Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Concepts of Rurality and Urbanity as Analytical Categories in Multidimensional Research Cover

Concepts of Rurality and Urbanity as Analytical Categories in Multidimensional Research

Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section B. Natural, Exact, and Applied Sciences.
Volume 62 (2008): Issue 1-2 (April 2008)
By:   
Open Access
|Aug 2008
References

References

  1. Āboliņa, K., Zīlāns, A. (2002). Evaluation of urban sustainability in specific sectors in Latvia., 4, 299-314.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. Aitken, S. C. (1990). Local Evaluations of Neighborhood Change., 80(2), 247-267.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. Andranovich, G. D., Riposa, G. (1993).Newbury Park: Sage. 107 pp.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Anonymous (1994).Paris: OECD.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Antrop, M. (2000). Changing Patterns in the Urbanized Countryside of Western Europe., 15, pp. 257-270.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. Apsītis, V. (2000). Latvijas arhitektūra astoņdesmit gados (1920-2000) [Eighty Years of Latvian Architecture (1920-2000)]., 54(1/2), 82-89. (in Latvian).
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Basten, L. (2004). Perceptions of urban space in the periphery: Potsdam's Kirchsteigfeld., 95(1), 89-99.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Bauls, A., Krišjāne, Z. (2000). Latvian population mobility in the transition period., 8, 24-35.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Bell, S., Penēze, Z., Nikodemus, O., Montarzino, A., Grīne, I. (2007). The Value of the Latvian rural landscape. In Roca, Z., Spek, T., Terknelli, T., Plieninger, T., Höchtl, F. (eds.),(pp. 347-362). Lisbon: Ediēões Universitįris Lusófonas.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Bowler, I. (2005). Rural alternatives. In Daniels, P. (ed.),(pp. 230-245). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Brown, L., Cromartie J. B. (2004). The Nature of Rurality in Postindustrial Society. In Champion, T., Graeme, H. (eds.),(pp. 269-283). Aldershot: Ashgate.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Bryant, C. R., Russwurm, L. H., McLellan, A. G. (1982).London: Longman, 249 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Bunce, M. (1994).London: Routledge. 232 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Bunkše, E. V. (1979). The role of humane environment in Soviet urban planning., 69(4), 379-394.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. Bunkše, E. V. (1992). God, Thine Earth is burning: Nature attitudes and the Latvian drive for independence,, 26(2), 203-209.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Bunkše, E. V. (1999). Reality of rural landscape symbolism in the formation of a post-Soviet, postmodern Latvian identity., 53, 121-138.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. Bunkše, E. V. (2001). The case of the missing sublime in Latvian landscape aesthetics and ethics., 4(3), 235-246.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, H. (2003). Planning for the countryside in the 21st century (but which and whose countryside?)., 4(1), 75-76.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Carr, M. (1997). New Patterns: Process and Change in Human Geography. Walton-on-Thames: Nelson. 525 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Champion, T., Hugo, G. (2004). Introduction: Moving beyond the urban-rural dichotomy. In Champion, T., Graeme, H. (eds.),(pp. 3-24). Aldershot: Ashgate.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Claval, P. (2007). The nature of cities and the analysis of their cultural problems., 98(2), 153-164.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. Donis, J. (2003). Designating a greenbelt around the city of Riga, Latvia., 2, 31-39.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. Dwyer, J. F., Childs, G. M. (2004). Movement of people across the landscape: A blurring of distinctions between areas, interests, and issues affecting natural resource management., 69, 153-164.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Eglīte, P. (2000). The dynamics of Latvia's urban and rural population at the end of the 20th century., 8, 36-46.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Francis, I. (2002). Iedzīvotāju un strādājošo teritoriālā izvietojuma īpatnības Rīgā [Location of population and employment in Riga]., 10, 90-106.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Funnell, D. C. (1988). Urban-Rural linkages: Research themes and directions., 70(2), 267-274.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. Gallent, N, Shoard, M., Andersson, J., Oades, R., Tudor, C. (2004). England's urban fringes: Multi-functionality and planning., 9(3), 217-233.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  28. Goodwin, M., Cloke, P., Milbourne P. (1995). Regulation theory and rural research: Theorising contemporary rural change.A, 27, 1245-1260
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. Granberg, L. (1999). Introduction. Rurality in Northern Europe., 39(3), 277-279.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  30. Grava, S. (1993). The urban heritage of the Soviet regime: The case of Riga, Latvia., 59(1), 9-30.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. Hahs, A. K., McDonnell, M. J. (2006). Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne's urban-rural gradient., 78, 435-448.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  32. Halfacree, K. (1993). Locality and social representation: Space, discourse, and alternative definitions of rural., 9(1), 23-37.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  33. Halfacree, K. (2004). Rethinking ‘rurality’. In Champion, T., Graeme H. (eds.),(pp. 285-304). Aldershot: Ashgate.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Harrington, V., O'Donoghue (1998). Rurality in England and Wales 1991: A replication and extension of the 1981 Rurality Index., 38(2), pp. 178-203.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. Harrison, C. M., Burgess, J. (1994). Social constructions of nature: a case study of conflicts over the development of Rainham marshes., 19, 291-310.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  36. Hart, J. F. (1998).Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 401 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Haugen, M. S., Lysgard, H. K. (2006). Discourses of rurality in a Norwegian context., 60, 174-178.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Herslund, L. (2007). Rural diversification in the Baltic countryside: a local perspective., 70(1), 47-59.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Hidding, M. C., Teunissen (2002). Beyond fragmentation: New concepts for urban-rural development., 58, 297-308.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  40. Hidding, M., Needham, B., Wisserhof, J. (2000). Discourses of town and country., 48, 121-130.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. Hidle, K., Cruickshank, J., Nesje, L. M. (2006). Market, commodity, resource, and strength: Logics of Norwegian rurality., 60, 189-198.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  42. Hill, M. (2003).London: Hodder and Stoughton. 128 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Hoggart, K. (1990). Lets do away with rural., 6, 245-257.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  44. Hopkins, J. (1998). Signs of the post-rural: Marketing myths of a symbolic countryside.B, 80(2), 65-81.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  45. Hugo, G., Champion, A., Lattes, A. (2003). Towards a new conceptualization of settlements for demography., 29(2), 277-297.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  46. Jones, G. A. (2004). Bridging the rural-urban divide: What can the urban learn from the rural? Reflections on the case of Mexico. In Hamza, M. (ed.),(pp. 123-145). London: Earthscan Publication.
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Jones, O. (1995). Lay discourses of the rural: Developments and implications for rural studies., 11(1), 35-49.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  48. Kolbe, L. (2007). Central and Eastern European capital cities: Interpreting www-pages—History, symbols and identity., 22, 79-111.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  49. Krišjāne, Z. (2001). Jaunas iezīmes Latvijas mazo pilsētu attīstībā [New trends in the development of small towns of Latvia]., IX, 33-41.
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. Lacour, C., Puissant, S. (2007). Re-urbanity: Urbanising the rural and ruralising the urban., 39, 728-747.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  51. Lee, L. (1979). Factors affecting land-use change at urban-rural fringe., 10(4), 25-31.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  52. Lefebvre, H. (1991).Oxford: Blackwell, 454 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Lieven, A. (1993).New Haven: Yale University Press, 454 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Lynch, K. (2004).London: Routledge. 209 pp.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  55. Mann, P. H. (1965).London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 232 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. McDonnell, M. J., Pickett, S. T. A. (1990). Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: An unexploited opportunity for ecology., 71(4), 1232-1237.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  57. Melluma, A. (1994). Metamorphoses of Latvian landscapes during fifty years of Soviet rule., 33(1), 55-62.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  58. Muilu, T., Rusanen, J. (2004). Changes in population and industries in the rural areas of Finland: From analysis of administrative regions to GIS based approach. In Banski, J. (ed.),(pp. 109-117). Warsaw: Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization.
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. Nikodemus, O., Bell, S. Grīne, I., Liepiņš I. (2005). The impact of economic, social and political factors on the landscape structure of the Vidzeme Uplands in Latvia., 70, 57-67.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  60. Pahl, R. E. (1966). The rural-urban continuum., 6, 299-329.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  61. Paine, S. (1978). Some reflections on the presence of ‘rural’ or of ‘urban bias’ in China's development policies 1949-1976., 6, 693-707.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  62. Richardson, T. (2000). Discourses of rurality in EU spatial policy: The European spatial development perspective., 40(1), 53-71.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  63. Rozīte, M., Priedāja-Klepere, L. (2004). The Importance of Latvia's Cities in Tourism., 12, 74-83.
    Search in Google Scholar
  64. Ryan R. L. (2006). Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers about preserving rural character in New England., 75(1-2), 5-22.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  65. Schwartz, K. Z. S. (2005). Wild horses in a "European Wilderness": Imagining sustainable development in the post-Soviet countryside., 12, 292-320.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  66. Schwartz, K. Z. S. (2007). "The occupation of beauty": Imagining nature and nation in Latvia., 21(2), 259-293.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  67. Schwartz, K. Z. S. (2006). "Masters in our native place": The politics of Latvian National Parks on the road from communism to "Europe"., 25, 42-71.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  68. Shubin, S. (2006). The changing nature of rurality and rural studies in Russia., 22(4), 422-440.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  69. Simmons, C. S., Sorrensen, C., Walker, R. (2002). Urban rural linkages and environmental change: Addressing the human dynamics of urban ecologies., 6, 5-8.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  70. Šķiņķis, P., Stankevič V. (1999). Latvijas pilsētu sociāli geogrāfiskās atšķirības [Social structural differences of urban areas in Latvia]., 7, 94-115.
    Search in Google Scholar
  71. Sorokin, P. A., Zimmerman, C. C. (1929).New York: Holt. 652 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  72. Swain, N. (2000).Halle: Max Planck Institute for Social Antropology. 26 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  73. Tacoli C. (1998). Rural-urban interactions: a guide to the literature., 10 (1), 147-166.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  74. Taff, G. (2005). Conflict between global and local land-use values in Latvia's Gauja National Park., 30(3), 415-430.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  75. Tammaru, T. (2001). Suburban growth and suburbanization under central planning: The case of Soviet Estonia., 38(8), 1341-1357.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  76. Theobald D. M. (2004). Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework., 2(3), 139-144.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  77. Thorns, D. C. (2002).New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 258 pp.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  78. Tilt, J. H., Kearney, A. R., Bradley, G. (2007). Understanding rural character: Cognitive and visual perceptions,, 81, 14-26.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  79. Tisenkopfs, T. (1999). Rurality as a created field: Towards an integrated rural development in Latvia?, 39(3), 411-430.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  80. Tjallingii, S. P. (2000). Ecology on the edge: Landscape and ecology between town and country., 48, 103-119.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  81. Tonnies, F. (1889, 2001). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. In Harris, J. (ed.),(pp. 3-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  82. Unwin, T. (1998). Rurality and construction of the nation in Estonia. In Picles, J., Smith, A. (eds.),(pp. 284-306). London: Routledge.
    Search in Google Scholar
  83. Tress, B., Tress, G., Decamps, H., d'Hauteserre, A.-M. (2001). Editorial: Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research., 57, 137-141.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  84. Tuan, Y.-F. (1978). The city: Its distance from nature., 68(1), 1-12.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  85. Unwin, T. (1999). Contested reconstruction of national identities in Eastern Europe: Landscape implications., 53, 113-120.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  86. Wilson, G. A. (2001). From productivism to post-productivism…and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture., 26(1), 77-102.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  87. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as way of life., 44(1), 1-24.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  88. Cloke, P. (1996). Rural life-styles: Material opportunity, cultural experience, and how theory can undermine policy., 72(4), 433-449.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  89. Cloke, P. J. (1979).London: Methuen. 259 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  90. Cloke, P. J., Park, C. C. (1985).London: Croom Helm. 473 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
  91. Cloke, P., Johnston, R. (2005). Deconstructing human geography's binaries. In Cloke, P., Johnston, R. (eds.),(pp. 1-41). London: Sage Publications
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  92. Coombes, M., Raybould, S. (2001). Public policy and population distribution: Developing appropriate indicators of settlement patterns., 19, 223-248.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  93. Penēze, Z., Nikodemus, O., Grīne, I., Rasa, I., Bell, S. (2004). Local changes in the landscape structure of Kurzeme during the 20th century., 12, 56-64.
    Search in Google Scholar
  94. Pfuderer, S. (2003).UNECE. Retrieved 10.02.2008
    Search in Google Scholar
  95. Phillips, M., Fish R., Agg, J. (2001). Putting together ruralities: Towards a symbolic analysis of rurality in the British mass media., 17, 1-27.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  96. Plowden, B. (1995).CPRE. London: Council for the Protection of Rural England.
    Search in Google Scholar
  97. Pumain, D., Saint-Julien, T., Cattan, N., Rozenblat, C. (1992).Luxemburg: EUROSTAT. 91 pp.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10046-008-0004-3 | Journal eISSN: 2255-890X (formerly 1407-009X) | Journal ISSN: 1407-009X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 9 - 17
Published on: Aug 14, 2008
Published by: Latvian Academy of Sciences
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
rural,
urban,
nature-society,
environment,
Latvia
Related subjects:
Mathematics,
General mathematics

© 2008 Laila Kūle, published by Latvian Academy of Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

Volume 62 (2008): Issue 1-2 (April 2008)
Previous article
Next article