The Paradox of Neo-Ruralism in Castilla y León, Spain: Urbanites in the Countryside and Rural Dwellers in the City

Abstract

Sustainability is currently seen as the central unifying idea necessary to mobilize collective responsibility to address the set of serious problems and challenges facing humanity, appealing to cooperation and the defense of the general interest. This article analyzes the social sustainability of the rural environment, in order to enhance its value beyond the traditional agricultural activities of the territory. Methodologically, it is based on ethnographic fieldwork through participant observation and in-depth interviews, carried out in the rural environment of Castilla y León. This has allowed us to reflect on the strategies that we have tried to articulate, combine, and relate to achieve rural social sustainability. The conclusions show the need to give political content to the rural space and the elements that derive from it. Political, economic, and social problems cannot be solved only from the local level; they need to create alliances beyond the communities to deal with economic structures that seek continuous growth.

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainability emerges as the most essential unifying idea at this point in history, aiming to mobilize collective responsibility to address the set of serious problems and challenges facing humanity, by advocating for cooperation and the defense of the common good. To advance this idea, it is necessary to approach and understand it as a profound rethinking of the relationships between human groups and with the environment. This revision of the idea of sustainability, or sustainable development as Bunce (1994) points out, has nothing to do with outdated developmentalism and means “placing oneself in a different perspective; viewing humanity’s relationship with nature from different approaches”. It is a concept based on the assumption that there can be development, qualitative improvement, or the unfolding of potential without growth—that is, without quantitative expansion of the physical scale, without incorporating more energy or materials. In other words: growth cannot continue indefinitely in a finite world, but development is possible.

On the other hand, we can consider with Mormont (1990) that rurality, beyond its traditional role, is a way of confronting the urban experience, a framework through which to analyze the canonical economic development model, as well as a basis for making new demands for quality of life. While the situation has been changing, the outlook remains critical for the rural environment. Its dramatic exodus from the mid-20th century has shown that the Spanish countryside has been characterized by migration, whether temporary or permanent. Now, as Fernández-Álvarez (2022), suggests, entering the 21st century and after various crises, including the COVID-19 crisis, the countryside continues to exist as an economic, labor, and subsistence resource. In this sense, another element linked to rural sustainability is urban gardens, due to the social sustainability and self-sufficiency that they have incorporated in such crises, an element we will also address in this paper. These two key concepts, sustainability and rurality, are the concepts on which the analysis now focuses extensively.

This study adopts the concept of sustainability as developed by the United Nations’ World Commission on Environment and Development, as mentioned in the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (Brundtland, 1987), which defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This definition introduced the notion of interdependence between economic, social, and environmental aspects.

In the rural context discussed in this article, sustainability carries specific connotations that integrate social, cultural, economic, and ecological dynamics. In this regard, Blewitt (2012) argues that rural sustainability implies a balance between the economic viability of local communities, environmental conservation, and the preservation of cultural identity. This perspective suggests that sustainable development in rural areas should not merely replicate urban models but must instead foster resilience against depopulation, climate change, and other challenges. Similarly, Amartya Sen (2014) emphasized the importance of people being able to make decisions regarding the use of their resources and surroundings, underlining the need for communities to participate in decisions affecting their territories.

Extending the term to the agricultural sphere, Pretty (1995, 2008) defines agricultural sustainability as the ability of a production system to maintain its productivity and utility over the long term without compromising the environment or social resources. Similarly, Alier (2002), from an ecological economic perspective, highlights that rural sustainability must recognize the conflicts between economic growth and environmental conservation, proposing that extractivist models should be replaced by economies that value local resources.

In recent decades, the term sustainability has evolved to address current challenges such as globalization and climate change. Raworth and her Doughnut Economics model (Raworth, 2017, 2018) introduced new frameworks for visualizing sustainable development, considering social justice with a global approach that is easily applicable to rural settings. This model emphasizes planetary regeneration and the equitable distribution of well-being. Using the metaphor of a doughnut, the inner ring represents the basic requirements for human well-being, while the outer ring represents environmental limits—the ecological ceiling. The space between these two rings is the safe and just area where humanity should thrive. More recently, Hariram et al. (2023) proposed a new socio-economic theory of sustainability that prioritizes quality of life, social equity, cultural values, peace, justice, and well-being.

Regarding social and cultural sustainability, this concept also originated in the Brundtland Report mentioned above but gained prominence following the Rio Earth Summit (Palmer, 1992) highlighting issues such as citizen participation, poverty reduction, and equity promotion. It promotes the strengthening of community networks, respect for local traditions and knowledge, and the inclusion of rural inhabitants in decision-making processes. Throsby (2008) addresses social sustainability from a cultural perspective, linking culture and social cohesion as essential elements for maintaining identity.

Various authors, including those mentioned above, have addressed the topic of social sustainability as something necessary and integrated (Higgins et al., 2012; Throsby, 1999; Raworth, 2017). Social sustainability is, therefore, an essential dimension, emphasizing that development must not only be environmentally and economically viable but also equitable.

Regarding the environment, it plays a fundamental role in social sustainability since human communities are intrinsically connected to the ecosystems they inhabit. This relationship is symbiotic, as strong and organized communities can protect their natural environment, while a healthy environment fosters social cohesion and well-being. This symbiosis was extensively refined by Bookchin (1993, 2024), who developed the concept of social ecology, arguing that environmental crises are intrinsically linked to social and economic inequalities.

We recognize the interdependence of ecosystem health and human well-being, concluding that environmental and social dimensions are practically inseparable. With this idea, we intend to contribute to the long-lasting debate, in the sense that, as has been evidenced in past economic and financial crises, there are sectors of the population that are dedicated to producing food for the entire society, whether in the rural or urban. This sector must be supported at all times, by the whole society, regardless of where they focus on food production, and the form or recipients to whom this production goes, whether small consumption, local produce, self-consumption of urban gardens, etc.

A synthesis of the development of this article is now presented to outline the argument. In the following section, the objectives of this article are defined. The Methodology Section advocates for qualitative and ethnographic methods to capture aspects that statistics fail to reflect. While statistical data are necessary for analyzing rural situations, they are insufficient to convey the everyday life of individuals.

The Results Section highlights the new image of tourism, as perceived by both residents and visitors, driven by its role as a new economic resource in rural areas. It notes the decline in the rural population engaged in traditional activities due to aging, population loss, and the lack of generational replacement, as well as the reduction in services such as education and healthcare by regional administrations.

In contrast, a new image of rural areas emerges as places worth visiting, creating a new rural imaginary centered on the landscape, historical values, or the cultural heritage of these territories. This idea ties into the concept of rural spaces introduced by Woods (2005b) linking the rural environment to new images that redefine its identity. The increasingly blurred boundaries between rural and urban areas are emphasized, as both spaces are becoming more socially and economically interdependent.

From this perspective, the phenomenon of young people and women leading a return to rural areas is discussed. These “neo-rural” individuals are reversing previous statistical trends. The role of women as new economic, cultural, and political agents in these areas is particularly highlighted.

In the Discussion Section, the literature on the topic allows for a comparison of the results with transformative experiences in rural and urban settings, such as the inclusion of the primary sector—agriculture and food production—into urban spaces through urban gardens. This contrasts with the rural service sector and the metaphors or images associated with tourism discussed in the previous section.

The conclusions provide a synthesis of this article, emphasizing the articulation between sustainability and the new rural inhabitants, or “neo-rurals”, who are contributing to economic and social sustainability in rural areas. Due to media influence, an idealized image of rural life has emerged, portraying it as a refuge for traditional values in opposition to urban life. This phenomenon reveals the paradox of neo-ruralism, wherein rural areas adopt urban lifestyles brought by individuals who have abandoned urban spaces and their associated values.

Finally, this article raises suggestions for future research and reflection, such as studying heritage as an economic and cultural product of the new image and identity that rural areas acquire for natives, residents, and tourist visitors.

2. Objectives, Materials, and Methods

If we apply this idea of sustainability to the rural sphere, we encounter the paradox of the different uses that are being applied to this territory for its “revitalization”, “reincorporation into the economic circuit”, etc., precisely at a time when its traditional functionality, mainly linked to agricultural activities, has lost value or is even disappearing. In this sense, we must take into account that rural areas, and the rural landscape in general, can increasingly be considered as places of consumption rather than production. This is reflected in the efforts of various rural localities to position themselves on the map of “tourist attractions”, in an attempt to promote and market their local uniqueness. Thus, the use of local heritage as a mechanism for economically revitalizing rural areas raises a number of questions, such as those concerning authenticity, idealization, or the controversy surrounding promotional trends.

The objectives of this study are to analyze the sustainability of the rural environment through the lens of its current uses, aimed at enhancing its economic value beyond traditional agricultural activities. This is in line with various institutions and administrations, which have an interest in recovering the rural environment, through agricultural or non-agrarian activities, carried out by the rural or neo-rural population, to study the new images and imaginaries of the rural environment prompted by these emerging uses and to examine the paradox between rural and urban spaces in terms of the exchange of economic and social functionality on the one hand and the transformation of traditional spaces for production and consumption on the other.

Based on the fieldwork that we have been conducting for years in various research projects (“Return to the Land. Problems, Strategies, and Dynamics of Neo-Rurality”; “Social Changes and Rural Life Worlds: Towards Social Sustainability and Territorial Cohesion”), the guiding criterion of this article is to reflect on those elements that articulate, combine, and relate the aforementioned aspects, namely, sustainability and the rural imaginary.

The methodology of this research comes from social anthropology. It is based on ethnographic practice with qualitative techniques such as open and semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in the rural–urban migration experience and its return. Numerous studies on the subject conducted from the social sciences rely on oral sources to obtain qualitative information. In our view, this is because statistical data are insufficient, and it is also necessary to give voice to the protagonists of the social processes that we are experiencing. In this research, 29 people participated, a third of whom were women, who have been involved in this migration process and are living in various parts of Castilla y León. Their profiles range in age from 22 to 65 years, and they are involved in the agricultural production sectors. They identify themselves as agricultural workers, owners of their farms, typically shared with a partner or family member, and also retirees whose activities during their working years were linked to the rural environment. Their educational background varies, from compulsory education to university studies, but all of them have undergone a sociocultural and training transition to integrate into their newly developed activities. Some of them have been providing us with information about their activity for over a decade. In other words, we use stable information networks (Hernández et al., 2020) to record changes and raise awareness about their economic and social situation. Regarding procedures, participants were asked for permission to take part in this study, informed of the research objectives and process, and provided with a copy of the open-ended questionnaire, with sample questions that would guide the in-depth interview. Once they had this information, all agreed to participate voluntarily. They were informed that confidentiality would be maintained regarding their responses and that there were no correct or incorrect answers, and they were asked to respond as sincerely and honestly as possible, as their answers could contribute both to understanding the particular situation and to generalizing certain behaviors based on inductive practice. Professional responsibilities, age, education, and duration of residence in the rural environment were also taken into account when organizing the fieldwork to ensure representativeness and diversity, as well as sociodemographic factors that could affect motivation, disposition, habitus as workers, agency, and adjustment (Bourdieu & Thompson, 1991). The average duration of each interview was 90 min, with the possibility of conducting multiple interviews with the same person to confirm, contrast, or expand the information.

This research was developed within the art-led, multidisciplinary project Cultivate Cultures: Ecologies of Hops, supported by Fondation Daniel et Nina Carasso, Diputación de León and Ayuntamiento de Carrizo de la Ribera.

3. Results

Tourism has become a means of rural development carried out at the local level, whether by individuals or associations, where the emphasis seems to be placed on attracting visitors above other criteria. This apparent commodification of the countryside appears to be motivated by several issues, the primary being the need to generate economic resources, although social and cultural factors must also be present and play their role. These initiatives, in turn, impact the perceptions of the place, both for visitors and residents.

Paul Cloke (1992) refers to the transformation from landscape production to landscapes of consumption—where rural places are increasingly subjected to the gaze of tourists—which reinforces this earlier point. When Cloke noted that we were sliding towards a “pay as you enter” system, it might have seemed exaggerated at the time, but the changes that have since occurred in the rural landscape validate his observation. Although Cloke’s somewhat pessimistic vision has not yet fully materialized, it seems that rural areas now face the need to rethink themselves in order to address the major processes and challenges ahead, as they are often subject to restructuring imposed by distant institutions. This sentiment is present among people who work in agriculture or livestock farming across different territories of the European Union. For instance, decisions made in ministries or in Brussels directly affect them, often not in a favorable manner. María Isabel, from Candeleda, explains during fieldwork: “I consider myself a goatherd by vocation, and I proudly carry out a profession that doesn’t seem tailored for women. In 2012, I received the Award for Excellence in Innovation for Rural Women, granted by the Ministry of Agriculture, and, in 2014, I was honored in Brussels with the European Award for Innovation for Female Farmers, awarded by the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organizations (COPA). This recognition acknowledged my innovative approach in implementing mechanical milking, cold storage tanks, and feed silos”. She adds, “These recognitions provide Brussels officials who manage European farmland with the opportunity to meet the people they administer and subsidize”.

In Castilla y León, over the last 40 years, there has been a notable decrease in the number of farmers, a phenomenon also reflected throughout the rest of Spain. This trend has been driven by multiple factors, including the aging of the rural population, the lack of generational renewal, and the increase in mechanization and industrialization of agriculture, which has reduced the need for labor. According to data from the National Statistics Institute (INE) (https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=2915&L=0, accessed on 16 October 2023) and the Agricultural Structure Survey (https://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=estadistica_C&cid=1254736176854&menu=ultiDatos&idp=1254735727106, accessed on 26 October 2023), the number of farms has decreased significantly, with land concentration in fewer hands. This has led to the abandonment of small farms and the growth of larger, more mechanized farms. Between 1980 and 2020, it is estimated that the number of farms has decreased by more than 50%, and many farmers have shifted to other sectors or left the countryside altogether. In fact, according to the 2020 Agricultural Census (https://agriculturaganaderia.jcyl.es/web/es/ganaderia/comunicacion-censo.html, accessed on 26 October 2023), Castilla y León has lost a significant number of farms and active farmers in recent decades. Although agriculture and livestock remain important sectors, there has been a clear modernization and diversification in the types of crops and techniques used. The region has shifted from a more traditional model, based on small family farms, to a more industrialized, export-oriented system with the intensive use of machinery and technology.

The rural population in Castilla y León has followed a general trend of decline since the 1980s, and this decrease has been particularly pronounced in rural areas. Although the region remains one of the largest in Spain in terms of area, it has experienced continuous population loss due to factors such as migration to urban areas and low birth rates. INE figures show that many of Castilla y León’s provinces have seen their rural populations decrease by 20% to 30% since the 1980s, in what has been described as a “rural exodus”. This has been a constant phenomenon since the 1980s. Cities have offered better job and educational opportunities, leading young people to leave rural areas, a trend that has been difficult to reverse. Despite recent policy attempts to encourage people to return to villages or revitalize the rural environment, depopulation remains a significant challenge.

In the case of Castilla y León, with the declining importance of agriculture both in terms of its economic output and employment, as well as the loss of its traditional functionality, there is a need to conceive of rural areas in more diverse ways. For example, the increase in leisure time for urban dwellers has led to a rise in rural tourism. Many rural development programs designed to alleviate the crisis in the countryside are based on supporting rural tourism in various forms. These often focus on tourist accommodation but neglect improvements in infrastructure and communications, which would allow greater access to information and communication technologies, a fundamental resource for the development of this sector. Moreover, other essential aspects, such as services that would enable the countryside to retain its traditional functionality, are often overlooked. This includes not only agricultural and livestock activities but also social and cultural life, including the rural school, which often receives little attention or is abandoned. All of this has contributed, if not reinforced, to the idyllic image of the countryside as a place of retreat, rest, and disconnection for weekend neo-rurals. Unless the underlying philosophy of institutional neglect of the countryside changes, even well into the 21st century, it is precisely this institutional neglect that will exacerbate the crisis in the countryside.

The idea of rural areas as places to visit is nothing new. There is a long history of rural tourism driven by the search for idyllic escapes, love of nature, outdoor activities, and recreational motivations, as it has been discussed in several works (Fernández-Álvarez, 2013a, 2013b; Short, 1991; Aitchison et al., 2000; Almstedt et al., 2014; Cloke, 2003; Dupuis, 2006). Indeed, the offerings for visitors to the autonomous community are extensive. For example, in the realm of natural heritage related to biodiversity and landscape, preference has been shown for highlighting certain places of great value. These places and landscapes are often officially designated as National Parks (Picos de Europa and Sierra de Guadarrama), Regional Parks (Picos de Europa and Sierra de Gredos), Natural Parks (Lago de Sanabria, Cañón del Río Lobos, Hoces del Duratón, Arribes del Duero, Fuentes Carrionas and Fuente Cobre, Las Batuecas and Sierra de Francia, Hoces del Río Riaza, Montes Obarenes-San Zadornil, Hoces del Alto Ebro and Rudrón, Sierra de Guadarrama), or Natural Reserves (Valle de Iruelas, Sabinar and Catalañazor, Riberas de Castronuño, and Lagunas de Villafáfila). However, in recent years, more and more places are trying to promote themselves, whether by reclaiming old shepherd routes, greenways, or railways, in an effort to capture a share of the growing visitor market. Alongside tourism development goals contained in the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism (ECST), there is a growing emphasis on cultural aspects, where the distinctiveness of a place reflects an expanding heritage industry that tends to identify and promote elements of local uniqueness.

Increasing efforts are made to promote places for their historical or cultural merit, distinguishing them from others and thus making them worthy of a visit. This attempt to promote some form of local distinction is part of a broader place-promotion strategy considered necessary in the competition for the visitor market. As Urry (1995, 2007) points out, this can be seen as the commodification of place, where the place becomes a product that can be packaged, presented, and sold. In some way, these different ideas of seeing and imagining the landscape were already present in the classifications used to define rurality. We can take, for example, the definition by Woods (2005b), where descriptive, sociocultural, territorial, or locality definitions, and those based on social representation, all contain the underlying idea of why and how rural areas could be defined. In this sense, the most relevant approaches are those that use concepts that exploit the landscape as an economic resource, such as the rural idyll (Bell, 2006), the social construction, the social representation, and the rural discourse.

Thus, it is interesting to see how the approach to rural areas as localities is an approach that investigates “the processes that can create differentiated rural localities” (Woods, 2005a). Structures such as agricultural production, low population density, and consumption patterns (Halfacree, 1993) are pointed out as differentiators of rural or specific locations. However, these structures and indicators can also be used to identify certain issues in urban areas, so they are not exclusively rural. Urban areas, by contrast, are associated with densely populated areas, economies based on services and industry, and greater infrastructure. What matters, however, is people’s perception, and more precisely, the perception of the rural population. Many people claim to be rural, live in a rural area, or have a rural lifestyle.

The approach to rural population as social representation seeks to address these perceptions, using terms such as “image”, “rural idyll”, “social construction”, and “rural discourse”. Yarwood (2005) described the definition of rurality as social representation, explaining that rurality (and its synonyms) “are words and concepts understood and used by people in everyday conversation”. Woods follows this line of argument, adding that it is therefore important to ask people what images, symbols, and signs they think of when they think of rural areas (zones, life, landscape, work), in order to create a more flexible definition of rurality. Since rurality is personal, cultural, and historically bounded in people’s perceptions, many images of rurality can emerge. Of course, these social representations are influenced by politics and also by the media. The question, then, is to what extent these constructions of rurality can be influenced, and how easy or difficult it is to modify them.

However, the strict differentiation between rural and urban has lost strength over time, and what now characterizes this relationship is a blurred boundary. Some reasons for this blurring include economic and social interdependence. Urban areas rely on rural areas for food and resource supplies, while rural areas depend on urban markets for products and services. Rural areas are no longer self-sufficient; rural inhabitants often work in nearby cities, and agricultural products are transported to urban markets. Additionally, with improved transportation and communication infrastructure, mobility between urban and rural areas has increased, allowing people to live in rural areas but work in cities, or vice versa. Furthermore, in many rural areas, traditional activities such as agriculture are being supplemented (or replaced), as mentioned, by others such as rural tourism, leisure activities, or even the establishment of small industries, which adds complexity to the rural–urban distinction.

For these reasons, the dividing line between rural and urban is not as clear as we might think, and concepts such as peri-urban areas help us understand the nuances between these two extremes. These areas are particularly important because they are often places where rural and urban dynamics mix. Key points include the transformation of rural space: in peri-urban areas, former agricultural lands are absorbed by urban growth, leading to the emergence of suburbs, industrial estates, or shopping centers on land that was once agricultural; the transitioning landscape: peri-urban areas can have both rural and urban characteristics, with agricultural enterprises existing alongside residential or commercial areas, and local culture influenced by both spheres; and environmental and planning challenges: these areas often experience tensions over land and resource use, as urban growth tends to displace agricultural activities, making the balance between development and sustainability more complex.

To contribute further to the reflection, it is important to point out that, in Spain, as in the rest of Europe, based on available data and statistics (Eurostat, 2022), we can observe two trends concerning the countryside and its inhabitants. First, there are fewer and fewer agricultural holdings and, correspondingly, fewer people working on them. The flow from the countryside to the city remains high, and the generational replacement and new arrivals do not compensate for those who retire or abandon rural life. The latest agricultural census (INE, n.d.) shows a 44.7% decrease in agricultural holdings over the last ten years, with smaller holdings being the ones disappearing. Furthermore, it seems that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), from its inception, had the veiled objective of reducing the number of people engaged in agriculture while intensifying agricultural production.

Moreover, in 2010, according to data from the European Commission (Eurostat, 2015), only 5.3% of those working in agriculture were under 35 years of age, while 56.3% were over 55. In Spain, as it has been quoted previously, only 4.56% of farms were in the hands of people under 35 years of age, while 61% were owned by those over 55. This situation directly results in a very weakened social and demographic structure, irrecoverable in some areas, which hinders the revival of rural areas if they are to have a future. This could come through two channels: one, the incorporation of young people into rural life, and, the other, the recognition of the role that women have been playing for a long time, which would involve their inclusion in the statistics and a reversal of current trends.

In the first case, Dopazo Gallego and Giachino (2014) have identified three profiles that attempt to show the diversity of those settling in rural areas with whom they have worked. On the one hand, there are young people from urban backgrounds who start or want to start life and work projects in rural areas, constituting the so-called “neo-rurals”. These young people have grown up in environments very different from the rural setting, often in large cities, and, at some point, decide to leave the city for the countryside.

Another example is Elena, who shared the following during ethnographic fieldwork: “I used to work in Madrid at a travel agency and later as a hotel receptionist. I moved to the Valley of Losa, in Burgos, and there, with my partner, established a farm to breed Losino horses, a native breed at risk of extinction. It has changed our lives entirely—it’s very different, but it’s what we were looking for”.

Taty also left her job at a daycare center in Madrid to establish a cattle farm with her partner in Cardeñosa, Ávila: “The beginnings were very tough. I had to learn a lot, but now, after three years, I handle everything myself”.

Secondly, there are young people of rural origin who initiate new projects in the countryside. These are individuals who have grown up in villages or maintained a connection to that environment, and, at a certain point, they start a new project in the rural setting, either in their place of origin or one with which they have been linked in some way, or in a different village.

Similarly, Alba, who lives in the Laciana region of León, shares: “I used to work at a local restaurant. My family was connected to mining in these mountains, so I was familiar with the countryside and liked it. I decided to establish a farm with my husband to breed Hispano-Bretón horses, raising foals for meat”.

María offers a comparable narrative: “I used to work in the textile industry, but I decided to leave and co-own a sheep farm for meat and dairy in Medina del Campo, Valladolid. I was driven by a desire to work in agriculture, and I’m fully committed”.

Lastly, there are young people who take over the family farm and gradually introduce changes. These changes often relate to the activities carried out, typically reorienting production towards the organic sector and local marketing or introducing innovations that lend greater authenticity and originality to the project.

Leticia also illustrates this trend, co-managing a pig farm with her brother in El Bohodón, Ávila: “We used to work in a restaurant in the capital, but we decided to take over a farm raising piglets from a man who was retiring. We had to learn everything from scratch”.

Ana’s story is another example. A computer engineer, she worked for a multinational bank in Barcelona before settling in Manzanal de Arriba, Zamora, in 2020: “My grandparents lived here, and my parents emigrated to Barcelona in the 1970s. This is about reconnecting with my past and history, caring for it, and improving it”.

Although our fieldwork has revealed some activity among all three groups, they remain statistically insignificant. Nonetheless, it is important to note that, given the presence and activity of these new actors, the topic of how relationships are established between those arriving with transgressive life projects and those already living there is of great interest. Exploring this further—specifically, the new relationships forming in rural areas, the needs and services they demand and generate—could indeed enrich the processes of change.

As for the second group of actors to consider in the future of rural areas—the role of women—Fernández-Álvarez (2015) has pointed out that women have always been present in rural life, but it is as if they did not exist, at least in statistics. Some recognition came with the 2012 Law on Shared Ownership of Agricultural Holdings. This law aimed to professionalize women’s agricultural activity and make their work on farms more visible (Fernández-Álvarez, 2014). Although the spirit of the law applies to women, it is important to note that this does not mean it only covers specific cases but includes all cases in which a couple decides to convert their farm into shared ownership.

Similarly, Charo García recounts: “I worked as an administrative assistant in a courier company in Madrid. My partner and I decided to have children, and I was laid off. Since there were subsidies for new rural incorporations, I decided to move here”. In 2018, she settled in the village of Villarino de Sanabria, in the Zamora mountains, in the heart of the Sierra de Sanabria, managing a black Castellana sheep farm with her partner. Charo admits it was challenging, especially when her daughters were young or when her family faced health issues. She emphasizes another point: “On the farm, we’re all equal; everyone does everything, even though each has specific responsibilities”.

Lastly, Nerea, who completed her biology studies in 2006, left her job after 12 years to move with her partner to El Chano, in the Fornelas Valley, León: “We decided to leave everything behind for rural life. Now we manage a shared farm with 800 beehives that has gradually grown”.

Although the role of women in rural areas deserves a separate discussion, we will only point out, for the purpose of advancing the objectives of this work, that it is essential and urgent to generate debate on the subject. Otherwise, transformation processes will remain incomplete, as no progress can be made if patriarchal behavior patterns persist. Social movements often think this issue is resolved—that women’s presence resolves it. However, it is important to delve deeper. There has not been a profound questioning or inward reflection, as sensitivity to this issue needs to be developed in all areas, much like the discussions we raised regarding sustainability. For instance, the fieldwork cases highlighted in this study consist exclusively of testimonies from women. This serves as a small yet significant illustration of how women contribute to the social and cultural sustainability discussed throughout this article.

4. Discussion

In recent years, especially since the economic and financial crisis of 2008, initiatives promoted by social movements advocating for food sovereignty have highlighted a “return to the countryside” phenomenon. This refers to people, mostly young, starting socio-economic initiatives related to the agricultural sector or to activities traditionally tied to rural areas. This reverse migration, from cities to the countryside, is viewed with interest, as it is evident that it could help reverse the trend of sparsely populated and generally aging rural areas. Moreover, these movements help find new ways of living and reactivate local agriculture, which is increasingly rare, by bringing rural and peasant perspectives to a new model of development. In some way, these practices represent transformative initiatives, as they break away from the dominant paradigm of market intensification, sector industrialization, and the pursuit of maximum productivity. In doing so, they establish new relationships with both people and nature. These shifts have contributed to the loss of productive infrastructure and the abandonment of small farms that sustained rural society and towns.

Although, initially, the focus was solely on projects strictly related to the agricultural sector, as we progressed in our research, we found it pertinent to expand the scope to include equally transformative projects taking place in rural areas, even if not directly linked to agricultural activities. These projects, in various ways, are vital for regenerating the social and cultural fabric, with their dynamic impact feeding back into new agricultural projects, which are characterized by openness and the ability to tackle different dimensions. These types of projects are related to education, community development, and, in a particular way, artistic creation. At the same time, the development of events and social movements leads us to explore reverse processes—transformative experiences in urban environments related to food supply in times of economic and social crises, like the one in 2008, which inspires our research. These movements seek social and economic sustainability and are driven by social movements, leading us to focus on urban and peri-urban community agriculture.

A brief historical overview shows that, according to Fernández Casadevante (2011, 2012), urban agriculture has been a common practice in cities and their outskirts, particularly in times of crisis, reappearing periodically. Examples range from the war economies of World War I and II to the economic collapse during Argentina’s 2001 crisis. However, as we will see, it now has a more participatory and social character rather than purely addressing food needs. According to this author, community gardens have great potential for social transformation, which explains their widespread proliferation in cities across Western countries.

In our fieldwork, we observed how urban gardens emerge from three main perspectives. The first one refers to citizen and neighborhood initiatives, where the residents of a neighborhood, collectively, decide to transform vacant plots or underutilized spaces into areas for cultivation and community engagement. In this context, urban gardens are not only seen as a way to produce food but also as a tool to strengthen social bonds and foster a sense of community. The second perspective we encountered is the conversion of abandoned spaces into gardens, a phenomenon that can be seen as an act of reclaiming what was once considered useless or even discarded land. In this type of project, gardens act as agents of urban regeneration, giving new life to spaces that had been ignored or overlooked. Here, the focus is less on food production and more on creating inclusive and communal environments. The third perspective is spaces aimed at promoting urban agriculture, which not only seek to produce food for local consumption but also become places for education and the exchange of knowledge regarding sustainable agricultural practices. These gardens fulfill not only a supply function but also promote learning about both traditional and contemporary agricultural techniques in an urban setting.

In all these cases, what truly stands out is that the core of these gardens is not food production but community social practices. They are spaces where people interact, organize, and share not only resources but also values and experiences. These are relational and communal spaces, aimed not just at reconnecting people with the land but also at restoring the relationship between humanity and nature within urban environments. These gardens become hubs of interaction, where cooperation and coexistence are encouraged, often through collective activities, workshops, and meetings that strengthen social bonds.

An important aspect of these gardens is the revival of traditional practices, such as the concept of the commons and the collective management of resources. Historically, these practices have been more associated with rural areas, but, in urban gardens, they are revitalized in the context of urban life. In times of resource scarcity and environmental crises, these practices are especially relevant as they invite us to rethink individualistic management models and promote decision making based on consensus and self-management, reflecting a more sustainable and cooperative model.

A separate mention should be made for other types of urban agriculture that aim to reconnect people with nature but with different purposes. These include urban gardens for the elderly, which are widespread in many cities, and gardens for environmental education, also common across all educational levels. We can also include small initiatives such as the Cantarranas Garden in the Madrid Community, where the Complutense University collaborates with the Manantial Foundation and the Plegart Occupational Center to support the social inclusion of people with mental disabilities, using the garden as a pathway out of social exclusion. Similarly, the Juan XXIII Roncalli Foundation, in partnership with financial institutions, runs activities that empower people at the risk of social exclusion. The social effects of these initiatives are noticeable, as this latter institution has observed reduced crime rates and greater social integration through participatory recreational activities.

Urban gardens allow city dwellers to reconnect with nature, something that modern urban life has limited. Many people seek to escape the frantic and alienating pace of city life, and gardens offer a way to experience the connection with the land and natural cycles, even in an urban context. This also responds to a growing concern for sustainability, self-sufficiency, and local food production, driven by movements such as agroecology or “slow food”. It is paradoxical that “neo-rurals”, mostly young urbanites, move to the countryside in search of a simpler life connected to the land, while older rural generations, often forced to migrate to cities, end up participating in urban gardens. This phenomenon could be explained as a crossing of life trajectories: the young, in their search for authenticity, see the countryside as a place of possibility, while older generations, already disconnected from rural work, find in urban gardens a symbolic continuity of their previous ways of life. In this context, urban gardens become spaces of knowledge exchange, serving not only a productive function but also as sites of intergenerational knowledge transfer. The traditional agricultural wisdom held by older individuals can be passed on to new urban farmers, many of whom lack experience. This creates an intergenerational community and a space where rural, urban, and peri-urban areas intertwine. This leads to agriculture as symbolic resistance, both for older individuals migrating to cities and for neo-rurals moving to the countryside. Agriculture thus becomes a way to resist disconnection from the land and food production that characterizes modern life. It is a way of preserving a link to rural identity and a way of life they feel is disappearing. Ultimately, as González-González and Fernández-Álvarez (2022), have argued, this is framed as social innovation, as a new solution to social problems characterized by the generation of new ideas, arising from social needs, and creating new collaborative relationships. It is closely related to social entrepreneurship and may also include public policies.

In short, we have demonstrated that community gardens are a tool that can simultaneously address multiple needs, demands, and problems. One of their primary contributions in urban environments is the revitalization of degraded or socially stigmatized spaces. From this starting point, a series of synergies emerge, multiplying the initial value of these experiences: their ecological impact, proximity-based benefits like increased bicycle use, stronger ties with neighbors, and a growing interest and responsibility in maintaining green spaces. They also become innovative and inclusive experiences of citizen participation, attracting diverse and heterogeneous social profiles. They create new spaces for interaction and coexistence, fostering neighborhood identity and a sense of belonging. Additionally, they provide an alternative recreational activity, as urban gardens sometimes become an intergenerational alternative for leisure, appealing to people of all ages and backgrounds. As Larrubia Vargas et al. (2020) have pointed out, urban gardens have traditionally been part of the process of city formation, always under a functional perspective aimed at productivity and subsistence. However, the significance of this phenomenon today contrasts with its historical character. Nowadays, numerous urban agriculture initiatives can be found that respond to principles far removed from the exclusive production of food. In this way, urban gardens have been responding and adapting to the changing needs of city dwellers.

Moreover, urban and peri-urban agriculture, while distinct, as Zaar (2011) points out, are often treated as the same in the scientific literature. Mougeot (2001) differentiates them based on the degree of integration of agriculture into the urban economic and ecological systems, considering factors like location, production, purpose, scale, and their relationship with rural agriculture, sustainable urban development, and land use issues. It is essential to note that most urban gardens in Western cities are not primarily aimed at food production but rather, as Porro (2010) suggests, at the social production of new territories, relationships, and collective actions. Thus, studying this phenomenon allows us to cover multiple perspectives, of which we will focus on three: First, the city as the context in which urban gardens exist. The territorial projection of a city is not only shaped by governmental and economic power structures but also by territorial projects that arise from organized social and community movements. We are therefore witnessing the community production of urban space (León, 2009) or the exercise of the right to the city (Harvey, 2003; Lefebvre, 1969). This phenomenon also reflects rural challenges and the state of the agri-food system. Another perspective is viewing urban gardens as community spaces where the common good is prioritized, allowing basic needs to be met collectively, as proposed by Max-Neef (1994). This highlights the potential and limitations of collective spaces for social transformation. Lastly, urban gardens are sites of conflict and collective action, where social actors and movements advocate for change, forge new identities, and build alliances to sustain or initiate cycles of collective action (Tarrow, 1998). These gardens are deeply rooted in their territory and closely connected to the community, and they involve practices that foster a new type of movement (Zibechi, 2011).

However, the potential of urban gardens as food producers should not be overlooked. Drescher et al. (2001) have focused their studies on the ability of cities to produce food and on urban agriculture as a response to food crises. Similarly, Peduto and Satdinova (2009) have sought to reduce reliance on fossil fuels while raising awareness of the costs of food production and distribution. Other researchers focus on the sustainability and environmental benefits of urban agriculture (Morán, 2010), or on the multifunctionality of land provided by this type of agriculture as a space for recreation, environmental education, agroecological practices, cultural exchange, health, etc. (Pouw, 2009). In summary, despite differences in focus, the authors agree that urban agriculture is an integral part of city systems, addressing the dynamics of urban environments while also providing food security in times of crisis.

Cottino (2003) offers an intriguing perspective, noting that these practices arise from a combination of deprivation in satisfying basic needs and an imaginative capacity to invent alternative solutions. In this way, these actions can be seen as small, improvised local responses to problems that affect a large portion of society. They serve a social function by calling attention to the neglect of public authorities and prompting organizational solutions. Urban gardens, thus, reflect conflicts related to urban dynamics, including gentrification, speculation, the privatization of public spaces, the role of local administrations, and the dispossession of citizens. These are issues that community gardens bring to light. While not all participants may have an awareness of the political significance of these gardens, understanding this allows us to gauge the extent to which urban gardens can be transformative social elements. Without this political consciousness, urban gardens risk losing their transformative potential. Political, economic, and social problems, as Defilippis et al. (2010) argue, cannot be resolved solely at the local level; they require alliances beyond the community to dismantle the economic and power structures of contemporary capitalism. These authors study the community as a space for contestation and emphasize the political importance of communities, broadly understood as social, political, economic, and ideological constructs. This approach can help us understand urban gardens within the context of the city, conceiving them as unexpected practices outside the formal city that transform both space and relationships. They address needs unmet by institutions, including the mere participation in an open, creative urban space, where participants themselves establish the rules and mechanisms for involvement. These gardens are experiments in transforming private spaces into community-managed spaces. They also offer self-organized models for food production, even though not all participants are involved for food-related reasons. Many of these projects involve significant efforts to develop strategies, countering the perception that they are remnants of 1960s idealism with little future.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we have attempted to outline a brief journey through social sustainability, from rural areas to urban gardens, where food sustainability is also incorporated. These gardens, as public spaces, reflect the communities inhabiting them and represent new ways of addressing urban challenges: the collective use of abandoned spaces, whether public or private, the self-management of these spaces in a horizontal manner where the users decide, the appropriation of spaces by marginalized collectives, the creation of green areas in cities, etc. These spaces aim to restore the wholeness of life through leisure, food, and sustenance. The new perspectives offered by this type of agriculture view them as spaces of resistance, giving food production a political dimension by incorporating food sovereignty to reverse unsustainable economic practices that may lead to collapse. This would form a continuous productive urban landscape. The basic principle is to restore the bond between humans and nature, where this agriculture seeks to erase the sharp divide between the two.

We have also sought to briefly demonstrate how the emphasis placed on the distinct character of the rural image being revived through local initiatives to use it for various purposes—economic, cultural, educational, or identity-related—has implications for different actors, especially natives or residents and visitors. There is no single criterion on what should be promoted and how. The questions that arise from the approach presented here concern aspects like decision making, selection, tensions, interpretation, integration, and sustainability in the competition to promote a place. Ultimately, if places everywhere are competing and exploring ways to meet the demand for uniqueness, it is important to consider that, while the goals may be clear, whether cultural or educational, the resulting benefits for the local community must be equally evident, beyond the economic sphere.

It has also been demonstrated that rurality and neo-ruralism encompass several paradoxes, making them complex phenomena full of tensions. The idealization of the countryside by new rural settlers, often seen as an idyllic and tension-free space, frequently leads to cultural clashes with the established rural communities, thereby creating social frictions. While these individuals aim to respect rural identity, they sometimes introduce changes in social dynamics that result in rural gentrification. Although they typically advocate for sustainability, authenticity, and tradition, they may bring urban values and technologies that reconfigure rural life. Nonetheless, their presence can foster economic revitalization through the introduction of new activities, such as ecotourism. They contribute to demographic renewal and spur social innovation by implementing sustainable initiatives that can enrich community life.

Finally, there is a factor we cannot overlook when characterizing the rural landscape and considering the economic and social restructuring based on new forms of agricultural and rural food supply: the high symbolic value, primarily within the urban imagination, which finds its greatest expression in the media. This has contributed to creating an idealized image of rural life as a refuge for traditional values in contrast to urban life. In this regard, we must consider the relationships established between the basic elements that define the rural landscape—image and identity. The former relates to the perception of the place by “others”, while the latter pertains to “ours”. The first is tied to the visitors’ perspective, the second to the natives or residents. While these distinctions are significant in any context, they are particularly clear and precise in the rural environment.

Additionally, and as future proposals to give continuity to studies on the rural world are developed, within the realm of heritage and place promotion, two key issues emerge: First, a technical question concerning what is available, what can be used, how it can be utilized, and how it can be presented. This is a matter of practicality and feasibility. Second, a more political question arises regarding what is selected, how the selection is made, and the messages conveyed through this process. The promotion of elements from a local area requires decision making that should be well motivated and justified. What is promoted involves choices about what is included, excluded, shown, or hidden. The significance of individual elements, specific events, or locations, as well as their potential as exhibits, must also be evaluated. However, this goes beyond mere technical difficulties, such as resource availability, time constraints, or financial limitations. Broader considerations play a role in the selection and presentation of particular elements of local heritage.

Thus, events, locations, or individuals that are selected—inevitably at the expense of others—call into question the intrinsic nature of the selection process (Wright, 1985; Walsh, 1992; Lowenthal, 1998, 2007). In this light, heritage becomes not just a form of representation that produces specific sets of meanings but also an economic and cultural product that is both bought and sold (Graham et al., 2016). Hence, heritage (and what is potentially heritage-worthy), with its local specificities, is treated as a resource that can be used to achieve specific objectives, whether economic, educational, cultural, or social. Heritage projects thus provide an opportunity for the local population—natives or residents—as well as visitors to learn more about both identity and the perception of image. Inevitably, this can expose tensions: tensions related to economic viability, social and territorial sustainability, or the need to generate income or regarding the production of something with educational, identity, or cultural value. There may be tensions about perceptions of authenticity, or the lack thereof, and revisions of certain versions of the local past.

As Storey (2004, 2006) suggests, issues of alienation and idealization of the past have always been common criticisms of the heritage industry in its broader sense. According to this author, there is a risk of presenting a view that avoids offending local sensibilities or the interests of particular groups, which may be deemed “entertaining” for visitors. This can lead to episodes from the past being ignored or minimized in favor of portraying an idyllic image of history. This, in turn, may involve ignoring the real difficulties experienced by segments of rural society.