cultural wealth framework, rural resourcefulness, rural ingenuity, rural familism and rural community unity, and consider implications for future research and practice.

The goal of this paper is to advance a rural cultural wealth framework aimed to interrupt social reproduction of educational inequities that impact rural students.

The present work provides an integrated view of rural entrepreneurship and sets the agenda for future research in the area. Rurality defines a territorially specific entrepreneurial milieu with distinct physical, social and economic characteristics. Location, natural resources and the landscape, social capital, rural governance, business and social networks, as well as information and communication technologies, exert dynamic and complex influences on entrepreneurial activity in rural areas. Rurality is viewed as a dynamic entrepreneurial resource that shapes both opportunities and constraints. Rural entrepreneurship is depicted as a three‐stage sequential process highly influenced by specific territorial characteristics. The proposed research agenda addresses issues related to theoretical studies concerning entrepreneurial processes in rural areas and more applied issues concerning the formulation of integrated and competent policies supporting entrepreneurship in such areas.