Delimiting Rural Areas: Evidence from the Application of Different Methods Elaborated by Italian Scholars
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Are the methods developed by Italian scholars to identify urban, rural and intermediate territories locally relevant and internationally comparable?
- How do the representations of rural areas vary when applying the various methods? More specifically, how many people live in the rural—thus delimited—areas?
2. Background
3. Characteristics of Rural Areas in Italy
4. Materials and Methods
5. The Reference Methods
5.1. Their Purpose and Characteristics
5.2. The Relevance and Comparison of the Methods at a Local and International Level
5.3. The Comparison at a Graphical and Quantitative Level
6. Discussion of Findings
7. Conclusions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rusta, A. Deconstruction of rural-urban divide in new tools prospective. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 9, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, K.; Borders, T.; Holmes, G.; Kozhimannil, K.; Ziller, E. What is rural? Challenges and implications of definitions that inadequately encompass rural people and places. Health Aff. 2019, 38, 1985–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ortiz-Báez, P.; Cabrera-Barona, P.; Bogaert, J. Characterizing landscape patterns in urban-rural interfaces. J. Urban Manag. 2021, 10, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaminski, A.; Bauer, D.; Bell, K.; Loftin, C.; Nelson, E. Using landscape metrics to characterize towns along an urban-rural gradient. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 2937–2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijkstra, L.; Florczyk, A.; Freire, S.; Kemper, T.M.; Pesaresi, M.; Schiavina, M. Applying the degree of urbanisation to the globe: A new harmonised definition reveals a different picture of global urbanisation. J. Urban Econ. 2021, 125, 103312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Hipp, J.; Butts, C. Does the spatial distribution of social ties impact neighborhood and city attachment? Differentials among urban/rural contexts. Soc. Netw. 2022, 68, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiaschetti, M.; Graziano, M.; Heumann, B. A data-based approach to identifying regional typologies and exemplars across the urban-rural gradient in Europe using affinity propagation. Reg. Stud. 2021, 55, 1939–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Eupen, M.; Metzger, M.J.; Pérez-Soba, M.; Verburg, P.H.; Van Doorn, A.; Bunce, R.G.H. A rural typology for strategic European policies. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 473–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattivelli, V. Institutional Methods for the Identification of Urban and Rural Areas—A Review for Italy. In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions, SSPCR 2019. Green Energy and Technology; Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Ludlow, D., Baranzelli, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Cattivelli, V. Methods for the identification of urban, rural and peri-urban areas in Europe: An overview. J. Urban Regen. Renew. 2021, 14, 240–246. [Google Scholar]
- Copus, A.K. The new rural economy and macro-scale patterns. In Territorial Cohesion in Rural Europe; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014; pp. 35–58. [Google Scholar]
- Bolton, T.; Hildreth, P. Mid-Sized Cities: Their Role in England’s Economy; Centre for Cities: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- EUROSTAT. Applying the Degree of Urbanisation, 2021 ed.; EUROSTAT: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2021.
- Bibby, P.; Shepherd, J. Developing a New Classification of Urban and Rural Areas for Policy Purposes–The Methodology; Defra: London, UK, 2004.
- Saastamoinen, U.; Vikström, S.; Helminen, V.; Lyytimäki, J.; Nurmio, K.; Nyberg, E.; Rantala, S. The limits of spatial data? Sense-making within the development and different uses of Finnish urban-rural classification. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bencardino, M.; Nestico´, A. Demographic changes and real estate value. A quantitative model for analyzing the Urban-rural linkages. Sustainability 2017, 9, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Champion, T.; Hugo, G. Introduction: Moving beyond the urban-rural dichotomy. In New Forms of Urbanization; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Gajić, A.; Krunić, N.; Protić, B. Towards a new methodological framework for the delimitation of rural and urban areas: A case study of Serbia. Geogr. Tidsskr.-Dan. J. Geogr. 2018, 118, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Overbeek, G. Rural areas under urban pressure in Europe. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2009, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, M. Resilience: A conceptual lens for rural studies? Geogr. Compass 2013, 7, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krause, M. The ruralization of the world. Public Cult. 2013, 25, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, E.; Beel, D.; Philip, L.; Townsend, L. Rural resilience in a digital society. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 54, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heijman, W.; Hagelaar, G.; Heide, M. Rural resilience as a new development concept. In EU Bioeconomy Economics and Policies: Volume II; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 195–211. [Google Scholar]
- Adam-Hernández, A.; Harteisen, U. A Proposed Framework for Rural Resilience–How can peripheral village communities in Europe shape change? AGER. Rev. Estud. Sobre Despoblación Desarro. Rural. 2020, 28, 7–42. [Google Scholar]
- Colantoni, A.; Grigoriadis, E.; Sateriano, A.; Venanzoni, G.; Salvati, L. Cities as selective land predators? A lesson on urban growth, deregulated planning and sprawl containment. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 545, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J.; Chu, V.; Lam, W.; Law, W. Building Rural Resilience. In Revitalising Rural Communities; Springer: Singapore, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Gillen, J.; Bunnell, T.; Rigg, J. Geographies of ruralization. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattivelli, V. Ne’ citta’ ne’ Campagna. Per una Lettura del Territorio Periurbano; MUP Editore: Parma, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Chigbu, U. Ruralisation: A tool for rural transformation. Dev. Pract. 2015, 25, 1067–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hugo, G. New Forms of Urbanization: Beyond the Urban-Rural Dichotomy; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Dijkstra, L.; Poelman, H. Regional Definition and Classification. In International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology; Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Arellano, B.; Roca, J. Defining urban and rural areas: A new approach. Remote Sens. Technol. Appl. Urban Environ. 2017, II, 54–71. [Google Scholar]
- Wandl, A.; Nadin, V.; Zonneveld, W.; Rooij, R. Beyond urban-rural classifications: Characterising and mapping territories in-between across Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 130, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dymitrow, M.; Stenseke, M. Rural-urban blurring and the subjectivity within. Rural. Landsc. Soc. Environ. Hist. 2016, 3, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salvati, L.; Ferrara, A.; Chelli, F. Long-term growth and metropolitan spatial structures: An analysis of factors influencing urban patch size under different economic cycles. Geogr. Tidsskr.-Dan. J. Geogr. 2018, 118, 56–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, B.; van Vliet, J.; Verburg, P. The peri-urbanization of Europe: A systematic review of a multifaceted process. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 196, 103733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, D. Urban environments: Issues on the peri-urban fringe. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008, 33, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donadieu, P. Sciences du Paysage-Entre Théories et Pratiques; Lavoisier: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wandl, A.; Magoni, M. Sustainable planning of peri-urban areas: Introduction to the special issue. Plan. Pract. Res. 2017, 32, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavailhès, J.; Peeters, D.; Sékeris, E.; Thisse, J. The periurban city: Why to live between the suburbs and the countryside. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2004, 34, 681–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanai, J.; Schindler, S. Peri-urban promises of connectivity: Linking project-led polycentrism to the infrastructure scramble. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2019, 51, 302–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahani, S.; Dadashpoor, H. Land conflict management measures in peri-urban areas: A meta-synthesis review. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 1909–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mortoja, M.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Mayere, S. What is the most suitable methodological approach to demarcate peri-urban areas? A systematic review of the literature. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 104601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoggart, K. (Ed.) The City’s Hinterland: Dynamism and Divergence in Europe’s Peri-Urban Territories; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Cattivelli, V. Planning peri-urban areas at regional level: The experience of Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Land Use Policy 2021, 103, 105282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzocchi, C.; Sali, G.; Corsi, S. Fragilità del contesto agricolo periurbano: Uno strumento di analisi per il governo del territorio. Sci. Reg. 2014, 2014, 51–72. [Google Scholar]
- Gagliardi, L.; Percoco, M. The impact of European Cohesion Policy in urban and rural regions. Reg. Stud. 2017, 51, 857–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyachenko, V.; Lazareva, V. Regional Service Potential as a Factor of Attractiveness of Rural Settlements. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Far East Con”, Vladivostok, Russia, 6–9 October 2020; Volume 128. [Google Scholar]
- Johnston, A.; Higgins, R. Drivers of Univiersity-Industry links: The Case of Knowledge-Intensive Business Service Firms in Rural Locations. Reg. Stud. 2016, 50, 1330–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venanzoni, G.; Carlucci, M.; Salvati, L. Latent sprawl patterns and the spatial distribution of businesses in a southern European city. Cities 2017, 62, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azunre, G.; Amponsah, O.; Peprah, C.; Takyi, S.; Braimah, I. A review of the role of urban agriculture in the sustainable city discourse. Cities 2019, 93, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langemeyer, J.; Madrid-Lopez, C.; Beltran, A.; Mendez, G. Urban agriculture—A necessary pathway towards urban resilience and global sustainability? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 210, 104055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weltin, M.; Zasada, I.; Franke, C.; Piorr, A.; Raggi, M.; Viaggi, D. Analysing behavioural differences of farm households: An example of income diversification strategies based on European farm survey data. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perpiña Castillo, C.; Kavalov, B.; Diogo, V.; Jacobs-Crisioni, C.; Batista e Silva, F.; Lavalle, C. Agricultural Land Abandonment in the EU within 2015–2030. JRC Policy Insight JRC113718; ISPRA-Bruxelles; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
- Lavesson, N. How does distance to urban centres influence necessity and opportunity-based firm start-ups? Pap. Reg. Sci. 2018, 97, 1279–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philip, L.; Williams, F. Remote rural home based businesses and digital inequalities: Understanding needs and expectations in a digitally underserved community. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 306–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Westlund, H.; Liu, Y. Why some rural areas decline while some others not: An overview of rural evolution in the world. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbier, E.; Hochard, J. The impacts of climate change on the poor in disadvantaged regions. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2020, 12, 26–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aimar, F.; Gullino, P.; Devecchi, M. Towards reconstructing rural landscapes: A case study of Italian Mongardino. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 88, 446–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guštin, Š.; Slavič, I. Conflicts as catalysts for change in rural areas. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 78, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paniagua, A. Farmers in remote rural areas: The worth of permanence in the place. Land Use Policy 2013, 35, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenberg, Z.; Farja, Y.; Gimmon, E. Embeddedness and growth of small businesses in rural regions. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 62, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, K.; Lichter, D. Rural depopulation: Growth and decline processes over the past century. Rural Sociol. 2019, 84, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattivelli, V. Where is the City? Where is the Countryside? The Methods Developed by Italian Scholars to Delimit Urban, Rural, and Intermediate Territories. In New Metropolitan Perspective. MP 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Calabrò, F., della Spina, L., Mantiñán, M.P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 1373–1383. [Google Scholar]
- Halfacree, K.H. Talking about rurality: Social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of six English parishes. J. Rural Stud. 1995, 11, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Pose, A. The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2018, 11, 189–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Rural Well-Being: Geography of Opportunities, OECD Rural Studies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/regional/rural-well-being-d25cef80-en.htm (accessed on 23 September 2021).
- Mustafa, A.; Cools, M.; Saadi, I.; Teller, J. Urban development as a continuum: A multinomial logistic regression approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, Banff, AB, Canada, 22–25 June 2015; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 729–744. [Google Scholar]
- Willits, F.; Bealer, R.; Crider, D. Persistence of rural/urban differences. In Rural Society in the US: Issues for the 1980s; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 69–76. [Google Scholar]
- Hedlund, M. Mapping the socioeconomic landscape of rural Sweden: Towards a typology of rural areas. Reg. Stud. 2016, 50, 460–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copus, A.; Psaltopoulos, D.; Skuras, D.; Terluin, I.; Weingarten, P.; Giray, F.H.; Ratinger, T. Approaches to rural typology in the European Union; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2008; pp. 47–54. [Google Scholar]
- Copus, A.; Courtney, P.; Dax, T.; Meredith, D.; Noguera, J.; Talbot, H.; Shucksmith, M. European Development Opportunities for Rural Areas; Final Report, Parts A, B and C; ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Frolova, O.A.; Shamin, A.E.; Shkilev, N.P.; Nechaeva, M.L.; Bolshakova, U.A. Classification of Rural Areas Based on a Comprehensive Assessment of Their Development. In The Challenge of Sustainability in Agricultural Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 897–906. [Google Scholar]
- Drobnjaković, M. Methodology of typological classification in the study of rural settlements in Serbia. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijic SASA 2019, 69, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pałka-Łebek, E.; Kiniorska, I. Classification of rural areas in Poland in the context of revitalization. J. Geogr. Politics Soc. 2019, 9, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sartorio, L.; Zanotta, D. An adaptive approach for simultaneous classification of remote sensing scenes including rural and urban targets. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 2021, 5, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cloke, P.J. An index of rurality for England and Wales. Reg. Stud. 1977, 11, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogdanov, N.; Meredith, D.; Efstratoglou, S. A Typology of Rural Areas of Serbia. In Economic Annals; Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade: Belgrade, Serbia, 2008; pp. 7–29. [Google Scholar]
- Asciuto, A.; Di Franco, C.; Migliore, G. Analisi della ruralità in una regione ad obiettivo convergenza: IL caso studio della Sicilia. In Proceedings of the Societa’ Italiana Di Economia Agraria—XLV Convegno di Studi, Portici, Italy, 25–27 September 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bański, J.; Mazur, M. Classification of rural areas in Poland as an instrument of territorial policy. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Psaltopoulos, D.; Balamou, E.; Thomson, K.J. Rural–Urban Impacts of CAP Measures in Greece: An Inter-regional SAM Approach. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 57, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brezzi, M.; Dijkstra, L.; Ruiz, V. OECD Extended Regional Typology: The Economic Performance of Remote Rural Regions; OECD: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Créer des Indicateurs Ruraux Pour Étayer la Politique Rurale; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission & EUROSTAT. DEGURBA Classification; European Commission: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2012.
- Lerner, A.M.; Eakin, H. An obsolete dichotomy? Rethinking the rural–urban interface in terms of food security and production in the global south. Geogr. J. 2011, 177, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaeffer, P.V.; Kahsai, M.S.; Jackson, R.W. Beyond the rural–urban dichotomy: Essay in honor of Professor AM Isserman. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2013, 36, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ReCAP. Data on rural population in Italy. ReCAP Report. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Celant, A. Commercio Estero e Competitività Internazionale. Imprese e Squilibri Territoriali in Italia; Societa’ Geografica Italiana: Roma, Italy, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Celant, A.; Dematteis, G.; Fubini, A.; Scaramellini, G. Caratteri generali e dinamica recente del fenomeno urbano in Italia. In Il Fenomeno Urbano in Italia: Interpretazioni, Prospettive e Politiche; de Matteis, G., Ed.; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 1999; pp. 13–54. [Google Scholar]
- Esposito, P.; Patriarca, F.; Salvati, L. Tertiarization and land use change: The case of Italy. Econ. Model. 2018, 71, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caracciolo, F.; Verneau, F.; Lombardi, P.; Gorgitano, M. Supply Chain e Sostenibilità: Il Caso del Pomodoro San Marzano Dop. 2012. Available online: https://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=47189 (accessed on 23 July 2022).
- Cattivelli, V. The motivations of urban gardens in rural mountain areas. The case of South Tyrol. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vendemmia, B.; Pucci, P.; Beria, P. An institutional periphery in discussion. Rethinking the inner areas in Italy. Appl. Geogr. 2021, 135, 102537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mastilovic, J.; Zoppi, M. (In) security and Immigration to Depopulating Rural Areas in Southern and Southeastern Europe. Southeast. Eur. 2021, 45, 229–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Toni, A.; Vizzarri, M.; Di Febbraro, M.; Lasserre, B.; Noguera, J.; Di Martino, P. Aligning Inner Peripheries with rural development in Italy: Territorial evidence to support policy contextualization. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coppola, A.; Ianuario, S.; Chinnici, G.; Di Vita, G.; Pappalardo, G.; D’Amico, M. Endogenous and exogenous determinants of agricultural productivity: What is the most relevant for the competitiveness of the Italian agricultural systems? Iris Polito 2018, 10, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina, N.; Brunori, G.; Favilli, E.; Grando, S.; Proietti, P. Farmers’ participation in operational groups to foster innovation in the agricultural sector: An Italian case study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Adamo, I.; Falcone, P.; Imbert, E.; Morone, P. Exploring regional transitions to the bioeconomy using a socio-economic indicator: The case of Italy. Econ. Politica 2020, 39, 989–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seardo, B. Preserving and Restoring Italian Traditional Rural Landscapes. Addresses from Social Perception to Spatial Planning, Policies and Research. In Agrourbanism; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 187–203. [Google Scholar]
- Heyl, K.; Döring, T.; Garske, B.; Stubenrauch, J.; Ekardt, F. The Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2020: A critical review in light of global environmental goals. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 2021, 30, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pe’Er, G.; Zinngrebe, Y.; Moreira, F.; Sirami, C.; Schindler, S.; Müller, R.; Bontzorlos, V.; Clough, D.; Bezak, P.; Bonn, A.; et al. A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Science 2019, 365, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foglia, F. Verso il 2050: La politica di sviluppo rurale a supporto del Green Deal europeo. Reg. Econ. 2021, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Lombardi, M.; Lopolito, A.; Andriano, A.; Prosperi, M.; Stasi, A.; Iannuzzi, E. Network impact of social innovation initiatives in marginalised rural communities. Soc. Netw. 2020, 63, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattivelli, V.; Rusciano, V. Social innovation and food provisioning during COVID-19: The case of urban–rural initiatives in the province of Naples. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISTAT. Agricultural Census; ISTAT: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Authors | Bibliographical Reference |
---|---|
Anania & Tenuta | Anania, G., & Tenuta, A. (2006). Ruralita, urbanita, and ricchezza nell’Italia contemporanea. Agriregionieuropa, 2(7). |
Barbieri & Cruciani (1) | Barbieri, G., & Cruciani, S. (2007). Caratteristiche of localized urban systems. In Esposito, G. Contabilità nazionale, finanza pubblica, and attività di controllo. Scritti per il Cinquantenario ISCONA (pp. 259–280). Roma: ISCONA. |
Barbieri & Cruciani (2) | |
Boscacci | Boscacci, F. (2010). Urban-rural relations. A methodology to classify rural areas. RUFUS/TRUST workshop “Diversities of rural areas in Europe and beyond”. Hannover. |
Method | Spatial Unit | Variables | Statistical Method | Territorial Typologies |
---|---|---|---|---|
Anania & Tenuta | Municipalities | Demographic density, population dispersion, population employed in agriculture and public services, urbanization, availability of living spaces | Simple indicator, calculated after applying the principal component analysis |
|
Barbieri & Cruciani | LLS (Local labor system) | Economic specialization | Multivariate analysis techniques, on the basis of prevailing production specializations |
|
Barbieri & Cruciani | Municipalities | Economic specialization and degree of urbanization | Multivariate analysis techniques on the basis of prevailing production specializations |
|
Boscacci | Provinces | Productivity of agriculture, weight of agricultural area, economic diversification, urban sprawl | Simple indicators | The combination of all these indicators may be summarized as follows:
|
Authors | Typologies and % of Population Living in Each of Them |
---|---|
Anania & Tenuta | Extremely rural municipalities: 0.20% Rural municipalities: 2.20% Weakly rural municipalities: 16.95% Weakly urban municipalities: 37.58% Urban municipalities: 17.09% Extremely urban municipalities: 25.97% Data 2006 |
Barbieri & Cruciani (1) | Highly specialized urban areas: 12.1% Low-skilled urban areas: 8% Unspecialized urban areas: 6.84% Urban areas and shipyards: 15.80% Data 2001 |
Barbieri & Cruciani (2) | Urbanized municipalities only in terms of population density: 9.82% Urbanized municipalities in terms of surface: 9.48% Municipalities that are not urbanized: 17.55% Highly urbanized municipalities: 63.19% Data 2001 |
Boscacci | Strong pressure: 27.31% Under pressure: 7.80% Under pressure/weak: 12% Weak: 52.89% Data 2010 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cattivelli, V. Delimiting Rural Areas: Evidence from the Application of Different Methods Elaborated by Italian Scholars. Land 2022, 11, 1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101674
Cattivelli V. Delimiting Rural Areas: Evidence from the Application of Different Methods Elaborated by Italian Scholars. Land. 2022; 11(10):1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101674
Chicago/Turabian StyleCattivelli, Valentina. 2022. "Delimiting Rural Areas: Evidence from the Application of Different Methods Elaborated by Italian Scholars" Land 11, no. 10: 1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101674
APA StyleCattivelli, V. (2022). Delimiting Rural Areas: Evidence from the Application of Different Methods Elaborated by Italian Scholars. Land, 11(10), 1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101674