Working Group 1.5

Rural-Urban Relationships: Mobilities and Stabilities of the Rural-Urban Fringe

Convenor:
Marie Mahon, National University of Ireland, Galway. marie.mahon@nuigalway.ie

Urbanisation has been described as the dominant economic and social process of our time.  However, there is also a wealth of evidence suggesting that the attractions of the rural continue to hold strong for individuals.  Some of this is seen through counterurbanising trends.  For many others, the desire is to enjoy the best of both urban and rural worlds.  The reality of urban-centred functions, principally employment, means that for many, this rural-urban ideal is realised through residential choice in the rural-urban fringe.  For others, the growth of extensive and affordable residential development in the fringe has made the choice of fringe locations an economically-driven decision.  For yet others, the fringe represents a functional space for activities such as agriculture, tourism, recreation, or waste management.  Fringe spaces have been described by Gallent et al. (2006) as 'a dynamic area where a range of urban uses...collide with rural uses' (p.xv), and  Hoggart (2005) suggests that an understanding of processes of change in fringe locations can tell us much about the nature of change in both the urban and rural environments.  However, the evolving relationships between these spaces are not well understood.

The consequences - physical, social, economic or cultural - of urban ‘consumption’ of the rural in the fringe are also unclear.  Many argue that rural-urban divisions are blurring, whilst others point to strong divisions that remain.  What are the implications for communities in the fringe, and for the formation of local identities?  Is the fringe in reality a fragmented social landscape? How pertinent are issues such as loss of agricultural land, or changes in land use?  What is the relationship of farmers with an increasing population of urban neighbours?  Does it present threats, or can it create new opportunities?  Can it open up new forms of understanding between urban and rural dwellers about differing perceptions of rurality? Can 'overconsumption' of the rural aspects of the fringe, through poor planning or overdevelopment, remove the very characteristics that have made it unique and desirable in the first instance?  Is there, as Gallent suggests, a tendency to 'fetishise' the rural aspects of the fringe, to the exclusion of urban, and possibly desirable dimensions which may also contribute to quality of life? Is it useful to conceptualise the fringe as a unique, 'multifunctional' landscape, or is it in reality a 'non-place' (Auge, 1995), on an inevitable path to urbanisation? 

Abstracts are invited which explore, but are not limited to, the following themes:

• Conceptualising the spaces of the fringe
• ‘Consumption’ of the ‘rural’ aspects of the fringe by the urban
• Planning and development of the fringe
• Contested governance of the fringe
• ‘Fetishising’ the rural in the fringe
• The form of agriculture in the fringe
• Demography, community, dwelling and identity in the fringe