Regional Studies · 2005 · 88 citations · 31 references
PlanningDevelopment StudiesRegional PlanningRegional DevelopmentRegional GovernanceRegional IntegrationRegional CooperationRegional Development PolicyRegional PolicyRural-urban LinkagesRural-urban RelationsUrban-rural LinkagesRegional CollaborationRegional PartnershipsRegionalizationRural-urban ContinuumUrban-regional RelationsUrban-rural ExchangeUrban-rural InterfaceUrban-rural Relations
Urban and rural areas are often treated as opposites, yet policy makers in Britain have largely developed separate development and regeneration strategies with minimal cross‑referencing, prompting a growing emphasis on interdependencies and functional regions at European, national, and regional levels. The paper argues that an integrated urban‑rural approach to regional development, focusing on interdependencies and commonalities rather than differences, yields benefits. The authors conduct primary research in England to assess the scale and scope of joint urban‑rural collaboration in practice.
Caffyn A. and Dahlström M. (2005) Urban–rural interdependencies: joining up policy in practice, Regional Studies 39 , 283–296. 'Urban' and 'rural' are commonly used in an oppositional fashion. Authorities and agencies have similarly developed policies for development and regeneration in Britain with little cross‐referencing. This paper argues that there are benefits to be gained by taking an integrated urban–rural approach to regional development and by focusing on interdependencies and commonalities rather than on differences. Policy documents at the European, national and regional levels are increasingly stressing interdependencies and the move towards regionalization adds to the shift in emphasis towards functional regions rather than to town and country. The paper reports primary research in England into the scale and scope of joint urban–rural collaboration in practice.
31