Helps with revision to do with: Mobilities Governance And the RUF (Rural urban fringe). Ideal for A level revision or the module 'Rural Geographies' at Keele University.

1. RURAL GEOGRAPHIES
REVISION

2. MigrationTheory
• Urry (2007) – “movements across space and through
time”
• Massey (2005) ‘throwntogetherness of space’
• Lefebvre (1992) space is produced – mobilities make
space
• Bell and Osti (2010) stability requires mobility, it is
central to the enactment of the rural.
• Counter-urbanisation is a ‘chaotic conception’
(Champion 1998)
• More concentration to less concentration (Berry 1976)
• Persistence of access, place and flux.

3. Case Study: Stockdale (2014) English
Retirees to Powys N.Wales
• 127 mid life migrants
• Why move?
• Behavioural – residential preferences,
attachment to place as children (Rose
1995)
• Structural – employment and small
population
• Role of state - policies

4. Cultural Case Studies: Sweden and
Europe.
• Lindgren (2003) Sweden counter-urban move
associated with those less well-off.
• Phillips (1992) Europe – migrants of all ages + life
course stages – young families, middle aged, elderly.
• Millinton (2000) labour market stimuli declines with
migrant age, importance of amenities increases.
• Cloke and Milbourne (1992) Rural idyll

5. Case Study: Spain Mobility and Migration
Camarero and Olivia (2016)
• Migrants account for 1/5 of agricultural workers.
• 1/3 commute to urban areas for work.
• 51% of people working in agriculture live in urban areas
compared to 48% living in rural areas.
• Lash and Urry (1994) new economy of signs and places
e.g. branding and marketing – attract people.
• Post-modern ideological-cultural reconfiguration
(Harvey 1989)

6. MobilitiesTheory
• Massey (1991) place is an intersection of flows of people and objects and
continuously in a state of flux
• Gustavson (2001) associated with loss and uprootedness
• Green et al (1991) Long distance commuting as an alternative to migration.
• Cloke et al (2003) dominant constructions of rurality associated with stability,
rootedness, attachment to place and localism.

7. Milbourne and Kitchen (2014) Movement
and Fixity
• Wales
• 18 months
• Diaries
• 88% reliant on cars, 21% more than 40 miles to work.
• Multi-purpose trips – medicine etc, reliance on voluntary schemes.
• Chris calls in on elderly neighbour who has no broadband or car.
• Virtual mobilities: Shrinking geographies, home delivery, CRC (2009) those without
broadband are excluded.
• Rural mobility more about necessity than choice.
• Cultural and linguistic composition of place threatened by migration.

8. Goodwin-Hawkins (2014) Moving beyond
fixity inYorkshire
• To leave movement out of the rural is to “linger on a placid idyll of
no more substance than the imagination”.
• MovementsTHROUGH, OF and IN the rural village frame mobility
as continual and intrinsic.
• SnayTop Accounts:
• Scattered settlements, roads.
• Village continues to move, post-industry, mid-1990s
developments.
• Grass and pathways, stamping heavily on grass to keep paths
open. (Self contained rural Osti 2010 – connectivity and
reversibility of the rural).

9. Rural Governance Post-1997 Summary
• 1997 labour election, big tent, one nation.
• RDAs formed due to devolution of power, modernisation of the rural and EU funding.
• CountrysideAgency (social) and RDAs (economic)
• RuralWhite Paper (2000)
• FMD Outbreak – DEFRA. But Lives of Rural 
• Lord Haskins
• Governance and delivery separate
• Natural England, DEFRA and the CRC.
• Too remote for rural areas.
• Re-think: MAAs then LEPs formed.
• LEP challenges: Socio-economic diversity of the rural. Localised, objects of governance.

10. How has governance changed since 1997?
• Devolution of power – led to creation of RDAs and the Countryside Agency splitting economic and social responsibilities
between them.This helped to look at interests (Eagle 1997) or rural people, diminish the rural-urban dichotomy (Marsden
1998) and help standardise rural-urban regeneration (Coben 1998). BUT it didn’t acknowledge diversity.
• RuralWhite Paper (2000) – height of rural policy – render it thinkable and manageable to create a ‘living, working and
vibrant countryside’ (Goodwin 2008) but government think they can solve the rural with ‘prescription, diagnosis and cure’
(Rose and Miller 1992). FMD broke out and gov. didn’t know how to respond, fox hunting protests also took place during this
time – how to cope with ‘lives of rural’?
• Haskins Review – split policy and delivery! Regional – DEFRA, National – England and local (CRC).Too remote, too focussed
on agriculture, ignored discourses of reality!
• Sub-regional approach: LEPs – 39 across England. Localised objects of governance. LEPs replaced MAAs (Multiple area
agreements) which were too focussed on the urban (Pemberton and Shaw 2013).
• CRC report (2012) - we need to focus more on interests, its hard to meet socioeconomic concerns (Little and Jones 2000)
and challenges are mainly: Governance, Focus and Engagement.

11. RUF (Rural Urban Fringe)
• A “messy yet opportunistic space” (Scott et al 2013)
• Rural-urban distinctions most elusive, identities entangled (Woods 2009)
• TRANZITIONAL zone (Pryor 1968).
• Challenges and Opportunities
• C’s: Governance, Definition, Resolving problems with recreation, Inequalities,
Placelessness.
• Qvistrom (2010) reinterpretations of landscape discourse can help shape ways of viewing
the RUF.
• Spedding (2014) dynamic and productive
• O’s: Sustainability and conservation (Intrinsic values to society Lefebvre 1991), creativity
(Gallent et al 2006).Chemin de Fer (Forster 2011) Paris – ecological site, diversity.