its) Rurality Menelaos Gkartzios First encounters Every year I ask my undergraduate students to ‘define the rural’. The term nurality is not particu- larly meaningful to them, especially if English is not their first language. The responses vary, and at times are amusing and exciting, but always start with some speculation on population levels and densities, settlement sizes, types of housing, farming activities and so on. Once I was told that settlements could be defined as either urban or rural based on whether they have pavements cornot. A few walks around global metropoles (Tokyo for example) would easily demonstrate this is not the case. This year a student told us that if you can’t get a signal on your mobile phone, ‘it is definitely rural’ - they had a point, but still. The discussion usually moves on to land uses and services, agriculture and food production, natural resources, landscape features and topography. Finally, we arrive at issues of identity and representation, what they understand a person from the countryside to be like, and we also discuss what might have influenced their responses in the conversation, whether they grew up in the countryside and so on. Through this introduc- tory question, we touch on most scholatly approaches and struggles associated with theorising ruralities in human geography: from negatively defined spaces (essentially what is non-urban) to numerical, functional or statistical definitions of rurality and more complex typologies; and from values we attach to rural places and rural identities (both positive and negative) to » bols, representations and discourses of the rural. This interaction with the students is engaging. because they all know what the rural is, but to define it in absolute terms or even on its own terms (especially not in negative terms) remains a challenge. In the remainder of this chapter, I will introduce some of the most influential scholarship in human geography that has dealt with the concept of rurality, including some more recent developments, particularly around decolonial- ity, artistic practice and language politics. From dualities to power dynamics ‘Most unequivocally, geographer Keith Halfacree (1993) has argued that the rural matters ~ and is therefore worth defining ~ because it is used and understood in everyday talk. The rural carries ‘emotional connotations in people's biographies and life aspirations; it is an important element of one’s identity rather than a marginal explanatory descriptor. In an early, but highly influential, effort to unpack it, Halfacree (1993) describes four main ways to define the rural, embracing both historical developments and interdisciplinary perspectives: descriptive definitions; socio-cultural DOI: 10,4324/9780429265853-22 237cree RURALITY guishes between the various defi able variables (i.e. population density); these have also been used to develop a series of posi rural typologies drawing on multiple variables (usually derived from census data), such as edu- cational qualifications, income levels, distance from cities and taxation per capita (for an early ‘example see Cloke, 1977; and more recently, Nelson et al, 2021). An inherent bias of many of these approaches is that policy makers and researchers were not necessarily interested in defining rurality per sc, but rather urban spaces, with the rural constituting all space that was literally left ‘out. This exemplifies a particular phenomenon whereby rural areas are defined either as spaces that are not urban or in relation to how those spaces are used, especially for farming and agricul- ture, As a consequence, our understandings of urban and rural spaces operate in a dynamic rela- ibly connected in their conceptualisation, they are not exactly antithetical, and they are not opposite in equal terms (Gkartzios et al,, 2020) (Figure 18.1). Although these descriptive definitions vary greatly from one context to another, every country has developed such measurable definitions of rurality. The urban-rural cut-off point in England, Figure 18.1 ‘Syrrako village (of Viach heritage) in Greece Source: hata credit: Monelans Gkatzios 238RURALITY coer) forexample, is 10,000 people per settlement (UK Government Statistical Service, 2011), while itis setat only 1500 people just across the Irish Sea in the Republic of Ireland (CSO [Central Statistics Office}, 2019). The OECD (2011) also uses a descriptive definition to distinguish between urban and rural areas by referring to the population density of small administrative units (ie. rurality constitutes areas with less than 150 people per square kilometre, excluding Japan and South Korea in recognition of their contrasting higher density levels). Such context-specific defini- tions are helpful in policymaking, but they also further exacerbate urban-rural dichotomies, are arbitrary (particularly for further academic scrutiny and analysis) and add confusion to inter- national discussions about rural policies (Woods, 2005). For this reason, the proposition of an urban-rural continuum (Vahl, 1966) has been more appealing in understanding the way rural and urban places operate as part of a networked settlement pattern particularly in less industrialised contexts, although in reality policy framing in many cases still suffers from an ‘urban-rural binary imposition. This suggests that while we acknowledge the complexity of set- tlement patterns across multiple and overlapping layers of urbanity and rurality (embracing places, identities, networks, mobilities etc.), we tend to have very different priorities and policy aspirations for settlements we broadly understand and describe as either urban or rural (see also Gallent and Gkartzios, 2019). Halfacree (1993) further acknowledges scholarly attempts to define rurality by observing unique socio-economic phenomena in rural spaces. These efforts were not successful, which led to calls to dismiss altogether the idea of the rural as meaningful scale for policy implementation and to some extent as a field of geographical scholarship (Hoggart, 1990), Rather than marginalising the rural because of a scholarly inability to define itin absolute or unique terms, the cultural turn of the late 1980s gave rise to a new and exciting set of questions about the lived experience in rural places (Cloke, 2006), embracing discussions about power struggles in the countryside across iden- tities of gender, race, ethnicity and setuality. In that context, research on rurality has focused on the symbols, signs and images people think of asrural - representations of rurality. These devel- ‘opments not only invited critical questions about rural identity - beyond what Philo (1992) refers to as ‘Mr Average’ — but also grounded the idea of a contested rurality (e.g. Scott, 2006): a socio-po- litical space infused with power, multiple meanings and representations (Woods, 2005). AS a consequence, there have been a series of research projects that, instead of focusing on functional terminologies of the rural, have explored how actors define such ruralities ~ a ‘post rural’ in the context of earlier definitional attempts (Cloke, 2006) ~ and how such representations are used to frameand legitimise policies and interests in the countryside (e.g. Rye, 2006). It wasn’t that earlier scholarship hadn't attempted to attach meaning and values to urban and rural places (see, for ‘example, the works of Ferdinand Tonnies and Louis Wirth), What the cultural turn allowed was the exploration of such representations asnot fixed in time and/or space but instead as constantly evolving, mirroring wider interests and power struggles in the countryside. Although such representations are, of course, complex and dynamic, culturally and place contingent, two narratives frame the way in which the rural is usually discussed and captured across policy, political and media discourses of the rural (Woods, 2005). These have been con- ceptualised by Murdoch et al. (2003) as another binary, between pastoralism and modernism. ‘The pastoral, pre-industrial and romantic view of the countryside is commonly referred to as the ‘rural idyll’ (Bell, 2006) and has frequently been used to encapsulate middle-class interests in the countryside. By contrast, modernism frames a backward version of the countryside, lagging behind culturally and technologically ~ a narrative that is often used to support development in 239CEM | RURALITY the countryside. In many cases, these two narratives operate almost in parallel, each evidencing the existence of the other. Of course, rural areas demonstrate far more complex narratives than these two hegemonic discourses (da Silva et al., 2016), both progressive and parochial, both privileged and forgotten, and the analysis of those has also embraced multidisciplinary and geo-humanity perspectives. Although the rural still needs to be defined in some descriptive ways for policy intervention, these contributions have analysed which social groups frame understandings of selective rurali- tics, how and to what purpose, embracing also questions of power and agency in the debate of rural - Such explorations are central to a highh y influential proposition about rural geographies: the ‘differentiated countryside’ (Murdoch et al, 2003), a critical lens through which to under stand shifting politics and power relations in the contemporary countryside Acknowledging great diversity amongst rural areas (and thus moving beyond the urban-rural dichotomy), the differentiated countryside introduced a more nuanced typology of rural areas based on the con- trasting interests and power dynamics across various agents in the countryside. Ranging from agriculture-dominated areas based on state support to areas of increasing conflict between eco- nomic development and environmental conservation interests, the differentiated countryside has made a profound contribution to proposinga place-specific approach to understanding rural areas. This has revealed complex power hierarchies that are central to the development of rural areas. The ‘ideal’ types that have been proposed by its authors (drawing on English cases) are: the ‘preserved countryside’, characterised by the dominance of conservation and anti-development interests; the ‘contested countryside’, implying contested rationalities across rural development interests; the ‘paternalistic countryside’, highlighting the role of large landowners monopolising development opportunities; and the ‘clientist countryside’ whereby state agencies, as institu- tional landowners, are the crucial actors framing opportunities for rural development. Summary + There is no single way to define the rural, although certain aspects of rurality can be more dominant than others (e.g. association with agriculture). + Rurality encompasses material and symbolic characteristics. + The notion of a ‘differentiated countryside’ implies the heterogeneity of rural areas as well as power struggles regarding their rural development trajectories. Mobilities and relationality The debates around rurality, of course, did not stop with the cultural tum and various scholarly influences (for example the tums (0 mobility, the spatial and the performative) have given rise to more nuanced understandings of rurality, freeing on the onchand the rural from the conceptual boundaries of population density and proximity to the city, while on the other hand also scek- ing to re-materialise rurality and its farming/agricultural preoccupations (e.g. Zhang, 2022). Such understandings are evident in relational and more-than-representational approaches to rurality 240RURALITY coer) (eg. Heley and Jones, 2012, Phillips, 2014). Askins (2009), for example, introduces a ‘transrural’ approach which extends to scales of experiencing rurality beyond the countryside - for example through mobilities and desire from/to rural spaces/places. A significant contribution in aligning the social construction of rural places with material processes of change has been Halfacree's (2006) three-fold conceptualisation of rurality, drawing on Henri Lefebvre, which consists of rural localities associated with production or consumption actions of rumality, formal representations of space as articulated by professional experts including planners, and everyday lives of the rural, for example personal experiences of rurality (for an application in the Chinese context sce Chung, 2013). Mobilities have been central in understanding the rural, because of the multiple ways mobil- ities shift rural meanings and practices, evoking new politics and conflicts (Milbourne and Kitchen, 2014). The most significant driver of rural social change has been counterurbanisa- tion, broadly defined here as a move towards a more rural residential environment (Figure 18.2). Counterurbanisation has indeed been one of the most discussed topics in rural geography for over five decades, and although originally describing a Global North or western social phenom- enon, it is now commonly discussed across globally differentiated contexts; see for example Figure 18.2 ‘Art wall and new housing in Puli, Taiwan Source: Phota cred: Menelans Gkastzioe 241CEM | RURALITY scholarly contributions in Africa (Geyer and Geyer, 2017, Crankshaw and Borel-Saladin, 2019), Asia (Jain and Korzhenevych, 2019, Klien, 2020) and Latin America (Garcfa-Ayll6n, 2016). ‘The complexity of counterurbanisation as a concept mirrors the difficulty of defining mutually ‘exclusive urban and rural spaces, especially across complex and differentiated histories of indus- trialisation around the globe (Gkartzios, 2013). Italso invites multiple reasons in explaining why people move (or return) to the countryside, from economic rationality to wellbeing perceptions attached to the social construction of the countryside, across various social groups (e.g. from mid- dlc-class urban-based familics moving in peri-urban rural areas to moreradical and counter-cultural moves towards marginal and remote rural areas) (ee a suggested typology by Mitchell, 2004). More critically, counterurbanisation demonstrates why scholarly interest in rurality still matters: new agents are entering the countryside, bringing new skills, networks and values in relation to rural life which shift development trajectories and create conflicts with other groups that ate posi- tioned as ‘local’ or ‘authentic’. For exemple, a particular aspect of counterurbanisation is the col- onisation of the countryside by more middle-class groups, leading to the gentrification of rural space, and ultimately issues of displacement, housing unaffordability and exclusion (Gkartzios and Ziebarth, 2016). However, the experience of counterurbanisation is not necessarily attached to processes of gentrification (Phillips, 2010) and, in certain contexts, counterurbanisation pres- ents an opportunity to develop the countryside (Dilley et al., 2022). Furthermore, the discourse around mobility has opened the debate for explorations beyond counterurbanisation, including, rural-to-rural migration, ephemeral and open-ended mobilities (e.g. Halfacree and Rivera, 2012), leading to the proposition of ‘messy mobilities’ by Stockdale 201 are complex, multi-directional and beyond dichotomous explanations and typologies. Aside from the tendency to focus on mobility, understandings of murality as part of a networked - and therefore interrelated - world gave rise to the notion of a ‘global countryside’ (Woods, 2007), acknowledging that rural areas are part of interconnected and interdependent global systems and processes and that in many instances rural areas constitute important local- ities in which to address global challenges (Gkartzios et al., 2022). The positionality of rural areas in a globalised world suggests that their future development trajectories are heavi tested, but in essence they constitute a new politics of place, introduced as the ‘the politics of the rural’ by Woods (2006), whereby the meaning and regulation of rurality underpins conflicts and dictates development trajectories. Such processes of globalisation and the development of networked economies in the countryside have also been discussed as ‘hybrid ruralities’ (Lin et al, 2016): on one hand, technological and scientific advancements have radically transformed rural places and allowed them to be part of a globalised world; and, on the other hand, the same processes have resulted in alienation, resistance and rejection of modernisation. Another way to discuss relationality in the conceptualisation of rurality is to explore approaches that are not specifically preoccupied with what the countryside is but, instead, aim to understand how it functions. This impliesan understanding of how to support bottom-up and place-based policy interventions that result in more socially just, sustainable and inclusive coun- trysides; governance relationships and actions which are usually recognised under the umbrella of neo-endogenous (or networked) rural development. The approach of seeing what rural areas are made of has given tise to various capital framings which aim to articulate and valorise the place-based assets or resources ~ both material and immaterial ~ that constitute the countryside and ultimately can underpin local and sustainable development pathways. Prominent proposi- tions have been the Sustainahle Livelihoods Framework (Scoones, 1998) and the Community Capital fhat rural mobilities indeed 242RURALITY coer) Framework (Flora et al., 2004), which acknowledge interrelated forms of capital specific to the rural context. Similar approaches have been proposed by various other scholars of rurality who ‘emphasise how these capitals work and interact towards desired policy actions (e.g. Gkartzios et al., 2022, Natarajan et al, 2022). Summary + Mobilities frame an important aspect to understand and research the shifting nature of murality. + Counterurbanisation commonly refers to urban relocations in rural areas (or areas per- ceived tobe ‘more rural’) polning to new and contested understandings andrepresen- tations ofrurality. + Tho ‘politics of the rural’ is a framework to undozstand conilict and chango in the coun- tryside, particularly within a globalised and networked world. New ruralities: decoloniality, language and art Scholarship about rurality has evolved within particular socio-cultural contexts, disciplinary knowledge silos, natural languages - and the politics that all these entail. Indeed, following the cultural turn, rural geography in Britain not only dominated other disciplinary approaches within the broader framing of rural studies but also enjoyed a more critical position compared to that adopted in other countries (Bell, 2007). A direct result of such asymmetries, coupled with the fact that English emerged as the lingua franca of academic scholarship after the second half of the twentieth century (de Swaan, 2001), has meant that many social phenomena related to rurality have been conceptualised through the English language and, more widely, within anglo- phone contexts (as demonstrated also by the language of this global book). The proliferation of anglophone scholarship in rural studies has resulted in critical questions about whose knowledge and experience matters in the production of academic discourse about ruralit ‘As all knowledge is produced in specific geographical and cultural contexts, a frank recogni- tion and examination of the social bases of knowledge is required. That is not only necessary for the pursuit of objectivity. It is also important to appreciate the limits of knowledge in con- sidering its relevance or applicability. Otherwise, we risk building a globalised knowledge (say, an international rural sociology) on the false assumption that we all speak the same language. Yet, even when we do speak the same language, we do not always share the same meaning. Lowe, 2012: 35 ‘The influence of the anglosphere in rural scholarship is particularly evident in the research on the social construction of idyllic ruralities (Vepsalainen and Pitkanen, 2010), on counterurbani- sation research (Grimstud, 2011) and also in the deployment of the ‘differentiated countryside’ asa frame of analysis in rural studies globally (e.g. Brunori and Rossi, 2007) in spite of the fact 243EM | RUALITY that it draws on the unique spatial rural realities of England (Gkartzios and Remoundou, 2018). ‘This suggests that knowledge production about rurality has its own politics and exclusions and that we need to engage with scholarship and authors that mirrorthe rural experience across the world (see also Chapter 19 on ‘Comparative Ruralities'). In that regard, and in the context of wider efforts to decolonise the academy, recent works have drawn, first, on rurality struggles in the Global South (eg. Gillen et al., 2022) researching, in particular, Indigenous rural community conflicts, discussed sometimes as ‘indigenous ruralities’ (Majer, 2019). Second, recent work aims also to reconsider language performativity and translation politics in the research process and subsequent anglophone dissemination (e.g. Gkartzios et al., 2020, Wang, 2022), especially because meanings and identities of rurality are so diversified and complex globally, intersected with Indigenous languages and vernacular cultures, ranging from discriminatory and derogative connotations to bourgeois lifestyles and aspirations, The point of these debates is not to abandon research on rurality or even abandon the term rurality itself (as Hoggart suggested much earlier) but to critically interrogate other power struggles in the production of rural knowledge beyond the experience of European and North American contexts (Figure 18.3). Figure 18.3 (Co-op café and library in Gédence, Turkey Source:Phota credit: Menslans Ghartzioe 244RURALITY coer) These debates inherently acknowledge a much older proposition of course (Jones, 1995, Halfacree, 2006): that many different agents produce discourse about rurality, and they are not all the usual suspects, such as rural residents, policy makers, farmers and rural scholars. While much work focuses on lay, policy, media and academic discourses of rurality, other actors play significant roles as well. Indeed, in recent years, there appears to be significant excitement about the countryside, evident, inter alia, in the capture of rurality in cultural production and specit- ically within the global circuits of the ‘art world’. In New York for example, the Guggente ‘Muscum hosted an exhibition on the ‘Countryside, The Future’ exploring ‘radical changes in the rural, remote, and wild territories collectively identified here as “countryside”, or the 98% of the Farth’s surface not occupied by cities [...’ (Guggenheim, 2020; see also online materials at the end of the chapter). Furthermore, the Chinese entry at the 2018 Venice Architecture Biennale, aimed to ‘build a future countryside’, rooted in ‘forgotten values and overlooked possibilities’ (La Biennale di Venezia, 2018). Aside from these large-scale events, creative arts practice in and about rurality abounds glob- ally (eg. Leung and Thorsen, 2022) and can be seen also in the growth of artist residency pro- grammes in rural areas (Gkartzios and Crawshaw, 2019). The work here includes not just creative arts practice positioned in or transferred physically to the countryside, but, more critically per- haps, creative arts practice that ts about the countryside, artistic practice that reflects, challenges and researches rural futures and rural livelihoods. Such contributions have offered new explora tions and imaginations about struggles in rural places. Work in this area is inherently inter- and trans-disciplinary and extends beyond the recognition of the ‘creative countryside’ and develop- ment opportunities associated with place-based cultural assets in rural areas (see forexample Kell and Jayne, 2010); indeed, the artistic experience can offer sensory ways of reading and under- standing communities and rural places (Crawshaw and Gkartzios, 2016). But more importantly, there appears to be a new wave of artists, scholars and rural urban residents interested in artistic expression and experiencesin the countryside, adding to the continuously evolving discourse of rurality (Argent, 2018) and giving rise to new research approaches, methods and knowledges in researching the countryside (Crawshaw, 2022). Summary + Knowledge production about rural places has its own politics and power struggles, framed also by colonialism. + All knowledge and discourse about rural places are important, especially beyond scholarly contributions. Rurality in the twenty-first century Irrespective of the definitions or approaches used, rurality encompasses both material features and abstract social characteristics. The consensus is that rural areas are heavily differentiated and contested places, characterised by significant transformations and emerging politics of place. This is also evident in the numerous expressions that encapsulate rural change, such as the 245cree RURALITY ‘post-productivist transition’, the ‘consumptive countryside’, ‘rural restructuring’ and the ‘multifunctional countryside’ (Figure 18.4; see also the discussion in Chapter 19). At the heart of all such concepts is an appreciation that change (environmental, demographic, economic, cultural, built etc.) has been a fundamental aspect of rural realities. Rural areas have been at the forefront of debatesaround climate change mitigation and adap- tation, It is not difficult to understand why: the vast majority of the Earth’s surface is rural; food and fibre are largely produced in rural areas; many rural areas are associated with natural resource extraction. But rural areas matter not only in the context of the climate emergency ~ they have been critical spaces for attention through various crises. For example, the global coro- navirus pandemic demonstrated that rural places have suffered disproportionately due to their unique socio-spatial characteristics, while, in other cases, crises have offered unique opportu- 's for new forms of resilience to be explored (Gkartzios and Scott, 2015), Rural areas also ically important constituencies; sometimes they are discussed as bastions of popu- red with the growth of right-wing politics (see Edelman, 2021, Mamonova and Figure 18.4 Agriculture in front of Teshima Art Museum in Teshima Island, Japan Source: hata credit: Monelans Gkatzios 246RURALITY coer) Franquesa, 2020), while at the same time some offer resistant altematives to neoliberalism (e.g. Shucksmith and Ronningen, 2011), embedded within emergent queer politics and progres- sive post-capitalist visions (e.g. Gray et al., 2016). ‘The dynamic of all these changes signals that there is aneed to articulate better rural futures, as expressed by Shucksmith’s (2018) concept of ‘the good countryside’. Visions of what consti- tutes a good countryside, of course, abound and are conflicted - we must accept that it is that plurality that legitimises the ambition of more sustainable, socially just and resilient rural areas (Ball, 2007). However, while the imagination of a better countryside remains open and flexible, the route to get there rests upon the realisation of new development pathways that are critically embedded in and committed to rural places. This suggests an understanding of rurality as part of an interconnected planetary system in which the urban-rural distinction serves as one of its boundaries that we need to tackle, while demonstrating care for a rural place and valuing its material and immaterial resources (Gkartzios et al., 2022). Calls to recognise the importance of rurality are regularly made in scholarly and policy litera- ture (see for example a blog published in Planetizen, by Hibbard and Frank [2022}). At the same time, our collective and institutional understandings of urbanity and rurality are not without biases. While scholarly engagement with the rural requires the articulation of parallels with related social phenomena in the metropolis, the opposite is hardly ever the case. Itis interesting to note that the urban-rural divide is also n rural studies, each having its own fora, learning communities and academic journals. The point of this chapter is to contribute to understandings of the rural as a place identity of contrasting, yet numerous values and imaginations. Drawing on Halfacree (2006), rurality is not simply the antithesis of urbanity; like any other place, rurality is experienced, lived, negotiated and con- tested. It is, however, equally important to appreciate rurality as a body of knowledge - both vemacular and scholarly - with its own politics and power dynamics, and support increased demands to value knowledge about rurality produced not only outside white, westem and Global North contexts but also outside the academy itself. This chapter is dedicated to the memory of Professor Paul Cloke whose contributions in the development of rural scholarship remain unparalleled. rrored in academic boundaries between urban and Discussion points * How would you define the rural? * What values and beliefs do we hold for rural places? Where do they come from? Are they consistent across various social groups? How do such values find their ways in policymaking? + What kind of conflicts are observed in the contemporary countryside? What is their global diversity and relevance to sustainability agendas? References Argent, N. (2018). Rural geography IIL: marketing, mobilities, measurement and metanarratives, Progress in Human Geography 43(4): 758-766, Askins, K. (2009). Crossing divides: ethnicity and rurality, Jounal of Rural Studies 25(4): 365-375. 247CEM | RURALITY Bell, D. 2006). Variations on the Rural Idyll, In The Handbook of Rural Studies, eds. P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P Mooney. London: Sage, 149-160. Bell, D., and Jayne, M. (2010). The creative countryside: policy and practice in the UK rural cultural ‘economy. fournal of Rural Studies 26(3): 209-218. (. (2007). The two-ness of rural life and the ends of rural scholarship. journal of Rural Studies 2314): 402-415. Brunoti, G., and Rossi, A. (2007). Differentiating countryside: social representations and governance pattems in rural areas with high social density: the case of Chianti, Italy. Journal of Rural Studies 232): 183-205. Chung, H, (2013), Rural transformation and the persistence of rurality in China. Eurasian Geography «and Economics 54(5-6): 594-610. CSO (Central Statistics Office). (2019). Urban and Rural Life in Ireland, 2019. https//wweso ie/ en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-urli/urbanandrurallifeinireland2019/introduction/#d.en. 211130 Cloke, P. (1977). An index of rurality for England and Wales. Regional Studies 11(1): 31-46. Cloke, P. (200). Conceptualizing Rurality. In Handbook of Rural Studies, eds. P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney. London: Sage, 18-28. Crawshaw, J. (2022). Art Worlding: Planning Relations. London: Routledge Crawshaw, J. and Gkartzios, M. (2016). Getting to know the island: attistic experiments in rural com- munity development. Journal of Rural Studes 43: 134-144. Crankshaw, 0. and Borel-Saladin, J. (2019). Causes of urbanisation and counter-ubanisation in Zambia: natural population increase or migration? Unban Studies 56 (10): 2005-2020. daSilva, D. S., Figuettedo, E., Eusébio, C., and Carneiro, J. (2016). The countryside ts worth a thousand ‘words — ortuguese representations on rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies 44: 77-88. ‘de Swaan, A. (2001). English in the Social Sciences. In The Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities, ed. U. Ammon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-84. Dilley, ., Gkartzios, M., and Odagiri,T. (2022). Developing counterurbanisation: making sense of rural mobility and govemance in Japan. Habitat Intemational 125: 102595. Edelman, M. (2021). Hollowed out Heartland, USA: How capital sacrificed communiticsand pavedthe ‘way for authoritarian populism. Journal of Rural Studies 82: 505—S17. Flora, C. B.. Hora, J. L., and Fey, S. (2004). Rural Communities: Legacy and Change. Boulder. Westview Press. Gallent, N,, and Gkartzios, M. (2019). Defining Runality and the Scope of Rural Planning. In The Routledge Companion to Rural Planning, eds. M. Scott, N. Gallent, and M, Gkartzios. London: Routledge, 17-27. a-Ayil6n, S. (2016). Rapid development asa factor of imbalance in urban growth of cities in Latin Bell, Garci America: a perspective hased on territorial indicators. Habitat Intemational, S8: 127-142, Geyer, N. 2, and Geyer, H. S. (2017). Counterurbanisation: South Africa in wider context. Environment ‘and Planning A 49(7: 1875-1593. Gillen, J., Bunnell, T., and Rigg, J. (2022). Geographies of ruralization. Dialogues in Human Geography, DOI: 10.1177/204382062210758 18 Gkartzios, M. (2013). ‘Leaving Athens’: narratives of counterurbanisation in times of crisis. Journal of Rural Stuies 32: 1S8-167. Gkartzios, M., and Crawshaw, J. (2019). Researching rural housing: with an artist in residence. Sociologia Ruralis $9(4): 589-611. Gkartzios, M,, Gallent, N., and Scott, M. (2022). Rural Places and Planning: Stories from the Global Countryside, Bristol: Policy Press. 248RURALITY coer) Gkartzios, M., and Remoundou, K. 2018). Language struggles: representations of the countryside and the city in an era of mobilities. Geoforum 93: 1-10. Gkartzios, M,, and Scott, K. (2015). A Cultural Panic in the Province? Counterurban Mobilities, Creativity, and Crisis in Greece. Population, Space and Place 21: 843-855. Ghartzios, M.,, Toishi, N.,and Woods, M. (2020). The language of rural: reflections towards an inclusive rural social science. Joumal of Rural Studies 78: 325-332. Gkartzios, M.,and Ziebarth, A. (2016). Housing: A Lens to Rural Inequalities. In Intemational Handbook ‘of Rural Studies, eds. M. Shucksmith and D. Brown. London: Routledge, 495-508. Gray, M.L, Johnson, C. R, and Gilley, B.J. (2016). Queering the Countryside: New Frontiers in Rural Queer Studies. New York: New York University Press. Grimsmud, G. M. 2011). How well docs the ‘counter-urbanisation story’ travel to other countries? The ‘case of Norway. Population Space Place 17: 642-655 Guggenheim. (2020). Countryside, The Future, https://www.guggenheim org/exhibition/countryside Halfacree, K. (1993). Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural, Joumal of Rural Studies 9: 1-15. Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural Space: Constructing a ‘Three-Fold Architecture. In Handbook of Rural Stucies, eds. P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney. London: Sage, 44-62. Halfacree, K., and Rivera, M.J. (2012). Moving to the countryside ... and staying: lives beyond repre- sentations. Saciologia Ruralis §2(1): 92-114 Heley, J., and Jones, L. (2012). Relational rurals: some thoughts on relating things and theory in rural studies. Journal of Rural Studs 28(3): 208-217. Hibbard, M, and Frank, K. I. 2022). Bringing Rurality Back to Planning Culture. https://www.planetizen. ‘com/blogs/116295-bringing-rurality-back-planning-culture Hoggart, K. (1990). Let’s do away with rural. Jounal of Rural Studies 6(3): 245-257. Jain, M, and Korzhenevych, A. (2019). Counter-Urhanisation as the growth of small towns: is the capital region of India prepared? Tiidschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geognafie 110(2): 156-172. Jones, 0. (1995). Lay discourses of the rural: developments and implications for rural studies. foumal of Rural Studies 11: 35-49. Klien, S. (2020). Urban Merants in Rural Japan: Between Agency and Anomie in a Post-Growth Society. New York: Sunny Press. LaBiennale di Veneri, (2018), China (People’s Republicof): Building A Future Countryside. htsps//ww labiennale.org/en/architecture/2018/national-participations/china-people%E2%80%99s-republic Leung, K. Y., and Thorsen, L. M. (2022). Experiencing art from a field of rice: how farmers relate to rural revitalisation and art at Japan’s Echigo-Tsumari Art Festival. Sociologia Ruralis, DOL: 10.1 111/ soru.12379. Lin, G,, Xie, X., and Ly, Z (2016). Taobao practices, everyday life and emerging hybrid rurality in con- ‘temporary China. Jounal of Rural Studies 47: 514-523. Lowe, P. (2012). The Agency of Rural Research in Comparative Context. In Rural Tansformations and Rural Policies in the US and UK, eds. M. Shucksmith, D. L. Brown, S. Shortall, J. Vergunst, and M. E. ‘Warner. New York: Routledge, 18-38. ‘Majer, R. (2019). Pragmatic community resistance within new indigenous ruralities: lessons from a failed hydropower dam in Chile. Journal of Rural Studies, 68: 63-14. ‘Mamonova, N., and Franguesa, J. (2020). Populism, neoliberalism and agrarian movements in Europe. Understanding rural support for right-wing politics and looking for progressive solutions. Sociologia Ruralis 60(4): 710-731. Milbourne, P, and Kitchen, L. (2014). Rural mobilities: connecting movement and fixity places. Journal of Rural Studies 34: 326-336 Mitchell, C. J. A. 2004). Making sense of counterurbanization. Journal of Rural Studies 20: 15-34. in rural 249RE | eutALTY Murdoch, J., Lowe, P, Ward, N., and Marsden, T. 2003). The Differentiated Countryside. London: Routledge. Natarajan, N., Newsham, A., Rigg, J., and Suhardiman, D. (2022). A sustainable livelihoods framework for the 2ist century. World Development 155: 105898. Nelson, K. S., Nguyen, T. D., Brownstein, N. A,, Garcia, D., Walker, H. C., Watson, J.T, and Xin, A. (2021). Definitions, measures, and uses of nurality: a systematic review of the empirical and quan- titative literature. Jounal of Rural Studies 82: 35 1-365. OECD Regional Typology. (2011). https://www.cecd org/cte/regionaldevelopment/OECD_regional_ typology_Nov2012.pdf Pani, R. E. (1966). The rural-urban continuum. Sociologia Ruralis 6(3): 299-329. Philo, C. (1992). Neglected rural geographies: a review: Joumd of Rural Studies 8: 193-207. Phillips, M. (2010). Counterurbanisation and rural gentrification: an exploration of the terms. Population Space and Place 16(6): 539-558. Phillips, M. (2014). Baroque rurality in an English village. Joumal of Rural Studies 33: 56-70. Rye, J.F. (2006). Rural youths’ images of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies 2214): 409-421. Scoones, |. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. In [DS Working Paper ‘No 72, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. Scott, M. (2006). Strategic spatial planning and contested ruralities: insights from the Republic of Ireland. European Planning Studies 14(6): 811-829. Shucksmith, M. 2018). Re-imagining the mural: from rural idyll to good countryside. Journal of Rural Studies, 59: 163-172. Shucksmith, M,, and Ronningen, K. (2011). The uplands after neoliberalism? The role of the small farm in rural sustainability. ountal of Rural Studies 27(3): 275-287. Stockdale, A. (2016). Contemporary and ‘Messy’ rural in-migration processes: comparing countenur- ban and lateral rural migration. Population, Space and Place 22(6): 599-616. UK Govemment Statistical Service. (2011). The 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for Output Areas in England. https://assets. publishing service.gov.uk/government/uploads/systemn/uploads/attachment_ data/file/1.009128/RUCOA_leaflet_Jan2017.pdf Vepsalainen, M,, and Pitkanen, K. (2010). Second home countryside. Representations of the rural in Finnish popular discourses. Jounal of Rural Studies 26(2): 194-204. ‘Wang, C. M. (2022). Performing rurality and urbanity: language performations, materials and land-use politics, Joumal of Rural Studies, DOL: 10.1016)j.jrurstud.2022.03 016 ‘Woods, M. (2005). Rural Geography. London: Sage. ‘Woods, M. (2006). Redefining the rural ‘question’: the new ‘politics of the rural’ and social policy. Sacial Policy and Administration 40(6): 579-895. ‘Woods, M. (2007). Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Progress in Human Geography 31(4): 485-507. Thang Q. F (2022). Building productivism in rural China: the case of residential restructuring in. Chengdu. Geoforam 128: 103-114. Online materials * __https://unhabitat.org/topichurban-rural-linkages + __https/www.guggenheim.org/teaching-materials countryside-the-future + _httpsi/www.oecd.org/regional/nural-development/ * https://europeanruralparliament.com 250RURALITY coer) Further reading Ghartzios, M,, Gallent, N,, and Scott, M. (2022). Rural Places and Planning: Stories ftom the Global Countysite. Iristol: Policy Press. Aurecent textbook on the relationshi studies. between planning and rural places drawing on 12 global case Murdoch, J., Lowe, P,, Ward, N., and Marsden, T. (2003). The Differentiated Countryside. London: Routledge. A dassic text developing the notion of ‘different jon’ in rural areas drawing on the English context. Rodriguez Castro, L. (2021). Decolonial Feminisins, Power and Place: Sentipensanado with Rural Women in Colombia, Cham: Palgrave A recent critical text on the intersection of femi , decolonial and ruraiity scholars ‘Woods, M, (2011). Runaf. Oxon: Routledge. Aclassictextbook in human geography discussing all aspects of rurality (functional, imagined, economic, performative etc.) 281