Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Rurality, identity and morality in remote rural areas in northern Spain

Angel Paniagua
Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, CSIC, Madrid 28037, Spain

a b s t r a c t
Keywords: The aim of this work is to conduct a micro comparative study of the identities and moral discourses in
Morality remote rural areas. It is divided into two main parts: the first analyses the different approaches to
Identities
rurality, rural others and moral approaches from a sociocultural perspective; the second corresponds to a
Rurality
Space
comparative analysis of the spatial identities and moral discourses in remote rural areas affected by
Comparative microanalysis depopulation processes.
Spain The empirical objective is to study, in two adjacent valleys, how rural micro identities arise and how
the moral lives of individuals and social groups are configured. The qualitative methodology is based on
an extensive stay in the area (casual and systematic observations and exchanges with local populations),
and conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews.
The main results suggest that different group identities appear from a similar material base and, from
these identities, a range of moral lives based on daily life. Materiality, identity and moral lives are three
superimposed but distinct interacting layers.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction perspectives to condition the dynamics of declining rural com-

Recently, rural geography has tended to focus more on the
processes of rural repopulation and mobility of the population
(Milbourne, 2007), than on the permanence of local populations in
remote rural areas in decline. In this way, the dominant perspec-
tives, regardless of their relevance, have focused on repopulation
and counter-urbanisation (Connell and McManus, 2011; Stockdale
and MacLeod, 2013) and have often been reflected as a binomial
between rural losers and urban winners, who are included among
the postmodern characters of rural studies (Hoggart et al., 1995;
Schmied, 2005). This has resulted in rurality being viewed
through counter-urbanisation, gentrification, lifestyle migration
and rural place marketing, with emphasis on the opportunities of
social change in the rural world (Stockdale, 2006). The analysis of
rural areas in decline largely shares this study perspective, and has
resulted in an adequate approach to the reality of this type of area
(Spencer, 1995; Weekley, 1988).
The complex processes associated with rural areas in decline
and their effects on the transformation, alteration or even the
disappearance of communities has been the focus of geographical
attention from a range of perspectives (Bosworth and Willet, 2011;
Robinson, 2008). Among the processes considered from multiple
E-mail addresses: angel.paniagua@cchs.csic.es, angel.paniagua@csic.es.
munities, are those associated with a continuous population
decline (Robinson, 1990; Carson et al., 2011). Similarly, their
geographical consideration has also changed from positivist ap-
proaches, which place more emphasis on data, to cultural or even
moral approaches.
Through these latest geographical tendencies, linked to a social
and cultural construction of space, it is necessary to reformulate the
phenomenon, usually from negative trends linked to population
loss in a given space, often to the benefit of the urban world and a
loss of the traditional way of life, to ones of a more positive and
enriching character, concerning the generation of new cultural
types and moral lives in spaces with a marked tradition of depop-
ulation. In the context of social and cultural orientations of rural
studies, there has been some emphasis on the multiple represen-
tations that can be made of a same space or rural place by different
social groups and individuals (Halfacree, 1993, 2001), or by the
specific representation of each rural place (Cloke, 1996). This shows
how different sociospatial relationships can be juxtaposed in each
rural space, and each space would be the resulting product of these
multiple influences, giving the space a fluid and dynamic character
(Cloke, 2006).
Proceeding in this approach, rurality can be deconstructed in
different ways in each place, generating different micro identities,
which would be ductile and malleable. Until now, relationships
have been established between the rural space and the different

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.03.009
0743-0167/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
50 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58
uses, constructions and visions of each social group in the space, or
the micro constructions of each rural place (Cloke et al., 1998). This
has enabled advances to be made in other spaces and populations
(Cloke and Little, 1997a,b). However, there are few studies in the
rural geography setting that attempt to establish, in one materiality
or structural space, different spatial micro constructions and (or in
parallel) multiple social and moral discourses that respond to types
or profiles, or to trajectories of individuals or social groups.
The aim of this study is to make a comparative analysis in
different rural areas in decline, with similar spatial and material
characteristics, of how processes of demographic, environmental
and social change develop into new identities and rural represen-
tations, in which discourses of processes of positional and socio-
environmental disadvantage are articulated. For this purpose, we
have considered that, in each area, and generated by these pro-
cesses and dynamics of rural change, diverse spatial (micro) iden-
tities emerge with different (or not) significance and contents and
parallely, moral discourses are constructed, which articulate and
reflect the positions of the different social groups resulting from the
processes of rural change. Hence, the coexistence of different (mi-
cro) visions of the place is acknowledged which, in turn, coexist
with different moral discourses that reveal the different positions
of social groups and individuals in relation to a place, reinforcing
the significant (and acknowledged) complexity in the processes of
cultural and social construction of the rural place. It is, therefore,
possible to establish three dimensions or layers: structural spaces,
spatial micro identities and moral discourses or trajectories that
identify social groups or individuals.
2. Rurality, identity and morality in remote rural areas in
decline
Advances in the sociocultural perspective of rural studies have
enabled emphasis to be placed on the differences and on other
places and people (Cloke et al., 1997), reflecting individual cir-
cumstances and ways of life. This has been accompanied by a more
plural and complex view of rural areas, both from a spatial, and also
a sociocultural perspective (Short, 1991). This has not only been
related to the range of perspectives from which to comprehend
rurality as a central axis of rural studies, but also to the recognition
of differentiated lifestyles (Cloke et al., 1995; Cloke, 1997), both in
relation to the city (Willians, 1973), and in rural areas (Murdoch
et al., 2003). In this regard, Morris (2004) considers that there are
two ways to analyse culture in rural geography studies: the first is
associated with the trajectory and vital biography, and would be
affected by personal beliefs and values; the second corresponds to a
category that differentiates each social group. Within the context of
this paper both types of analysis are valid. The first would be
associated with different lifestyles that are embodied in discourses
that compete against, or complement, each other in a complex and
variable manner in remote rural areas (Pile, 1997). The second
would be associated with a discourse that affects the entire com-
munity (or part of it) that exists permanently in a given area in a
process of decline, daily conditioned by its reduced population. In
other words, the former would be more closely associated with
different lifestyles in the area (Valentine, 2008; Holloway and
Hubbard, 2001), while the second would be determined by the
distinction or differentiation of the community in relation to its
more immediate, and also distant, sociocultural context (Shileds,
1991).
As Castree proposed (2005), culture is a complex concept, based
on a Geographical setting, on a transformation of the material
world into a world of symbols that acquire different values and
measures depending on the individuals or communities concerned.
Consequently, culture or cultural processes mediate all, or almost
all, aspects of rural social life (Little, 1999). Hence, identities and
discourses in the processes of elaboration, (re) articulation and
contestation relating to a range of questions that affect and may or
may not generate conflict in rural areas in a process of decline,
should be considered from a fluid perspective. Here, they converge
and it is necessary to determine daily issues and decisions which
reflect the place of living (Whatmore, 2002), and the idealised
concept of past lifestyles. From this perspective, the reinterpreta-
tion of new ruralities based on the process of decline takes on more
relevance, such as forgotten or lost spaces, (re) constructed remote
spaces, or new cyclic spaces that operate seasonally in remote rural
areas in a process of decline. To a large extent, these areas are a clear
point of reference for Geography, owing to their sociocultural type
and their orientation towards moral tendencies (Cloke and Little,
1997a,b), and also to tackle the present debate about the perfor-
mance of rural studies (Woods, 2010).
Owing to the recognised complexity and plurality of rural
studies, on the one hand it is possible to investigate the micro and
multiple social representations of a given place and, on the other
hand, the appearance of multiple and varied social and moral dis-
courses (Fig. 1) (Cloke, 2002; Cloke and Thrift, 1994) that emphasise
the complex processes of social and cultural organisation in
response to the processes of change and restructuring of rural
spaces (Short, 1991). As Murdoch et al. (2003) show, the combi-
nation of economic, social and cultural elements has had the effect
of generating multiple ruralities that compete among themselves,
from both a functional and also a symbolic perspective. We
consider that two major analytical strategies have arisen from this
approach: one of them focused, from a spatial and sociocultural
perspective, on the multiple representations of rurality of a given
space (Halfacree, 1993; Holloway and Kneafsey, 2004). The other
focuses more on the analysis of rural others, founded on spatial
marginality and on some social groups, which are distant from the
more idealised view of the countryside (Cloke and Little, 1997a,b).
The first perspective includes geographical tradition in the study
of rurality and the debate of rural restructuring, and positions so-
ciocultural studies among the processes of social change in rural
areas, breaking away from a quantitative tradition (Cloke and Thrift,
1994). Hence, as professor Cloke proposes (2006), in Geography
there is a link between rural studies and the cultural shift. If eco-
nomic policy organises rurality, then from a cultural perspective
rurality must be defined through different visions of identity, rep-
resentation, difference and resistance (Cloke, 2006). The decon-
struction of rurality through the discourses and their
representations has been a very important line of study to establish
Fig. 1. More sophisticated ruralities.
 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58
the differences between postmodern and post structural agendas
(Cloke, 1996).
Several studies have pointed out the existence of multiple dis-
courses or representations of rurality which, to some extent, make
rurality a chaotic concept (Jones, 1995), although mediated by social
power structures that would result in some predominating over
others (Sharp et al., 2000).
In order to tackle this situation and increase the analytical po-
wer of rurality, it has been linked to locality (Halfacree, 1993) in the
form of a peculiar materiality to produce a “conceptual triad” based
on the work by Lefevbre (1991), in which it is possible to distin-
guish: rural localities where certain spatial practices are employed,
formal representations of rurality, and less programmed and more
spontaneous rural daily lives (Halfacree, 2006) (Fig. 1). Initially, this
approach attempts to improve on the binomial or dual approach
between locality or space and the (multiple) social representation,
which characterises geographical works (Halfacree, 2006). In our
opinion, it can also be associated with studies which, from a po-
litical economy perspective, attempt to distinguish rurality from
urban and rurality from what is rural (Murdoch et al., 2003),
especially through dominant spatial practices. Hence, it can be
acknowledged that rural localities condition the representations
and daily lives and this could create a typology of ruralities, derived
from the combination of these three elements.
Professor Bunce (2003) raises this point when he mentions the
possible types of idyllic views of the countryside in relation to
symbolic and material expressions based on nostalgic structures
(social and economic). Nelson (2001) emphasises this in his study
on rural restructuring in the American West by relating changes in
migratory balance, the manenature relationship and changes in
the economic sectors. Mahon (2007) reflects on the changing di-
mensions of the networks of rurality, based on the works of pro-
fessor Halfacree (2006). In a later study, professor Halfacree (2007)
tests a typology in a historical perspective but does not distinguish
the importance of each element in the definition of each rurality
(an element of connection with the economic-political orientation
of rurality). He describes the change from productivism to post-
productivism and how different types can be distinguished
within the rural post-productive space: super-productivism (land
as productive resource), consuming idylls (antagonise with super-
productive space, is associated with pastoral notions of rural
community), effaced rurality (associated with the nostalgia and
with the past rural experience) and radical ruralities (associated
with a differentiated production) (Halfacree, 2007:131).
In one of these, radical rurality exemplifies the ‘conceptual
triad’, defining the essential components of this type of rurality, but
without clearly establishing how these could be combined in a
specific place. In this line, professor Cloke (2006) reflects on the
relevance of hybrid approaches in the study of rurality in an
attempt to relativise the binary or dual static differentiations with
more dynamic and flexible relationships based on policies of the
place that permit political (or politicaleeconomical) and cultural
approaches to be combined. In this same line, we can find the
recent study by professor Frisvoll (2012) which has a critical
approach to rurality based on changes in the local power structure.
Some recent works suggest carrying out a reorientation of rurality,
based on performance (Woods, 2010), with the purpose of re/
materializing studies on rurality and their influence in the pro-
duction of experiences of daily life (Cloke, 2006; Woods, 2009).
All these approaches aim to increase the level of sophistication
of analyses of rurality, beyond the archetypal, dual or generalised
views. However, they have the disadvantage of being too closely
linked to specific representations of rurality that encourage the
study of cases, or the specific or exceptional significance of rurality,
beyond its common traits (Newby, 1986). Local and micro scales
51
were key factors in the (socio) cultural change in rural geography
(Cloke, 1985). All this leads to a distinction of local rurality that
would be described by its spatial practices, derived from a combi-
nation of production and consumer activities (Halfacree, 2007). In
any case, the problem lies in how many possible combinations of
these activities can exist. Is this number limited or infinite? For this
reason, this type of sociocultural approach to rurality has been
concerned with the possible coherence (Halfacree, 2007), as it does
not indicate with sufficient clarity the importance of each element
in the construction of rurality, which initially suggests some degree
of equivalence between spatial practices, formal representations
and daily lives.
The second perspective, as we mentioned previously, studies
rural others and lifestyles, especially linked to marginality and to
the more complex views of rurality (Cloke, 1996). The objective is to
explore the differences involved in the marginalisation experienced
in rural life-styles .’ (Cloke, 1996: 447), by studying ‘lay discourses’
within the academic discourses (Cloke et al., 1997). This type of
research is usually associated with social groups or areas other than
those that have a more common and idealised view of the coun-
tryside (Phillips, 1998). As professor Cloke suggests (1997),
although marginality has not been directly addressed in rural
studies, along with cultural change multiple sociocultural spaces
can be observed where previously only geographical rural spaces
existed. Consequently, studies of the others have become more
important, linked to the analysis of individuals and groups who live
in marginality, and also to the analysis of different identities,
including the reconstructed identity of areas in decline.
As professors Cloke et al. (1997) explain, this entails studying
different individuals and groups of people in one place. This would
reveal the varied and complex ways in which individuals or groups
of people can be marginalised or othered by a combination of
biographical, micro spatial and historical (socioeconomic) pro-
cesses. This has reinforced an individual or group view of the
marginalisation and a difference due to personal experience (Little,
1999). In any case, the plural relationship between spatial repre-
sentation and marginality has helped to increase the complexity of
studies on rurality (Cloke and Little, 1997a,b) in the study of other
spaces and rural others. This relationship between identity, power,
community and individual or social group has conditioned studies
of groups and marginalised spaces in (Rural) Geography (Woods,
2005), by means of the micro scales employed to analyse daily
interrelationships, and has reinforced the consideration of the
difference in the place by individuals or groups of individuals
(Holloway, 2002).
The debate does not appear to significantly interconnect the
discussion of rurality and the evidence of other realities in rural
areas, through daily spatial practices (Valentine, 2008). In fact, as
we indicated in the first section, an urban approach has helped to
establish the reality of marginalised areas and remote regions in
decline. In any case, it is important to acknowledge the changing
and fluent situation of people (and spaces) in marginal regions. One
dimension of this change in geographical studies corresponds to
the so-called ‘politics of place’ that determines conflicts and limits
in some rural areas (Woods and Goodwin, 2003) and that, conse-
quently, determines the different positions of communities, social
groups or individuals in a given space or place, revealing some
situations that are disadvantaged compared to others in the context
of a given rural community (Philo, 1992). There is already some
tradition of studying certain social groups which can be found at
the margin of routine social practises and are influenced by the
space, the place or the rural environment in the production of
others (Philo, 1998).
In remote rural areas, significant value is given to addressing
daily lives and, consequently, to moral and ethical approaches that
52 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58
extend one step further than sociocultural approaches, and acquire
an important relevance in these studies: from the normalisation of
daily lives in reconstructed remote areas, to the emergence of
alternative lifestyles in remote rural areas in decline. Interest in
moral geographies has had a variable employment by geographers
(Proctor, 1998), and is more closely linked to everyday life than to
moral problems associated with social, environmental or situa-
tional justice. In any case, the moral tendencies among rural ge-
ographers have been more closely associated with the significance
and value of a place in the production of moral discourses. As
professor Cloke explained (2002), moral geographers make refer-
ences to individual assumptions about matters related to justice or
injustice concerning different aspects of daily life, or not, in a
specific place and population. Spatial and environmental issues and
also ones relating to the individuals in the community, together
form a moral perspective that conditions daily lives, personal de-
cisions and even professional behaviours (Holloway, 2002).
Hence, moral lives can replace considerations of the community
in rural areas. In remote rural spaces, we can find not only re-
flections about “the others”, but also the varied points of view or
values that coexist in a given place or space, which result from a
variable interpretation and value of daily life in remote rural areas
with small populations. Like counterurbanisation, processes of ru-
ral decline help to deconstruct and, parallely, to reconstruct the
value of a place and the rurality. A remote rurality in decline is
affected by minimal effective demographics. However, as professor
Woods recently explained (2011) the individual experience of life
and rurality can vary significantly between individuals of the same
community, or, as we explained previously, can bring about a
substitution in the community. This results in a plurality of parallel
and interlinked moral lives because of unequal perspectives on the
cultural and material conditions of the place in which they coexist
(Massey, 2005). This is usually associated with relative and specific
notions of justice, inequality, expectations and position in the
community (moral relationships).
In remote rural areas the identities are constructed through the
different spatial existences that can be seen in each place resulting
from the different material and cultural affinities (Valentine,
2008). These are also influenced by the perception of feelings,
customs and future expectations in areas with extreme socio-
spatial conditions (Woods, 2011; Sibley, 1995). As professor Little
(1999) explains, processes of sociospatial exclusion do not affect
everyone in the community equally. Consequently, different moral
discourses are generated that reveal the viewpoints of individuals,
or types of individuals with very similar characteristics. Two
levels can be distinguished: (a) identities linked to spatial struc-
tures (of power), which are more permanent in time; (b) a group
of lives and moral discourses that interact in a variable manner
and change more rapidly than spatial identities, depending on the
local or professional circumstances (Lee and Smith, 2004; Riley,
2011).
The objective of this work is to combine the two approaches
described above e one centred around a spatial and sociocultural
perspective in the multiple representations of rurality in relation to
the same space, and the other based more on the analysis of rural
others, on the other spaces, more closely associated with rural
marginality e of rural studies with a sociocultural approach. These
are then employed in the analysis of remote rural areas in decline,
as a space that permits the creation of fluent and flexible standards
of identity, which permit progress from a moral perspective in
critical rural geographies that place more emphasis on the others,
the differences or the excluded ones (Crouch, 1997). From a spatial
perspective, these correspond to marginalised or excluded rural
spaces, not only when compared with urban spaces, but also with
rural spaces not affected by a decline in the population or
remoteness (Lawrence, 1995). Hence, the position of these areas in
the space determines, to a large extent, not only the material
conditions linked to the smaller population, but also other social
categories and immaterial identities, often constructed through
this spatial position that seem to be (or can be found to be) rela-
tively discriminatory. Consequently, these types of spaces do not
have a strictly geographical virtuality, but should be seen as having
more of a cultural and moral attribute, constructed by the people or
the individuals who live permanently in these areas, but who could
have a more idealistic view of them.
3. Methodology and study areas
Usually, cultural and moral geographies and the study of ‘the
others’ employ micro scale approaches to spatial and social prac-
tices and are associated with qualitative methodologies (Valentine,
2008). In the specific case of this paper, a methodological approach
has been used that enables a (micro) comparison of the two case
studies and guarantees a degree of equivalence between the pro-
longed stay of the investigator in the area (information, feelings,
exchanges) (Sibley, 1995), occasional (social or community events)
and systematic observations (sociocultural dynamics) and semi-
structured interviews on the moral position and vision of each
type or group of individuals in the area (Creswell, 1998). The aim of
this approach is to interpret each case study in its context (Neal and
Walters, 2006) and to ensure the consistency of the information
obtained in the interviews (Crang, 2002, 2005; Davies and Dwyer,
2007), with other information sources.
The in-depth interview has been recommended for the analysis
of complex relationships and the study of events (Hoggart et al.,
2002), such as the present study. The intention of employing it
here has been to manifest the relationships between a place, the
rurality and the individuals (Elwood and Martin, 2000) and for
discussions to arise that can be used to analyse daily lives or specific
perspectives about the space or rurality (Robinson, 1998), through
the perception of the immediate and remote context, the identity
and authenticity, the marginality and the dimensions of daily life
(McDowell, 2010).
With the purpose of developing a comparative study of the
rurality of moral lives, two study areas have been selected in remote
rural regions on provincial borders, far from any urban nucleus of
relevance (Map 1): (a) The first case is the Valderredible valley
(Cantabria region) in the area called El Alto Rio located in the north
of Spain between Cantabria and Castille and Leon. A total of 25 in-
depth interviews were carried out and recorded over the years
2009 and 2010, of between 30 and 60 min duration. Of these, 7
were conducted with local agencies or local policy makers and 18
with people of different professions and from different locations in
the valley, including 10 with arable and livestock farmers and the
rest with people working in the service industry, mainly tourism
and recreation (Table 1). (b) The second study area is located in the
Sedano valley (Castille and Leon region), also in the Alto Río Ebro. In
this area, 23 in-depth interviews were conducted during 2009 and
2010, of which 8 were interviews with policy-makers and local
agencies, 5 with different types of farmers and 10 with people
working in tourism, handcrafts or (micro) services (Table 1 and
Fig. 2).
Selection of individuals was based on the initial interviews with
local policy makers and their presence in the study area. The in-
dividuals were chosen to represent the different types of people
living in each valley and their role in the complex construction of
moral lives (Table 1) in relation to demographic characteristics,
time residing in the valley, geographical micro location and
employment.
 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58 53

Fig. 2. Identities and moral lives in study areas.

The interviews were carried out using a script organised into
different sections or blocks: (a) Perception of the spatial context in
relation to the personal situation. (b) Scale: position of the area
relative to a wider spatial context; position relative to regional or local
scales; originality of the geographical position; identity in a broader
geographical context; characteristics of the marginalisation and
depopulation in a broader context. (c) Sociocultural context:
authenticity; the concept of local identity and a feeling of
authenticity; the association between authenticity; identity and
marginality; the value of the depopulation process in the identity. (d)
The power structure and its influence on the construction of the local
cultural identity. In accordance with the blocks established, analysis
of the interviews consisted in inspection of the conversational data
and transcribed data, narrative organisation and identification of the
main axes of the discourse (Robinson, 1998). The objective was to
establish and distinguish the main identities and moral types.

Map 1. Selected valleys in the study area.

54 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58

Table 1 number of hamlets, each with their own historical rights in relation
Main characteristics of people selected by study areas. to the space. Its value and strength resides in the balance of
Valderredible valley Sedano valley ancestral power with the village’s identity, which permits the space
Total 25 interviews (in 15 villages) Total 23 interviews (in 13 villages) to be integrated into its surroundings. The traditional denomina-
7 local policy makers 8 local policy makers tion given to these villagers as “vallucos” (valley-dwellers) clearly
10 farmers: 5 farmers: expresses this spatial identity. ‘They call the ones from the higher
Gender: 9 men; 1 woman. Gender: 5 men. areas ‘mazorrizos’, (.). The ones from Polientes are the gentry of
Age: 5 over 60 years; 3 over 50; 5 Age: 4 over 60 years; 1 over 40
the villages. They regard themselves as valley dwellers, each
to over 40 years. years.
Civil status: 5 married; 5 Civil status: 3 married; 2 belonging to his own village .’ (Jul, val, May 2009).
unmarried or widower; four unmarried or widower; 2 with
with children. children. 4.1.1.2. Shared identities in the valley. These are linked to a partic-
Origin: 8 native; 2 returned. Origin: 4 native; 1 returned.
ular space in the valley, often identified with a name (upper valley,
5 rural tourism businesses: 8 rural tourism businesses:
Gender: 3 woman; 2 men. Gender: 4 men; 4 women.
lower valley). Their identity is usually associated with a changing
Age: 1 over 60; 3 over 50; 1 over Age: 2 over 60 years; 3 over 50 landscape e the more closed or the open part of the valley. Social
20. Civil status: 2 married; 3 years; 3 over 40 years. lives closely linked to traditional uses or to newcomers determine
unmarried or widower; 2 with Civil Status: 8 married. 6 with the different identities. The more closed upper valley is often more
children. children.
associated with the valley as a whole, linked to ancestral traditions
Origin: 3 native; 1 returned; 1 Origin: 4 native; 1 returned; 3
immigrant. immigrants. of livestock farming, which often have a political angle interpreted
3 others (services and new 2 others (artisans and new as the arisal of conflicts about the use of the space: ‘The valley is
business): Gender: 3 men. business): divided into the higher areas and the valley bottom, starting with
Age: 2 over 60; 1 over 30. Gender: 2 women. Bascones. Polientes at the top of the valley is where most of the
Civil Status: 1 married; 2 Age: 2 over 40 years.
unmarried or widower; 1 with Civil Status: 2 married; 2 with
activity is centralised .’ (Mar, Vnia, April, 2010).
children. children.
Origin: 2 native; 1 immigrant. Origin: 1 returned; 1 immigrant. 4.1.1.3. Micro identities of the village and the highlands. These
Source: own elaboration. Field work. usually arise from comparisons made between the daily life in the
villages in the higher lands and the population living in the valley
bottom. They also reveal the existence of spaces of power and a
4. Rural (micro) space and moral lives in a comparative degree of conflict between ancient rights of the community over
situational perspective the space, from medieval times, and new contemporary ways of
spatial organisation. The micro identity of height is linked to the
As mentioned above, the aim of this study is to analyse, from a livestock rights of the families and the micro identity of the village
comparative perspective, the way in which remote rural areas in to rights relating to space and the traditional family houses. To a
decline tend to display collective micro identities based on a situ- large extent, the sense of community has been lost and, conse-
ational (co) construction, of either collaboration or competition, quently, the identity is constructed around the space, the history
and the way in which moral perspectives of the place are struc- and the architecture: ‘I regard myself as a villager, then as
tured, reflecting the points of view of individuals or groups of in- belonging to the valley and, finally, to Cantabria, it’s where you
dividuals linked to concepts related to spatial justice, (self) identity, were born and have your roots, your own village .’ (Fer, rub, April
or the relationship with the community. 2010).

4.1. Study case 1. The Valderredible valley. Cantabria. Spain
The Valderredible valley lies on the border of the Cantabria
province in the north of Spain, near the border of the Castille and
Leon region. It is a depopulated valley within a densely populated
region. The Valderredible valley is one of the largest municipalities
in the country and has around 52 small population nuclei, as a
consequence of the historical occupation of the space. Since the
nineteen-forties, the number of inhabitants has risen from around
8000 to the current 1,200, of which only 700 reside in winter. This
steady decline in population has been accompanied by a reduction
in the traditional cultivated land area of the valley bottom and a
transformation of the livestock production systems, with a change
from the traditional dairy production system to extensive livestock
farming. This process is complemented by the timid appearance of
some rural tourism activities. Also, this new situation has been
parallelled by an important loss of relevance in the provincial
context and a degree of socio-spatial marginalisation.
4.1.1. Spatial identities
4.1.1.1. Identities of the valley. The area considered here refers to the
entire valley, from the valley bottom to the villages at the top. It has
a situational identity e on the provincial border e in relation to the
region it belongs to and the urban world. It also has a traditional
identity that is shared with the identity of the village. The valley
shows the historical development of its identity and amalgamates a
4.1.2. Social discourses and moral lives
These are conditioned by the seasonality of the depopulation in
winter compared to summer, resulting in a social life largely
confined to the summer. The decline in population and the sea-
sonality of social relationships are associated with a degree of
individualism. There is also a certain reencounter, which is not free
from conflict, between the seasonal and the permanent inhabitants
of the valley. The processes of depopulation and decline have
especially affected the agricultural dynamics, resulting in cultiva-
tion of only the land in better condition, accompanied by a trans-
formation of the livestock farming activity towards meat
production, which has resulted in a change in management of the
common lands. Very few tourism initiatives are considered to have
potential in the area.
4.1.2.1. Types of moral discourses. Developmentalist-environmental.
This is based on some individuals who have always been present in
the area and have developed their activities in the service industry,
mainly in tourism. This discourse differs from the others, because of
the emphasis on the possible dynamisations in the area, linked to
tourism and leisure in general. The potential of the area is largely
unexploited in most of the valley, which limits and conditions the
possibility of (sustainable) development in accordance with the
surroundings, ‘. There has been a lot of investment in rural areas.
They’ve gone over the top with investments. Mostly environmental
investment, also in livestock farming (...), in ideas for the future, the
 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58
services sector, it has created wealth for a few people, but it’s
saturated .’ (Fer, Val, May 2010). This illustrates the inability of the
unassisted local population to bring about an adequate dynamisa-
tion. The inhabitants acknowledge some degree of improvement in
the daily living conditions and a separation from the past, which is
not necessarily regarded to be beneficial.
4.1.2.2. Sectorial-agrolivestock-ancestral. This identifies the live-
stock farmers, which currently constitute a very broad social group
and still form the backbone of the social life in the valley. These are
often considered to be the true ‘vallucos’ or valley dwellers, man-
agers of the rural space and administrators of the ancestral customs
and rights. Their discourse is not only linked to sectorial interests
and concerns, but also to the new dynamics of the space and pro-
cesses of social change. They constitute a fragmented group
depending on the location of their farms and activities in the valley,
and to whether they are arable or livestock farmers: ‘. There are
farm labourers in the villages who haven’t got enough land, before
you had to live on the farming .’ (Ber, val, June 2009). As many as
six subtypes can be distinguished: farmers in the valley bottom;
farmers in the process of retirement; arable-livestock farmers of
the valley, farmers halfway up the valley, whose place of residence
is separate from the farm; isolated and traditional farmers from the
top part of the valley.
4.1.2.3. Recreative-environmental-utilitarian. This is associated
with individuals who develop tourism and recreational activities
and use the area as a place to escape from urban life, or as conti-
nuity, reencounter or a way to establish roots in the area. Their daily
lives are conditioned by the limitations of the location to develop
different activities, including tourism and the difficulty of
adequately fulfilling the valley’s potential. ‘The potential is tourism,
it is characteristic of the area and the services are not bad, but
there’s a lack of personal initiative. life in the region depends on the
creation of jobs, of having a livelihood, the young people would stay
if they had work .’ (Ber, Val, Jun. 2009). They enjoy life and living
among few people. There are two discursive variants: a) the first is
linked to the newcomers, who have no previous contact with the
area and try to achieve different living conditions than those they
had in the city. They want to become part of a simpler daily life in a
place with few inhabitants. The reality of living in the valley distorts
the discourse, because of an uncertainty and scepticism about the
future; b) the second is associated with people returning to the
area, and the discourse is dominated by nostalgia and having spent
their youth there. They also tend to compare their experiences with
the time when they lived in the city but resign themselves to the
reality of the area, which results from the diminished population
and the seasonality of the social life.
4.2. Case study 2. The Sedano valley. Castille and Leon. Spain
The Sedano valley is near the border of the Burgos province in
the North of Castille and Leon (Spain), close to the provincial border
of Cantabria. It is a depopulated and marginal valley within the
context of a region that has historically been affected by depopu-
lation accompanied by a process of spatial marginalisation. The
decrease in population has been parallelled by a reduction in the
area of cultivated land and an extensification of farming systems,
together with the appearance of activities related to tourism and
the service industry. Life in this area is centred around the pro-
vincial capital.
4.2.1. Spatial identities
4.2.1.1. Village identities. The strongest identity is with the village
of residence, and this is the one that best identifies inhabitants of
55
the Sedano valley. An important feature of the valley, the traditional
identity, is the existence, since mediaeval times, of small and
disperse villages or population nuclei. It can be visualised in three
ways: (a) as a space of resistance due to the existence of verified
spaces of power (villages versus valley) and a degree of conflict
between the traditional rights of the community in relation to the
space and new forms of spatial and administrative organisation:
‘Here, we are like rural desert dwellers, it all comes down to
numbers (.) there’s no feeling of community in the valley, we are
up against the capital of the valley, everyone only thinks about his
own village’ (Sant, Val, April, 2010); (b) the village as an exceptional
area of social organisation and development of daily life; (c) the
identity as a constructed, preserved and protected space.
In any case, each village is considered to be unique and localism
e as a sentiment and way of acting e is maintained, mainly asso-
ciated with the sociocultural roots and factors specific to each
village: ‘We belong to the village, always, and then to the valley, the
villagers do have some rights, but it’ll be worse if they get rid of the
village mayors. No village will agree .’ (Jos, Cre, May 2010). There
is also some degree of nostalgia for a better past. Nowadays, the
identity of the village competes with the identity of the valley. This
is fomented by the existence of neighbourhood committees in each
village.
Within this village identity, there is also a family identity which
is the sphere of relationships and socialisation, and a micro-
utilisation of the space, resulting from the small size of each village.
4.2.1.2. Partial identities of the valley. These affect a given space in
the valley, which is often given a specific denomination. Its
identity is usually associated with contemporary processes of
social transformation. The Sedano valley is divided into two large
areas that reflect different social dynamics and political orienta-
tions, and affects the spatial social (micro) construction of iden-
tities. The first area, the meridional side, is dominated by a more
traditional society of people from the area, and has the greatest
population concentration. The second, more northern part of the
valley is dominated by neorural people who settled in the area in
the nineteen-eighties, who came from urban areas and have a
higher educational level. This has resulted in an intra-
segmentation of identities, and also of interests and perceptions
about the future of the valley, which are usually manifest in a
conflictive manner, by the generation (or not) of developmental
activities in the area: ‘The valley is divided into two parts (.). In
the first there has been a small repopulation in the 80’s. The other
is more traditional, the population is from the valley (.). Ideo-
logical and ecological criteria have divided the valley into two .’
(Aman, Sed, May 2009).
4.2.1.3. Identities of the valley. These usually acquire a negative
value, as imposed identities resulting from the contemporary
process of the amalgamation of municipalities, which took place in
1978, to form the new administrative entity or municipality, the
Sedano valley. The local population did not want to be grouped
together, owing to the important loss of autonomy this would cause
and the whole process of concentration was carried out using a top-
down approach. Therefore, the Sedano Valley identity is regarded
as an imposition, parallelled by a loss of, or drastic change in the
social identity, the village. Nonetheless, the management of com-
mon services has gradually created a form of combined identity,
which is not completely free of conflict: ‘. Sedano was the council
and in 1978 the municipalities were grouped together and the
other villages joined Sedano, forming the Sedano Valley. People
didn’t want this because of the resulting loss of independence’ (Ger,
Sed, May 2009).
56 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58
4.2.2. Social discourses and moral lives
These are closely associated with the fluctuating nature of
population decline between the climatic seasons. A clear seasonal
or cyclic identity can be distinguished that, to some extent, breaks
up the social life, and tends to be limited to the summer months.
Nowadays, depopulation is not regarded as personal or regional
inequality. The depopulation process has affected agricultural life,
which is now concentrated on the better land and there are only
limited tourism initiatives.
4.2.2.1. Types of moral discourses. Environmental-utilitarian.
These consider depopulation and marginality as a way of devel-
oping a life that aims to combine the potential of the environment
to generate new activities that can help to improve the opportu-
nities of its population, essentially tourism activities. The depopu-
lation process is accepted as part of their daily lives, as are the
difficulties of the situation to maintain any economic activity that
can be considered as a livelihood. They regard the public in-
stitutions as obstacles to their daily activities, owing to their
conservationist approaches in relation to the constructed and
natural environments. They accept life with limited resources and
opportunities as a consequence of the greatly reduced population
and the remote location: ‘. The problem is that this leads to even
more depopulation. It’s possible to survive but only by working
very long hours. It’s also difficult to find people who’ll work at the
weekends (Rob, Pes, April 2010).
4.2.2.2. Sectorial-agrarian. This constitutes the group of arable and
livestock farmers, many of whom have been isolated in this ac-
tivity in each nucleus. They have amalgamated the properties of
the area and regard themselves as coming from a farming back-
ground and are among “the last ones” to have made the rural
exodus. They have lost protagonism as a social group, but in many
nuclei they still form the backbone of the annual social life, in
extreme cases because they are the only permanent inhabitants.
‘The number of working farmers is constantly dwindling and also
the number of farmers who stay in the area. If it wasn’t for the CAP
we’d have given it up already. In the poorer moorland areas we
lose money for each hectare we sow .’ (Gall, sed, April, 2010).
Agricultural mechanisation and modernisation have resulted in
the disappearance of farmers as a social group, because of the
difficulty of starting the activity. They have a nostalgic view of
villages that were full of farmers. Their forecasts for the future
depend on the importance of the farming activity, but are always
linked to the conditioning factors of farming policy that under-
mine productivism and environmental policy that conditions
traditional uses.
4.2.2.3. Recreational-environmental. This is associated with in-
dividuals who develop recreational activities and choose the area as
an escape from urban life or as a biographical continuity of their
origins. Their lives are affected to some degree by an acceptance of
the limitations of living in a depopulated area, but also by the op-
portunity to carry out a conservationist activity in the environment,
which is largely unaltered and where a smaller community is
valued: ‘You put up with it because you like it. But the children are
growing old and you have to change, if not they’ll have to leave the
area. The romantic idyll has been destroyed (.) beforehand in
Orbaneja there were two locals, now lots of people come in the
summer.’ (Pac, Orb, May 2010). Variations depend on the
geographical origin of the individual, the existence (or absence) of a
migratory process and the duration of the stay in the area, which
affect the plurality of viewpoints in relation to the future of the
place.
4.3. Comparative analysis of both cases
With a similar spatial structure and geographical position, the
two areas generate two main types of identities around the place e
the village e and the valley, with different values and perceptions.
In the Valle of Sedano there is a traditional and historical identity
constructed around the place (the village) that persists among the
population and has a positive value. By contrast, the valley, gener-
ated by a political decision is perceived as a negative, imposed
identity, but with an administrative structure that encompasses the
whole area. This situation creates conflict between the two.
By contrast, in the Valle of Valderredible the identities of the
place (the village) and the valley are positive and complementary.
Both are a product of history and share administrative re-
sponsibilities. The identities of the village and the valley are asso-
ciated in a fluid and interchangeable way.
In both study cases, the shared identity of the valley has a sec-
ondary value, associated with changes in the landscape or with a
particular sociopolitical orientation of the population.
In the two study areas, three main types of moral lives can be
identified, with different values, contents and orientations. In Val-
derredible these are based on traditional populations and activities
and on an orientation reached by consensus, with the intention of
associating the permanence of the population and conservation of
the environmental patrimony. The different moral lives interact
sociospatially, based mainly on the coexistence of complimentarity.
They help to give the spatial identity a positive value that is
generally acknowledged. In the Sedano Valley the moral trajec-
tories, which are translated into spatial practices, but also into
perceptions, attitudes and desires, often interact in a disorganised,
conflicting and non-collaborative way, resulting in a confrontation
of interests and perspectives. The traditional sociocultural structure
has almost disappeared and new populations and activities are
undergoing a process of readjustment and forced integration of a
valley identity that is not acknowledged.
As mentioned previously, the evolution of studies on rurality
since the cultural change in rural geography has undergone a
gradual process of sophistication (Cloke, 2006) (Fig. 1), with defi-
nitions based on three interacting axes (Halfacree, 1993, 2006) and
a more relevant role to ethical and moral orientations (Cloke, 2002;
Holloway, 2002). Two questions arise from the two case studies
considered here in the analysis of rurality (Fig. 2): (1) an orientation
in the study of rurality that combines three large dimensions,
planes or floors: the ground floor of the spatial structure and
location; the first floor based on more stable spatial identities; and
the third floor, which is more chaotic and unpredictable, founded
on moral lives: (2) one spatial structure and location can form the
basis of different identities and moral lives. Spatial identities with
different orientations (negative or positive) underlie cooperating or
conflicting moral life trajectories (Fig. 2).
5. Conclusion and discussion
The objective of this study has been to show, from the
perspective of rural geography, how remote rural areas in decline
constitute a flexible and fluid category that can be used to establish
open and comparative frameworks of identity in the context of
sociocultural approaches. Thus, in addition to their topographical
characteristics, these areas also have cultural and moral di-
mensions, constructed by individuals and communities living in
the areas and also by people outside. In these spaces, it is clearly
useful to amalgamate the cultural and moral perspectives, as
shown previously, in order to analyse the coexistence of collective
or community micro identities and a multiplicity of parallel (or not)
moral lives or trajectories (Massey, 2005).
 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58
The two main recent strategies of sociocultural orientation in
rural geography studies have been considered: the former, based on
multiple representations of the rurality of a space, and the second,
organised from the study of rural others and spatial marginality. All
these approaches have gradually been orientated to confer greater
coherence and consistency to the rurality (Jones, 1995), by trying to
distance them from dual, stereotyped or idealistic visions, but have
also raised numerous questions about the importance of the
different elements involved in the construction of rurality in each
space and for each group of individuals (Murdoch and Pratt, 1993).
Especially, one goal of this paper has been to study in depth, in a
critical manner, the orientation mainly started by professor
Halfacree (1993, 2006), on triangular approaches to the study of
rurality in rural micro areas. This approach is developed by
studying rural ‘others’: individuals or groups of individuals who
may be marginalised in a place by a combination of biographical,
historical or spatial processes (Cloke et al., 1997). In theory, this
would increase the complexity of studies of rurality (Cloke and
Little, 1997a,b). For this purpose, a micro comparative study has
been conducted of two remote rural areas affected by a process of
decline, in order to analyse, in this materiality, the spatial identities
that emerge or resist and the multiplicity of daily lives reflected in
overlapping moral views of the individuals concerned.
As a result of this empirical analysis, a wide range of collective or
community identities have been observed, among which different
kinds of tensions can be identified, which coexist with moral dis-
courses of variable complexity in each area. It is possible, therefore,
to argue the existence of two planes, a sociocultural and a material
one, on the same spatial materiality, but shown in each case study
with discursive outlines and different complexities in each case.
The first (or second) plane is associated with spatial and commu-
nity micro identities that compete among themselves (or with
other places) or are complemented. The second (or third) plane
reveals the existence of a multiplicity of moral lives in the place, of
diverse range and relevance, which interact and to a certain degree
reflect the details of the place.
The discourse about the others, and of the others, is clearly
qualified in each study case, both in relation to the outside world
and among the others of the area. In the first case study, three
main kinds of (socio) spatial identities have been distinguished of
different range and value, linked to the area as a whole (the valley)
e of greater value and to part of the valley or the village and the
highlands, distinguished by their competitive character, but also,
simultaneously cooperative. Several moral trajectories that iden-
tify different types or groups of individuals which express the
hopes, expectations and daily problems of the permanent popu-
lation in their daily lives in the place are superimposed. These
acquire different meaning and value in relation to each type or
group of individuals, dominated by the sectorial-arable-livestock-
ancestral and developmentalist-environmentalist groups. In the
second case, three spatial identities are also distinguished: village
e greater value e part of the valley and the valley, but with a
clearly different significance and value according to the socio-
political and historical processes employed in their manage-
ment. Also, in these identities significant individual moral tra-
jectories are distinguished, which extend across the spatial
identities, and have a different character to those of the previous
area. In this case they acquire more value. Ultimately, one could
describe different planes of the same remote rural materiality in
decline, one linked to social (identities) and another (third)
superimposed plane based on moral trajectories or lives, with
place to place differences.
Hence, taken together this would suggest that rural perfor-
mance can be considered to give a complementary (non-substitu-
tive) perspective to the previous sociocultural approaches to
57
rurality, which would confer this greater sophistication. It would
seem that triangular perspectives (mainly Halfacree, 2006) on
rurality, can be substituted by three parallel planes: the first
composed of a spatial materiality and socio-political structures; the
second composed of a (variable) group of spatial identities that are
articulated and temporarily modified, and the third based on a
constellation of trajectories or moral lives of individuals or groups
of individuals that cross over (and articulate) the spatial identities
depending on individual interests and the limitations of daily lives.
There are some limitations to the results reported here and also
new questions arise, especially in the interference between the
three dimensions, planes or floors and the integration of influences
external to the place in the processes of change, and the inter-
locking of different rhythms and speeds of the identities and moral
lives. Perhaps, rather than looking back (Cloke, 2006), it is more
important to look for new horizons in the way opened up by others,
to understand, in greater depth, rurality from a rural geography
perspective.
Indeed, rural geography has provided numerous approaches for
the analysis of rurality, although the debate appears to have
reached a crossroads: (1) there is a turning back or (re) materiali-
sation (Cloke, 2006) based on a combined analysis of material re-
alities and the rigorous subjectivity of qualitative studies (Crang,
2005); (2) there is a race forwards based on studies of non-
representational worlds, emotions and affections (Riley, 2011).
These two options clearly do not have the same horizons and give
rise to yet further questions. Has rural geography exhausted its
analytical possibilities? Is it necessary to return to initial ap-
proaches? Where are the geographical boundaries of rural geog-
raphy? What is its essence? This work must be considered in the
academic context of significant theoretical and methodological
implications. The intention here is to combine elements from the
different approaches. It is evident that the same material substrate
does not always result in the same identity and morality, nor do
changes in it follow the same temporal rhythms. Collective iden-
tities have a longer duration than moral lives, which are subject to
changes in daily life. If rural geography is to progress as a subdis-
cipline with strong and clear foundations, it is necessary to
combine currently sophisticated academic approaches, or at least
some of their analytical elements.
Several decades ago, professor Robinson (1990) proposed that
rural geography had a maze-like character. Unfortunately (or
perhaps not so), this concept may still hold true. Possibly, hybrid
pathways (Cloke, 2006) within the current theoretical-
methodological alternatives could be the best way to proceed in
the study of rurality. It is important here to point out the ‘dangers’
of this almost 50-year long process of increased sophistication
(Fig. 1) in the study of rurality: (1) its experimental nature and the
fact that it is controlled by the investigator over small, often too
small, rural areas. This is the source of its originality but also
entails the risk of over-generalisation. (2) Its biased nature.
Research into a sophisticated rurality is often associated with the
postmodern co (production) of geographical research between
the researcher and the individuals (Valentine, 2008). This char-
acteristic enhances some elements of the analysis but not others.
(3) There is a clear association with remote rural areas, where it is
easier to identify and control sociospatial structures, identities
and moral lives.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the Spanish Ministry of Science and
Innovation for supporting this research and the editor Professor
Woods and an anonymous referee for their constructive
suggestions.
58 A. Paniagua / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 49e58

References Lee, R., Smith, D.M., 2004. Introduction. In: Lee, R., Smith, D.M. (Eds.), Geographies
and Moralities. International Perspectives on Development, Justice and Place.
Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1e12.
Bosworth, G., Willet, J., 2011. Embeddedness or escapism? Rural perceptions and
Lefevbre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
economic development in Cornwall and Northumberland. Sociol. Rural. 51,
Little, J., 1999. Otherness, representation and the cultural construction of rurality.
195e214.
Prog. Hum. Geogr. 23 (3), 437e442.
Bunce, M., 2003. Reproducing rural idylls. In: Cloke, P. (Ed.), Country Visions.
Mahon, M., 2007. New populations; shifting expectations: the changing experience
Pearson, Harlow, pp. 14e30.
of Irish rural space and place. J. Rural Stud. 23, 345e356.
Carson, D., et al., 2011. Demography at the Edge. Remote Human Populations in
Massey, D., 2005. For Space. Sage, London.
Developed Nations. Ashgate, London.
McDowell, L., 2010. Interviewing: fear and linking in the field. In: Delyser, D.,
Castree, N., 2005. Nature. Routledge, London.
Herbert, S., Aitken, S., Crang, M., McDowell, L. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Cloke, P., 1985. Counterurbanisation: a rural perspective. Geography 70, 13e23.
Qualitative Geography. Sage, London, pp. 156e171.
Cloke, P., 1996. Rural life-Styles: material opportunity, cultural experience, and how
Milbourne, P., 2007. Re-populating rural studies: migrations, movements and mo-
theory can undermine policy. Econ. Geogr. 72 (4), 433e449.
bilities. J. Rural Stud. 23-3, 381e386.
Cloke, P., 1997. Country backwater to virtual village? Rural studies and ‘the cultural
Morris, C., 2004. Lost words, lost worlds? Cultural geographies of agriculture. In:
turn’. J. Rural Stud. 13 (4), 367e375.
Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), Geographies of Rural Cultures and Societies.
Cloke, P., 2002. Deliver us from evil? Prospects for living ethically and acting
Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 241e261.
politically in human geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 26 (5), 587e604.
Murdoch, J., Pratt, A.C., 1993. Rural studies: modernism, postmodernism and the
Cloke, P., 2006. Conceptualizing rurality. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooner, P. (Eds.),
‘post-rural’. J. Rural Stud. 9 (4), 411e427.
Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage, London, pp. 18e28.
Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N., Marsden, T., 2003. The Differentiated Countryside.
Cloke, P., Little, J. (Eds.), 1997a. Contested Countryside Cultures. Routledge, London.
Routledge, London.
Cloke, P., Little, J.,1997b. Conclusion: marginality and rural others. In: Cloke, P., Little, J.
Neal, S., Walters, S., 2006. Strangers asking strange questions? A methodological
(Eds.), Contested Countryside Cultures. Routledge, London, pp. 272e285.
narrative of researching belonging and identity in English rural communities.
Cloke, P., Thrift, N., 1994. Introduction: refiguring the ‘rural’. In: Cloke, P., Doel, M.,
J. Rural Stud. 22 (2), 177e189.
Matless, D., Phillips, M., Thrift, M. (Eds.), Writing the Rural. Five Cultural Ge-
Nelson, P., 2001. Rural restructuring in the American West: land use, family and
ographies. Paul Chapman Pub., London, pp. 1e7.
class discourses. J. Rural Stud. 17, 395e407.
Cloke, P.J., Phillips, M., Thrift, N.J., 1995. The new middle classes and social con-
Newby, H., 1986. Locality and rurality: the restructuring of rural social relations.
structs of rural living. In: Butler, T., Savage, M. (Eds.), Social Change and the
Reg. Stud. 20 (3), 209e215.
Middle Classes. UCL Press, London, pp. 220e238.
Phillips, M., 1998. The restructuring of social imaginations in rural geography.
Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., Thomas, Ch, 1997. Living lives in different ways? Depriva-
J. Rural Stud. 14 (2), 121e153.
tion, marginalization and changing lifestyles in rural England. Trans. Inst. Br.
Philo, C., 1992. Neglected rural geographies: a review. J. Rural Stud. 8, 193e207.
Geogr. 22, 210e230.
Philo, C., 1998. A ‘lyffe in pyttes and caves’: exclusionary geographies of the West
Cloke, P., Goodwin, M., Milbourne, P., 1998. Cultural change and conflict in rural
Country tinners. Geoforum 29 (2), 159e172.
Wales: competing construct of identity. Environ. Plan. A 30, 463e480.
Pile, S., 1997. Introduction. Opposition, political identities and spaces of resistance.
Connell, J., McManus, P., 2011. Rural Revival? Place Marketing, Tree Change and
In: Pile, S., Keith, M. (Eds.), Geographies of Resistance. Routledge, London,
Regional Migration in Australia. Ashgate, London.
pp. 1e32.
Crang, M., 2002. Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 26
Proctor, J.D., 1998. Ethics in geography: giving moral form to the geographical
(5), 647e655.
imagination. Area 30 (1), 8e18.
Crang, M., 2005. Qualitative methods: there is nothing outside the text? Prog. Hum.
Riley, M., 2011. ‘Letting them go’ e agricultural retirement and human-livestock
Geogr. 29 (2), 225e233.
relations. Geoforum 42, 16e27.
Creswell, J.W., 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing Among Five
Robinson, G., 1990. Conflict and Change in the Countryside. Belhaven, London.
Traditions. Sage, London.
Robinson, G., 1998. Methods and Techniques in Human Geography. John Wiley and
Crouch, D., 1997. ‘Others’ in the rural: leisure practices and geographical knowledge.
Sons, Chichester.
In: Milbourne, P. (Ed.), Revealing Rural ‘Others’: Representation, Power and
Robinson, G. (Ed.), 2008. Sustainable Rural Systems. Sustainable Agriculture and
Identity in the British Countryside. Pinter, London, pp. 189e216.
Rural Communities. Ashgate, London.
Davies, G., Dwyer, C., 2007. Qualitative methods: are you enchanted or are you
Schmied, D. (Ed.), 2005. Winning and Losing. The Changing Geography of Europe’s
alienated? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 31 (2), 257e266.
Rural Areas. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Elwood, S.A., Martin, D.G., 2000. “Placing” interviews: location and scales of power
Sharp, J.P., Routledge, P., Philo, Ch, Paddison, R. (Eds.), 2000. Entanglements of
in qualitative research. Prof. Geogr. 52 (4), 649e657.
Power. Geographies of Domination/resistance. Routledge, London.
Frisvoll, S., 2012. Power in the production of spaces transformed by rural tourism.
Shileds, R., 1991. Places in the Margin. Alternative Geographies of Modernity.
J. Rural Stud. 28 (4), 447e457.
Routledge, London.
Halfacree, K., 1993. Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alter-
Short, J.R., 1991. Imagined Country: Environment, Culture and Society. Routledge,
native definitions of the rural. J. Rural Stud. 9, 23e37.
London.
Halfacree, K., 2001. Constructing the object: taxonomic practices ‘counter-
Sibley, D., 1995. Geographies of Exclusion. Routledge, London.
urbanisation’ and positioning marginal rural settlement. Int. J. Popul. Geogr. 7,
Spencer, D., 1995. Counterurbanisation: the local dimension. Geoforum 26, 153e
395e411.
173.
Halfacree, K., 2006. Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. In: Cloke, P.,
Stockdale, A., 2006. Migration: pre-requisite for rural economic regeneration?
Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies. Sage, London,
J. Rural Stud. 22 (3), 354e366.
pp. 44e62.
Stockdale, A., MacLeod, M., 2013. Pre-retirement age migration to remote rural
Halfacree, K., 2007. Trial by space for a ‘radical rural’: introducing alternative lo-
areas. J. Rural Stud. 32, 80e92.
calities, representations and lives. J. Rural Stud. 23, 125e141.
Valentine, G., 2008. Living with difference: reflections on geographies of encounter.
Hoggart, K., Buller, H., Black, R., 1995. Rural Europe. Identity and Change. Arnold,
Prog. Hum. Geogr. 32, 323e337.
London.
Weekley, I., 1988. Rural depopulation and counterurbanisation: a paradox. Area 20,
Hoggart, K., Lees, L., Davies, A., 2002. Researching Human Geography. Arnold,
127e134.
London.
Whatmore, S., 2002. Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces. Sage, London.
Holloway, L., 2002. Smallholding, hobby-farming, and commercial farming: ethical
Willians, R., 1973. The Country & the City. Chatto & Windus, London.
identities and the production of farming spaces. Environ. Plan. A 34, 2055e
Woods, M., 2005. Rural Geography. Sage, London.
2070.
Woods, M., 2009. Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections.
Holloway, L., Hubbard, P., 2001. People and Place. The Extraordinary Geographies of
Prog. Hum. Geogr. 33, 849e858.
Everyday Life. Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Woods, M., 2010. Performing rurality and practising rural geography. Prog. Hum.
Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), 2004. Geographies of Rural Cultures and Societies.
Geogr. 34 (6), 835e846.
Ahsgate, Aldershot.
Woods, M., 2011. Rural. Routledge, London.
Jones, O., 1995. Lay discourses of the rural: developments and implications for rural
Woods, M., Goodwin, M., 2003. Applying the rural: governance and policy in rural
studies. J. Rural Stud. 11 (1), 35e49.
areas. In: Cloke, P. (Ed.), Country Visions. Pearson, London, pp. 245e263.
Lawrence, M., 1995. Rural homelessness: a geography without a geography. J. Rural
Stud. 11, 297e307.