Revisiting rural

‘Rural’ is widely referred to across an array of disciplines. Often used to broadly describe study groups or areas, the definition of ‘rural’ has been subject to discussion and debate, triggering a diverse set of conceptual and practical meanings of the term. This has resulted in important ambiguity related to the concept of ‘rural’ and the pressing need to build an integral framework that allows its standardization. Here we assess the current conception from the academic arena through a global survey of researchers. Our results show that ‘rural’ is widely defined with no clear consensus even about the central components of its definition. We found marked variation in the conception of ‘rural’ among respondents, but area of expertise showed less influence than region of origin. We suggest a hierarchical, context-dependent, and integrative framework that considers an urban–non-urban dichotomy followed by a trichotomy based on human presence and activities, encompassing all social and ecological systems on Earth.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: MacGregor Fors, Ian autor, Vázquez Hernández, Luis Bernardo Doctor autor 6858
Format: Texto biblioteca
Language:eng
Subjects:Rural, Urbanización, Paisajes, Sistemas socioecológicos,
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.135
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id KOHA-OAI-ECOSUR:60887
record_format koha
spelling KOHA-OAI-ECOSUR:608872024-03-11T15:21:36ZRevisiting rural MacGregor Fors, Ian autor Vázquez Hernández, Luis Bernardo Doctor autor 6858 texteng‘Rural’ is widely referred to across an array of disciplines. Often used to broadly describe study groups or areas, the definition of ‘rural’ has been subject to discussion and debate, triggering a diverse set of conceptual and practical meanings of the term. This has resulted in important ambiguity related to the concept of ‘rural’ and the pressing need to build an integral framework that allows its standardization. Here we assess the current conception from the academic arena through a global survey of researchers. Our results show that ‘rural’ is widely defined with no clear consensus even about the central components of its definition. We found marked variation in the conception of ‘rural’ among respondents, but area of expertise showed less influence than region of origin. We suggest a hierarchical, context-dependent, and integrative framework that considers an urban–non-urban dichotomy followed by a trichotomy based on human presence and activities, encompassing all social and ecological systems on Earth.‘Rural’ is widely referred to across an array of disciplines. Often used to broadly describe study groups or areas, the definition of ‘rural’ has been subject to discussion and debate, triggering a diverse set of conceptual and practical meanings of the term. This has resulted in important ambiguity related to the concept of ‘rural’ and the pressing need to build an integral framework that allows its standardization. Here we assess the current conception from the academic arena through a global survey of researchers. Our results show that ‘rural’ is widely defined with no clear consensus even about the central components of its definition. We found marked variation in the conception of ‘rural’ among respondents, but area of expertise showed less influence than region of origin. We suggest a hierarchical, context-dependent, and integrative framework that considers an urban–non-urban dichotomy followed by a trichotomy based on human presence and activities, encompassing all social and ecological systems on Earth.RuralUrbanizaciónPaisajesSistemas socioecológicosScience of the Total Environmenthttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.135Disponible para usuarios de ECOSUR con su clave de acceso
institution ECOSUR
collection Koha
country México
countrycode MX
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
En linea
databasecode cat-ecosur
tag biblioteca
region America del Norte
libraryname Sistema de Información Bibliotecario de ECOSUR (SIBE)
language eng
topic Rural
Urbanización
Paisajes
Sistemas socioecológicos
Rural
Urbanización
Paisajes
Sistemas socioecológicos
spellingShingle Rural
Urbanización
Paisajes
Sistemas socioecológicos
Rural
Urbanización
Paisajes
Sistemas socioecológicos
MacGregor Fors, Ian autor
Vázquez Hernández, Luis Bernardo Doctor autor 6858
Revisiting rural
description ‘Rural’ is widely referred to across an array of disciplines. Often used to broadly describe study groups or areas, the definition of ‘rural’ has been subject to discussion and debate, triggering a diverse set of conceptual and practical meanings of the term. This has resulted in important ambiguity related to the concept of ‘rural’ and the pressing need to build an integral framework that allows its standardization. Here we assess the current conception from the academic arena through a global survey of researchers. Our results show that ‘rural’ is widely defined with no clear consensus even about the central components of its definition. We found marked variation in the conception of ‘rural’ among respondents, but area of expertise showed less influence than region of origin. We suggest a hierarchical, context-dependent, and integrative framework that considers an urban–non-urban dichotomy followed by a trichotomy based on human presence and activities, encompassing all social and ecological systems on Earth.
format Texto
topic_facet Rural
Urbanización
Paisajes
Sistemas socioecológicos
author MacGregor Fors, Ian autor
Vázquez Hernández, Luis Bernardo Doctor autor 6858
author_facet MacGregor Fors, Ian autor
Vázquez Hernández, Luis Bernardo Doctor autor 6858
author_sort MacGregor Fors, Ian autor
title Revisiting rural
title_short Revisiting rural
title_full Revisiting rural
title_fullStr Revisiting rural
title_full_unstemmed Revisiting rural
title_sort revisiting rural
url https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.135
work_keys_str_mv AT macgregorforsianautor revisitingrural
AT vazquezhernandezluisbernardodoctorautor6858 revisitingrural
_version_ 1794792131765731328