I have published a paper on the conservation of New Gourna Village in Egypt, which has been designed by the Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy, as well as another paper on the sustainable conservation of a traditional living community in the USA which is Taos Pueblo. I think both properties can be considered examples of rural settlements that might be relevant to your work. Through these two papers I discussed an approach to analyze the heritage values that these properties might enjoy and how to evaluate their authenticity. I hope that these two papers might be relevant to your work.

Thank you Ayman, I'll read them as soon as soon as I can. Theme of authenticity in heritage conservation is very relevant – most of rural settlements in Czech Republic have hardly changed since 19th century (They are mostly just empty forms - the agricultural function was taken from them due to collectivisation in 1950’s).

Dear Vit

Rural space is mediated by culture and social relations. In India rural spaces like road, temples and tea shops in some areas continue to be mediated by caste and gender- privileging upper castes and men. Things are slowly changing- but not fast enough. In the last fifteen years self help groups of women have mushroomed through government programmes; and these have been federated at village and block level- creating public spaces that are women exclusive. Even now, during monthly menstrual cycles women do not go temples. Rural markets are very much male and upper class/caste spaces; but again now women collectively are leasing weekly markets and earning. Thus rural spaces are contested spaces- and the outcomes and access are a product of such contestation

Ranjani

. 

Dear Vit, 

By "rurality" do you mean something independent from urban and urban features when describing its rural characteristics and attributes? Maybe I just misunderstood but do you look for much more physical settlements and adjustments of rural public spaces via-a-vis urban or it is a sociological public space discussion? I am really confused. 

Regards 

Thank you, Ranjani. What you wrote reminded me of an article by Hans Paul Bahrdt (concerning private and public realm as basic forms of the city community) I read just recently.

However (and to Yasemin’s question) my research is aimed in the direction of public space architecture (which after all is a physical embodiment of the social space). I’m trying to find the spatial features of the urbanised landscape which are characteristic for the rural (not urban) settlement.

Since the landscape I’m concerned with is located in (central) Europe I’m talking about a continuously urbanised region – such as is described by Thomas Sieverts in his fundamental publication Zwischenstadt (literally:  In-between City, published as Cities Without Cities).

In my country (Czech Republic) the lifestyle in small villages (about 100-2000 inhabitants) is very similar to the one in towns and cities. There are features (derived mostly from pre-industrial agriculture tradition) which still create some status – provide the intelligible rural settlement identity. However they are constantly weakening since middle of the 20th century. Agriculture production is now provided by farms – so it is de-facto independent on village settlements. Most of the working population is commuting.

Therefore I’m searching for more general features, spatial features which are characteristic for this specific form of independent settlement placed in a cultural (urbanised) landscape – in terms of legibility and intelligibility.  

In different words I’m questioning the generic form of urban sprawl as the general answer to the future of rural settlements.

What an interesting discussion, Vit! The very idea of 'public space' refers more to the cities, so rural public space is a little bit an oxymoron (something like wooden iron:) Anyway, as the 'Urban Revolution' (Henri Lefebvre) already took place and the urban forms of life conquered the space, so your research question is not irrelevant, just at the opposite. In order to find such discernable spatial differences rural and urban public spaces, I think that we should start from the basic distinctions between modern and traditional societies. The rural public space will miss the complexity of modern urban life: there will be less buildings with specialized functions, and the production of the local community will be more connected with agriculture. Of course, due to the ubiquitous infiltration of urban conditions, these differences are relativized, but still they should be working. I can give you an example from my field research in the town of Melnik (the smallest Bulgarian town with less than 200 inhabitants). I know, in Czech Republic there is also a town with the same name. The fact is, that with the diminishing of the population, a lot of institutions with specialized functions have been closed - the school, the hospital, and even the pharmacy. There is only one nameless street, and practically no public spaces, defined as meeting points with free access, except the park (remnant from socialist time), where people can meet and talk, while waiting the buss. So, good luck with your research!    

Hi,

You can have a look on this following article :

- Vincent Banos, Jacqueline Candau, “ Recomposition des liens sociaux en milieu rural ” (The Recomposition of Social Relations in Rural Settings From Frequenting Public Spaces to Producing Collective Norms?), Espaces et sociétés 4/2006 (No 127) , p. 97-112

URL : www.cairn.info/revue-espaces-et-societes-2006-4-page-97.htm.

DOI : 10.3917/esp.127.0097. 

Summary : The diversity of uses of rural space and the current questioning in our society of the social contract regarding agricultural activity invites us to look again at the tentative emergence of the concept of urban living understood as “a modality of living well together” that is applicable to rural settings. This article proposes an analytical framework to take account of the markers of social bonding between agricultural and non-agricultural populations as measured by how space is invested by individuals and social groups. In considering space not as explicative but as context for action, three analytical referents are in turn explored in order to question the social relations common to them all: open space, place, and public space.

- Kilian, T. 1984. « Public and Private, Power and Space », dans A. Light et J.-M. Smith (sous la dir. de), Philosophy and Geography II : The Production of Public Space, Oxford, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, p. 115-135.

- Hervouet Ronan, « L'économie du potager en biélorussie et en russie. », Etudes rurales 1/2006 (n° 177) , p. 25-42

URL : www.cairn.info/revue-etudes-rurales-2006-1-page-25.htm. 

Two models of keeping a vegetable garden, a widespread activity among city-dwellers in the post-Soviet world, can be discerned. Characterized by a low (or negative) return on investment, the “counterhandicap” model is underlaid by a rationale of improving the quality of the food consumed, whereas the “entrepreneurial” model makes it possible to earn a real income. Fieldwork and statistics serve to place gardening in the perspective of household economics and to qualify its contribution to “survival”.

There is also a english article : Hervouet, R. — 2003, « Dachas and Vegetable Gardens in Belarus. Economic and Subjective Stakes of an “Ordinary Passion” », Anthropology of East Europe Review 21 (1) : 159-168.

- Ledeneva, A. — 1998, Russia's Economy of Favours : Blat, Networking, and Informal Exchange. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

- Granovetter, M. — 1973, « The Strength of Weak Ties », American Journal of Sociology 78 : 1360-1380.

- Sauvadet Thomas, Bacqué Marie-Hélène, « Éditorial. Les pratiques populaires de l'espace», Espaces et sociétés 1/2011 (n° 144-145) , p. 7-13

URL : www.cairn.info/revue-espaces-et-societes-2011-1-page-7.htm.

DOI : 10.3917/esp.144.0007. 

Hope this can be useful for your research,

ALl the best,

Chris

Hi,

You could hae a look on the following link.

It is a presentation and a critic (in french) of an international symposium that took place in Rennes (France) few years ago. The topic is "social links and politics in rural societies".

Thibault Marmont, « Annie Antoine, Julian Mischi Sociabilité et politique en milieu rural », Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest [En ligne], 115-4 | 2008, mis en ligne le 31 décembre 2009, consulté le 10 novembre 2015. URL : http://abpo.revues.org/236

Hope it could be useful

Chris

I would like to thank you for your very interesting answers and apologise for my long delay. 

Svetlana:

The distinction between modern and traditional societies brings in an interesting question. Is the concept of rural environment inseparable from traditional society? Is it a contradiction to talk about modern rural? The specifics of specialisation in rural environment seem also as an interesting aspect. Some Czech authors are even using the phenomena of “self-help” and “common sense” as manifestations of rurality in opposition to urban environment. However it seems to me that even these aspects are declining recently – at least the visual display of it.

As for agriculture as means of local production community it is questionable – at least in the Czech Republic where only about 2,2 % of population is employed or self-employed in agriculture but 27 % of population is living in so called rural areas of the state (about 73 % of state’s area).

Agriculture still plays some role in gifting or barter and it is for sure one of the key features of rural societies in my country too (especially home grown vegetable and fruit are usual). On the other hand, it has more to do with sizes of individual communities and social rituals than agriculture itself in my opinion.

The benchmark for quality of community life in Czech communities seems to be the presence of a local pub. If there is none, the community life seems to be much more dependent on neighbours’ personal relations and mutual drop-ins at each other’s homes. The critical size for maintaining a local pub is somewhere around 200 – 400 inhabitants. Aside from the south east of the Czech Republic religion seems to play no significant role in community life at all. Churches are maintained just as heritage with only occasional masses in many cases.

Even very small communities can maintain their community life due to local voluntary fireman brigades and football clubs. Their clubroom is often compensating for the missing pub.

Considering the exterior public space, the bus stops are usually the pivotal points (together with local shop and pub outside seating and post office – if these are present).

Still what I’m most interested in is whether there are some formal aspects of environment in terms of legibility and intelligibility which could be understood as rural (in opposite to urban). Is it just the agriculture? Is it just the size of community? Is it just the low density of population, long distances and lack of public services?

I wonder: could a village of 500 placed some 5 km from a city of 200 000 in a landscape farmed by regional agriculture companies (operating from the city) maintain its rural character?

The form of relation between landscape and built environment seems to me as one of the keys.

Chris and Vassiliy: thank you for the links. I haven’t had time to read them yet, however I’m looking forward to it. As soon as I read them I’ll reply.

Hi,

I realized that I forget to give you one huge reference : The article of Vincent Banos and Jacqueline Candau, directly on this topic.

Banos, V. & Candau, J. "Émergence d'un espace public en milieu rural : jalons méthodologiques" [On public space in rural areas. Methodological points of view and aspects]. It is a chapter of a collective book.

The author is on ResearchGate so that you can catch this article directly from his homepage.

All the best,

Christophe

Chapter Émergence d'un espace public en milieu rural : jalons méthodologiques