This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 21 November 2014, At: 15:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Policy & PlanningPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20

Opportunities for Rural–Urban Relationshipsto Enhance the Rural LandscapeGreet Overbeek aa LEI Wageningen UR , The Hague, The NetherlandsPublished online: 13 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Greet Overbeek (2009) Opportunities for Rural–Urban Relationships to Enhance the RuralLandscape, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11:1, 61-68, DOI: 10.1080/15239080902775058

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15239080902775058

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

CONCLUSION

Opportunities for Rural–Urban Relationships to Enhance

the Rural Landscape

GREET OVERBEEK

LEI Wageningen UR, The Hague, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT Increasingly rural areas find themselves in an ambivalent urban context,tending both to build and to preserve the rural landscape. The question is how rural areascould overcome this ambivalence by establishing better relationships between urban andrural areas. In this paper, we aim to reflect on the role of rural–urban relationships. First,we will discuss the divergent perceptions on urban pressure in rural areas. Second, wewill analyse the (f)actors for RGS development to enhance the rural landscape. Finally,we will elaborate a territorial approach based on different rural–urban relationships andestablish an integrated supply of rural goods and services. The empirical content of thispaper has been based on the results of the European project ‘Building new relationships inrural areas under urban pressure’ (RURBAN) conducted in five EU countries.

KEY WORDS: Urban pressure, rural landscape, territorial approach, rural–urbanrelationships

Introduction

In Europe, the ‘commodification’ of the countryside is part of an ongoing econ-omic restructuring of rural areas. As traditional, production-based economicactivities have declined, the ‘use value’ of rural landscapes has begun to beexceeded by the ‘exchange value’ (Best, 1989, p. 26; Woods, 2005, p. 184). Particu-larly, in rural areas under urban pressure, this restructuring has many impli-cations, with claims on rural land for housing, transport infrastructure,economic and tourist activities. On the other hand, urbanization contributes toan idealization of the rural landscape (Bunce, 1994). Therefore, a central issue toenhance the rural landscape will be the combination of both its tangible andnon-tangible aspects, and thus the perception of urban pressure and the preser-vation of the rural landscape through its rural goods and services (RGS). RGSmay be distinguished in public and private activities. Public RGS include core

Correspondence Address: Greet Overbeek, LEI Wageningen UR, PO Box 29703, 2502 LS,The Hague, The Netherlands. Tel.:þ31 70 3358100. Email: greet.overbeek@wur.nl

Journal of Environmental Policy & PlanningVol. 11, No. 1, March 2009, 61–68

1523-908X print/1522-7200 Online/09/010061-8 # 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/15239080902775058

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

activities like nature management and recreational infrastructures and primaryactivities like agricultural land management (Courtney et al., 2006). Private RGSbelong to activities dependent on the environment and natural heritage foreconomic success, which according to their rival character can only be consumedwhen the consumer pays for it.

The commodification of the countryside occurs in a context where therelationships between urban and rural areas are no longer bilateral, with sharpdistinguished spatial consumption and production areas, but tend to become morecomplex. As has been mentioned in the Introduction of this special issue, the term‘rural–urban relationship’ may refer to at least three different relations between rur-ality and urbanity (Overbeek, 2009). They are not only based on the flows betweendifferent places such as between the rural fringe or rural hinterland and the townor urban area (first), or on the different territorial bounds of the actors living insideor outside the rural area (second). The term ‘rural–urban relationship’ also pointsto the different functional relations between actors mainly living and working inrural areas and the actors living in the rural areas, but working in urban places (third).

In this concluding paper, we aim to reflect on the main findings of theRURBAN project ‘Building new relationships in rural areas under urban pressure’conducted in five EU countries: Finland, France, Hungary, the Netherlands andSpain (Overbeek & Terluin, 2006). In order to capture the new patterns of spatialchange, in each country a rural area near a metropolitan area and a rural areanear a tourist seashore or lake area were selected (Table 1). We will discuss succes-sively the divergent perceptions on urban pressure in the case study regions. After-wards, we will analyse the key (f)actors in the development of RGS to enhance thelandscape as has been explained in the earlier papers. Finally, we will give anoutline for a territorial approach based on the different rural–urban relationships.

Divergent Perceptions of Urban Pressure

One of the investments in the RURBAN project has been the integrated analysis of650 interviews in total, which took place with several groups of actors in the studyareas involved with the development of RGS (public authorities, consumers, pro-ducers, stakeholders and intermediate actors). During the interviews, we noticeddivergent perceptions of urban pressure.

First of all, divergence was related to the territorial location of the intervie-wee, being an internal or external actor, and to the functional relations amongthe internal actors. Quite a number of internal actors had positive perceptionsof urban pressure, based on the increase in purchasing power related to thearrival of new consumers and new taxpayers and to the sources of income dueto the sale of building plots. Negative perceptions also prevailed among internal

Table 1. Participating countries and study areas

Country Metropolitan study area Tourist study area

Finland Helsinki Region Aboland RegionFrance Vexin Francais Pays de CauxHungary Budapest agglomeration Valleys of Arts and Lake BalatonThe Netherlands Oost Zuid-Holland Zeeuwse eilandenSpain Camp de Turia Marina Alta

62 G. Overbeek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

actors who considered urban pressure as a threat for the rural landscape, a dangerof becoming overruled by the main cities and shortcomings in the extent to whichnewcomers and tourists adapted to rural life (such as the willingness to speak thelocal language, to accept agrarian smells, to pay local taxes, to do shopping in themunicipality and to say hello to each other). Negative perceptions were especiallycommon among newcomers, who wanted to maintain the status quo after theyhad settled in the region, and thus had a NIMRUR (not in my rural area) attitude.

With regard to external actors, we found more divergent perceptions in thestudy areas. Probably, this could be attributed to the stages of creative destructionof the hinterlands, where expenditures are viewed as enhancing the economicwell-being of the community and the rural idyll remains intact (Mitchell, 1998,p. 277). Positive perceptions on urban pressure were often associated with oppor-tunities to build houses in rural areas. Negative perceptions of external actorswere related to threats for the landscape and were predominantly found in thedensely populated metropolitan rural areas Vexin Francais in France and OostZuid-Holland in the Netherlands. Further, a number of external actors perceivedurban pressure on rural areas as ‘no issue’ in the most sparsely populatedmetropolitan rural area (Helsinki region) and tourist rural area (Aboland) inFinland. In the other metropolitan rural areas and in most tourist rural areas,the external actors had both negative and positive perceptions.

Secondly, we found some explanation for the different perceptions ofurban pressure among countries in the main rural traditions across the EU15(Hoggart et al., 1995). It could be expected that the perception of urban pressureon rural areas is rather negative in both France and the Netherlands, where theagrarian and naturalist rural traditions prevail and rural areas are highlyvalued as both production and consumption spaces. Contrary to those countries,the perception of urban pressure is expected to be positive in Spain, where theMediterranean rural tradition is typical with a spatial organization mainly dic-tated by urban areas, while rural areas are regarded as hindrances to the establish-ment of a modern economy. Although Hungary is not included in the scheme ofHoggart et al. (1995), it appears that rural areas in Hungary are perceived in asimilar way as in the Mediterranean rural tradition and have a positive perceptionof urban pressure as it will enhance the economic development in rural areas.In Finland, where the marginalist rural tradition is found and the conception ofrurality is linked to the physical environment, the perception of urban pressureis expected to be no issue.

When we compared our set of expected perceptions of urban pressure withthe perceived perceptions of urban pressure, it seemed that the expected percep-tions rather fit with the perceived perceptions. We found examples of an upcom-ing rural identity in case study regions with an agrarian, naturalist or marginalisttradition, which were absent in case study regions with a Mediterranean tradition.Here it could be said that having a positive perception of rurality serves as asuitable base for creating or strengthening the rural identity of a region. Upcomingrural identities as an answer to urban pressure were among others perceivedin the French and Dutch metropolitan study areas, where rural identity wasderived from an agricultural asset: the corn fields and the peat meadows, respect-ively. In the Finnish metropolitan study area of the Helsinki Region, rural identityis created around forests. It should be noted that an icon of a rural identitycould serve both as a tool to market the rural landscape and to conserve therural landscape. Finally, the rural tradition in a country also seems to have an

Opportunities for rural–urban relationships 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

impact on the valuation of the building of new houses in rural areas: in France andthe Netherlands, this valuation can be said to be negative, in Spain and Hungaryto be positive, whereas it is no issue in Finland.

Urban Pressure and the Key (F)actors for RGS Development to Enhance theRural Landscape

To an increasing extent, urban sprawl goes in tandem with the development ofprotected areas and thus with the first rural–urban relationship mentioned, basedon a separation of places. The principle behind protected areas is that there areparticular landscapes of such aesthetic, cultural or scientific importance that theywarrant specific protection from detrimental human activity. The designation ofprotected areas such as greenbelts and natural parks seeks to preserve the mostvalued natural features of the rural areas while permitting the development ofthe wider countryside (Fung & Conway, 2007; Woods, 2005, p. 187). In all casestudy regions, except for the Spanish tourist study area Marina Alta, nature manage-ment is applied, which is expressed by protected nature areas such as, for example,national and regional parks. Such parks are a core part of the public RGS and forman important linkage between urban actors and nature, as these provide the oppor-tunity to experience the rural landscape with its scenic beauty. In addition, nationalparks may also support the ecosystem, water regulation and soil preservation.

The development of nature areas is often a contest of conflicting interests, asBuciega et al. (2009) explain in their paper in this special issue. On the one hand, agroup in favour of nature development can be distinguished, such as regional andnational administrations intending to implement nature protection policies, new-comers and environmental groups. On the other hand, a group opposed to naturedevelopment can be perceived, often composed of local stakeholders and therepresentatives of local municipalities, who are hindered in their intentions foreconomic development. The combination of both ambitions rarely occurs in abalanced way. While the economic benefits linked to the intensive exploitationof land and water are clear and usually very high, other non-intensive uses, e.g.a green open area or a nice landscape, have not been given an economic valueunless they are linked to the provision of specific services, e.g. tourism. Further,the implementation of land-use planning aims to manage changes and to playan important role in the regulation of urban pressure. Despite some hopefulattempts to adopt more integrative, strategic and territorial approaches toland-use management, sectoral and zoning tools still predominate (Esparcia &Buciega, 2005).

Other papers in this special issue analysed the role of different actors, in par-ticular producers and intermediate actors in the development of RGS to enhancethe rural landscape. The metropolitan rural areas are mainly populated by nativeswho live there permanently and work in the urban centres nearby. The touristrural areas are also dealing with foreign newcomers and second-home owners,predominantly in Spain and Hungary (Dagevos et al., 2004). Regarding the produ-cers, it is difficult to conclude on their role in the rural–urban relationship. Bothnatives, newcomers and external actors are involved. Whereas the supply ofpublic RGS, like countryside pathways and nature conservation, hardly differsamong tourist and metropolitan rural areas, we perceived a difference inthe nature of supply of private RGS. Tourist rural areas usually have a widerange of accommodations and restaurants, whereas such a private supply is

64 G. Overbeek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

moderate or absent in the metropolitan rural areas and tends to be rather foractivities to spend a day in the country, like riding schools and golf courses. Inline with the early stages of creative destruction (Mitchell, 1998), the supply ofprivate RGS is diverse, but often small scale, in particular in the metropolitanstudy areas, with a clear connection to traditional activities as in agriculture, asAndersson et al. (2009) explain in their paper. The results of the case studies indi-cate that we have to count on entrepreneurs in sustainable development eventhough they may range from specialized eco-producers to the exurbanites whoare primarily seeking a new lifestyle. The linkages between RGS and environ-mental protection in its direct sense are mainly found in environmental schemeswithin agriculture. Few producers mentioned eco-labelling or certification inrelation to public RGS. This may indicate that integration of nature protectionand economic activity is still a distant vision rather than a reality in the regions.

The contribution of the intermediate actors shows that their role in demandingor supplying RGS towards a sustainable development perspective does not offeran overall positive message, as Kovach and Kristof (2009) argue in their paper.Stakeholders and other intermediate actors may affect the provision of RGS andthe development of strategies for rural–urban relationships. The growingcooperation between organizations of different sectors or between NGOs andpublic administration can be considered as a strength, whereas a common weaknesswould be the lack of a coherent development and marketing policy of RGS.

Towards Improvements in Rural–Urban Relationships

To overcome the dualism between city and countryside, the European Commission(1999) formulated the principle of an integrated approach within the Europeanspatial development perspective. However, rather than promising hinterland func-tional heterogeneity and improved city-region environmental sustainability,current trends point towards more homogeneity and increased travel distancesfor work, leisure and services (Hoggart, 2005, p. 161).

In the case study regions, it was put forward that often imbalances in thepower relations of rural and urban actors could be perceived, such as weakrural landscape values versus strong urban economic interests. Briefly, thedemand for RGS in metropolitan study areas is induced by a high number ofurban people who want to enjoy recreational opportunities or live in a rural sur-rounding, but who are usually employed in towns, and thus illustrate the secondand third types of rural–urban relationships. This results in a permanent demandfor building sites and recreation services, which could conflict with the interests ofother internal users of the rural landscape. The fact that some internal actors werepositive about urban pressure, and others negative, implies that economic changemust conform to an overall context of ‘preservation’ (Murdoch et al., 2003).

In order to deal with the many conflicting demands for rural space and thesupply of public RGS, an outline of a territorial integrated approach can bedevised with the following three characteristics:

(1) territorial land-use planning by means of zoning and compensation payments,in order to contain urban sprawl and to protect the rural landscape; agree-ments are made about the destination of areas for different functions etc.;

(2) public bodies supply a number of public RGS such as natural parks, recreationpathways;

Opportunities for rural–urban relationships 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

(3) a large number of municipal and regional authorities, rural and urbanactors are involved in order to establish an integrated supply of public andprivate RGS.

The latter characteristic indicates that all three types of rural–urban relationshipsshould be included. It should be noted that such a territorial approach does notonly concern environmental sustainability issues, but also involves issues linkedto social and economical sustainability. Otherwise, socio-spatial segregationcould arise with social exclusion through the lack of affordable housing forlocal people and low-income households, as has been noted in France and inEngland (Hoggart, 2005; Mathieu et al., 2006). Further, without attention tosocial and economical sustainability, economic developments may occur outsidethe territorial area considered (Fung & Conway, 2007).

In the tourist study areas, the commodification of the rural landscape has along tradition and contributes to employment and income in the region.However, the sometimes large number of tourists and second home ownersmay affect the carrying capacity of the rural landscape. Although commodifica-tion of the landscape is usually a matter of private supply, in most case studyregions there is some public intervention, for example, by means of restrictionson the size of hotels, land-use planning, support for nature management etc. Incontrast to the studied metropolitan areas, the territorial coherence of actorsand RGS is often rather weakly developed in the tourist areas. Territorial agree-ments are necessary to go beyond messages that focus mainly on cooperationamong private actors to market the municipality as a ‘packaged experience ofthe countryside’ (Murdoch & Pratt, 1993, p. 422).

The establishment of sustainable territorial rural–urban relationshipsrequires a proper balance of interests, which covers the area of a ‘functionalunit’ with rural and urban municipalities, and thus the whole territory wheremost of its residents work, sleep and enjoy recreational opportunities. Suchterritorial relationships assume a constructive dialogue about urban and ruralinterests with the participation of all the involved actors in land-use planningand RGS, and sustainable coordination and redistribution of financial meansrelated to the development of urban and rural functions within the region. Inthis respect, one can think of agreements in which income generated from theconstruction of residential and business sites is used for developing nature,waste or water areas.

Both more territorial organization between rural and urban actors and morecooperation between private and public actors seem necessary to enhance RGS asa means to take advantage of the urban pressure phenomenon. Private RGS, likecafes and hotels, can facilitate the consumption of nature areas. In addition, theaccessibility of the rural landscape can be increased by means of public RGS.More cooperation among private RGS producers may avoid a fragmentedsupply, by the setting up of central selling points of regional products in townsand in visitor centres.

Concluding Remarks

In this special issue of the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, we havehighlighted the willingness of the rural and urban actors to enhance the rurallandscape as an answer to urban pressure. Urban pressure has both negative

66 G. Overbeek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

and positive perceptions, and the focus on rural–urban relationships is ofparticular interest for solutions to reduce environmental damage. Improvementsin the rural–urban relationships concern the application of territorial land-useplanning, improvement of the supply of RGS and more integration of thesupply of public and private RGS.

The insight gained from the RURBAN project has raised some questionsabout the rural–urban relationships, which require further investigation. Theyinclude more comparative analyses to increase the insight of both the cost andbenefits of territorial land-use planning and the organizational structure andfunctioning of rural–urban partnerships. Further, ideas on what is currentlyknown as sustainable consumption focus on participation, cooperation andinvolvement of consumers rather than exclusion. In emphasizing social dimen-sions of environmental issues, consumers are not taken as rational economicagents per se, but as actors whose preferences and purchases are possiblydetermined by a pluralistic array of influences, including ecological concerns,social and political value positions or ethical beliefs. Therefore, the needs andaspirations of urban actors should be taken into account, and it is necessary aswell to re-evaluate the assumption of a poor rural area that needs compensationpayments, keeping in mind the current financial flows and the use of urbanservices by rural residents.

References

Andersson, K., Eklund, E. & Lehtola, M. (2009) ‘Farmers, businessmen or green entrepreneurs?’Producers of new rural goods and services in rural areas under urban pressure, Journal ofEnvironmental Policy & Planning, 11(1), pp. 29–43.

Best, S. (1989) The commodification of reality and the reality of commodification: Jean Baudrillard andpost-modernism, Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 19, pp. 23–51.

Buciega, A., Pitarch, M. D. & Esparcia, J. (2009) The context of rural–urban relationships in Europe.Experiences from the Netherlands, Spain, Hungary, Finland and France, Journal of EnvironmentalPolicy & Planning, 11(1), pp. 9–27.

Bunce, M. (1994) The countryside Ideal: Anglo-American Images of Landscape (London: Routledge).Courtney, P., Hill, G. & Roberts, D. (2006) The role of natural heritage in rural development: An analysis

of economic linkages in Scotland, Journal of Rural Studies, 22, pp. 469–484.Dagevos, H., Overbeek, G. & Vader, J. (2004) Consuming Rural Goods and Services. A Consumer-oriented

Comparative Analysis (The Hague: LEI Wageningen UR).Esparcia, J. & Buciega, A. (Eds) (2005) New Rural-Urban Relationships in Europe: A Comparative Analysis.

Experiences from the Netherlands, Spain, Hungary, Finland and France (Valencia: Department ofGeography, University of Valencia).

European Commission (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards a Balanced Developmentof the European Union (Luxembourg).

Fung, F. & Conway, T. (2007) Greenbelts as an environmental planning tool: A case study of southernOntario, Canada, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9, pp. 101–117.

Hoggart, K. (2005) Convergence and divergence in European city Hinterlands, in: K. Hoggart (Ed.) The

City’s Hinterland. Dynamism and Divergence in Europe’s Peri-Urban Territories, pp. 155–170 (Aldershot:Ashgate).

Hoggart, K., Buller, H. & Black, R. (1995) Rural Europe: Identity and Change (London: Arnold).Kovach, I. & Kristof, L. (2009) The role of intermediate actors in providing rural goods and services in

rural areas under urban pressure, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(1), pp. 45–60.Mathieu, N., de Lafond, V. & Gana, A. (2006) Towards New Responsible Rural–urban Relationships (Paris:

UMR Ladyss, CNRS-UPAR10).Mitchell, C. J. A. (1998) Entrepreneurialism, commodification and creative destruction: a model of

post-modern community development, Journal of Rural Studies, 14, pp. 273–286.Murdoch, J. & Pratt, A. (1993) Rural: studies modernism, postmodernism and the post-rural, Journal of

Rural Studies, 9, pp. 411–427.

Opportunities for rural–urban relationships 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N. & Marsden, T. (2003) The Differentiated Countryside (London:Routledge).

Overbeek, G. (2009) Rural areas under urban pressure in Europe, Journal of Environmental Policy &Planning, 11(1), pp. 1–7.

Overbeek, G. & Terluin, I. J. (Eds) (2006) Rural Areas Under Urban Pressure; Case Studies of Rural–urbanRelationships Across Europe (The Hague: LEI Wageningen UR).

Woods, M. (2005) Rural Geography (London: Sage).

68 G. Overbeek

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014