1.1 The Oscillating Relation Between ‘Urban’ and ‘Rural

1 CHAPTER 1: Urban- Rural Territorial Dynamics

1.1 The Oscillating Relation Between ‘Urban’ and ‘Rural’

By fact, more than half of the population today (an estimated 54.5%) lives in urban areas, and by 2030 it is projected to peak at a total of nearly 60% (UN Habitat, 2016). Although there are different features and expressions of this global phenomenon, the urbanization process and sprawling patters have had an overall leading role on transforming the landscape of human settlements. Population growth, migration, accessibility to infrastructure and knowledge, diffusion of innovation and technological improvements, have pushed and expanded urban limits into the hinterland, and on rural frontiers, often resulting in producing hybrid spatialities, which reside on dynamically changing territories, and manifest a creative alliance and the co-existence between various types of spaces of mixed urban and rural features, which share a series of interconnections and interdependencies.

Especially on the conditions of the so called ‘capitalism 4.0’, followed by ‘the next economy’, which is centered around circular economy, new values based on the recycling processes of a new urban metabolism, are created. On these conditions, the shift towards a more open and collaborative circular society, requires that we pay particular attention to creating balanced urban-rural relationships, in order to avoid the prevailing of dominant hierarchical structures and stereotypes, and encourage the integration of peripheral and economically weaker areas in the processes of growth and innovation, nurturing the rise and development of a creative archipelago, where nodes and connections are equally important (Carta, 2017). Therefore, as researchers and planning professionals, it is our responsibility to ensure, not only politically correct, but especially, ethically correct practices of spatial and territorial development, as a response to the constantly shifting social, economic and political trends, and global changes.

In 2016, urban-rural linkages were a main policy issue and source of debate in the preparations for the 3rd United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, being materialized the UN Habitat III Agenda, which emphasized that a paradigm shift needs to take place in terms of the ways we understand and address the territory as prime resource

(UN Habitat, 2016). Nevertheless, despite the long and multi-sourced debate on the urbanrural relationships topic, and despite it being a global issue, to this day it still remains very little understood, not sufficiently studied, peripherally addressed, and in desperate need for more in depth analysis. This becomes even more alarming in confrontation with the fast rate of urbanization, which is still much higher than the rate of population growth, suggesting highly fragmented land development and low densities, consequently followed by costly and unsustainable patterns of agglomerations (UN Habitat, 2016).

Considering these anabolic effects and the multifaceted character of urban-rural relationships, exploring and searching alternative and effective solutions towards an integrated urban-rural approach, requires that we become aware of two main aspects: (1) the role and importance of social behaviors, our perceptions and common understandings which are generally rooted on cultural and historical backgrounds, on both urban and rural space; and (2) the interpretations of our spatial behaviors and physical interventions, affecting and changing both spaces.

The understanding of social behaviors informs the ‘how’ and ‘why’ the shift towards urban and rural as one single integrated space happens, looking beyond just the economic comfort. For a while now, we have been passing through a revolution, which is detaching the social processes of urbanization, from the locationally fixed settlements (either city or a region) (Webber, 1968). All the changes and benefits that came along especially with the fourth industrial revolution, where science and technology have been literally at the forefront of every event, have boosted the blooming of social systems in a way that makes ‘physical togetherness’ optional, rather than an absolute necessity. With infrastructure improvements and new mobility patterns, urban centers today are not exclusive in offering integrational services anymore. Today we speak of trading of information and knowledge, and this milestone has undoubtedly broken any barriers when it comes to the cultural continuum, which has happened at a faster pace than the territorial one.

On the other hand, translating social behaviors in spatial behaviors, informs a process of spatial production, in which the life cycles of urban and rural are redefined, and they’re both considered as “mutual hubs in permanent innovation” (Carta, 2017, pp.40). On the conditions of this new complex spatiality, which considers urban and rural environments

equally on a process of constant change and exchange, shifting our attention towards an ‘urban-rural continuum’, rather than isolated singular ‘urban’ and/or ‘rural’ spaces, provides us with the opportunity to unlock real potentials for addressing territorial cohesion and sustainable urban-rural relationships. Nevertheless, admitting an urban-rural continuum and stopping at that, is not enough, given its complex nature, as a process of social and spatial change, and as a spatial typology of various features and scales. Therefore, exploring ways to unhitch the complexity surrounding it, by identifying conditions and criteria that lead to the rise of the urban-rural continuum, as well as delineate spatial typologies in which this continuum is manifested, become emergent issues.

1.2 Objectives of the Research

The above general overview on the topic, emphasizes how over time the complex dynamics, of both social and spatial behaviors, have changed the urbanites-ruralites paradigm, given that none of them exclusively resides in only one place anymore, but they rather inhabit and shift on the space, where the series of interconnections and interdependencies among both urban and rural reals, are materialized. On these terms, this research work suggests that marking the break from the urban-rural dichotomy by framing urban-rural relationships under the concept of the urban-rural continuum, can result in a more accurate and integrated approach for addressing territorial cohesion and sustainable urban-rural relationships.

Despite the fact that the break from the dichotomy is already an ‘old news’, there is still plenty of uncertainty, which needs to be addressed on both grounds, on theoretical terms from an academic and research perspective (in order to expand the repertoire of conceptual tools, which are able to define and explain phenomena taking place in complex territories), and on practical terms, from an applicative and policy-making perspective (in order to provide policy makers and planning practitioners with analytic tools that make the concept of the urban-rural continuum operational at a territorial scale).

Therefore, the main general objective of this research work is to contribute to the theoretical discourse of considering urban-rural relationships and territorial dynamics in a

more comprehensive and integrated way, by introducing the concept of the ‘urban-rural continuum’.

On a more specific lens, the main objective consists on exploring and navigating through the ‘urban-rural continuum’, using ‘liminality’ and ‘continuum’ as two analytical conceptual tools, in order to delineate processes, criteria, and spatial typologies in which the ‘urbanrural continuum is manifested’. In order to link theory with practice, ‘liminality’ and ‘continuum’ as two main theoretical constructions, are put into perspective through reallife situations in two main case studies, Portugal and Albania.

Based on this specific objective, the central question of the research is: How can urbanrural territorial dynamics be framed under the concept of the ‘urban-rural continuum’, and how can ‘liminality’ and ‘continuum’ as conceptual tools enable delineating processes, criteria, and spatial typologies of the ‘urban-rural continuum’?

On these terms, from a theoretical perspective, this research work delves deeper on the urban-rural discourse, exploring the evolution of social and spatial behaviors in regard to urban and rural realms, by investigating on existing theories and previous research work, with the intention of finding space for interpretation and opportunities for building new insights over the ‘urban-rural continuum’ as both, process and spatial typology, employing ‘liminality’ and ‘continuum’ as conceptual tools for exploration.

’Liminality’ as a conceptual tool is interpreted as twofold: (1) a process of social change –‘liminal periods of time’ and ‘liminal conditions’, which on the framework of the research work informs the perceptual evolution on ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ spaces); and (2) a process of spatial production – ‘liminal spaces’ (thresholds and transition spaces rising from the clash and overlap of urban and rural), which on this research work inform the spatial evolution of the ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ spaces, and the rise of the ‘urban-rural continuum’.

‘Continuum’ as a conceptual tool is also interpreted as twofold: (1) a process – suggesting that the ‘urban-rural continuum’ is not a fixed moment in time, or a fixed spatiality, but it is rather a process of change and development over time; (2) a spatial typology – a series of sequences of fixed constants and liminal spaces, considering ‘fixed constants’ as those