lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e25

Contents lists avai

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / j rurstud

Rural areas face the economic crisis: Analyzing the determinants ofsuccessful territorial dynamics

Pedro Sánchez-Zamora*, Rosa Gallardo-Cobos 1, Felisa Ceña-Delgado 2

Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Córdoba, Campus de Rabanales, Ctra. Nacional IV, Km. 396 Edificio Gregor Mendel 3a Planta,14071 Córdoba, Spain

Keywords:Determinants of rural territorial dynamicsTerritorial resilienceRural policy design

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 957218544; fax:E-mail addresses: pedro.sanchez@uco.es (P. Sánc

uco.es (R. Gallardo-Cobos), es1cedef@uco.es (F. Ceña-1 Tel.: þ34 957218546; fax: þ34 957218539.2 Tel.: þ34 957218467; fax: þ34 957218539.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.03.0070743-0167/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This paper aims to identify the factors that have determined successful territorial dynamics (STD) in ruralareas of Andalusia during economic expansion periods, and analyzes their stability in the current contextof economic crisis. In order to do so, we have designed a methodology that, on the one hand, identifiesSTD using data envelopment analysis (DEA), and on the other, determines the impact of a wide range ofterritorial variables that define the aforementioned dynamics. The results highlight how different aspectsof economic, human, natural, and social capital such as economic diversification (rural tourism), agri-culture (CAP funding, young farmers, organic production), access to services (infrastructures and facil-ities), demographics (foreign population), natural resources (Natura 2000), and governance (ruraldevelopment funding management) can drive STD in rural areas. While the stability of some of thesefactors is being threatened by the impacts of the crisis, the stability of others turned out to be lessaffected and even enhanced. Rural territories, that have based their development on these latter stablefactors, are better prepared to face the consequences of the crisis. These territories could be a prioriconsidered as pre-resilient territories, able to develop and deploy new resources and capacities, whichenable them to prepare favorably to the dynamics of change driven by the aforementioned crisis. Thisstudy is especially valuable since the results obtained could provide useful information for policymakersin the design of public policies, allowing rural areas to respond more favorably to the current economiccrisis.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Despite public policy attempts to improve socioeconomiccohesion and environmental sustainability in European territories,the strategic goal approved by the European Council in Lisbon(2000) and Gothenburg (2001), the reality of rural areas in Europeexhibits numerous and important territorial imbalances on varyinglevels and of many different types (EC, 2010a). The permanentnature of these regional disparities, which have increased since therecent EU expansion, and the need to move towards territorialconvergence, have motivated the inclusion of the principle of ter-ritorial cohesion in EU objectives (art. 158 of the Treaty of Lisbon).As a result, territorial cohesion has become a relevant issue in the

þ34 957218539.hez-Zamora), rosagallardo@Delgado).

current EU political agenda, and a top priority in the legislativeproposals for cohesion policy for the period 2014e2020 (EC, 2011).Currently, fundamental questions are being asked about the di-rection the future territorial development policy should take; apolicy that will undoubtedly bemarked by the 2014e2020 financialprospects and the foreseeable medium to long term impact of thecurrent economic crisis, as well as the future EU growth strategy“Europe 2020”.3

In this context of territorial imbalances, it is evident that Euro-pean rural areas do not evolve homogeneously, thus confirming theexistence of diverse territorial dynamics. The concept of rural ter-ritorial dynamics refers to the processes of development in thesocioeconomic structure, institutional framework and environ-mental capital of rural areas, and the changes that accompany theeffects of development (RIMISP, 2007; Hamdouch, 2010). In thisrespect, it could be said that two types of rural areas coexist within

3 Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(20190) 2010. Brussels: European Commission.

4 To meet the need for statistics at local level, Eurostat has set up a system ofLocal Administrative Units (LAUs) compatible with NUTS. LAU level 1 correspondsto the former NUTS level 4, while LAU level 2 corresponds to the former NUTS level5 and consists of municipalities or equivalent units in the 27 member countries.Although the LAU 1 level has not been defined for Spain, for purposes of ouranalysis we have adopted the nomenclature to refer to one of the two territoriallevels analyzed, specifically counties as discussed below.

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e2512

the EU: those with development dynamics defined by strong eco-nomic growth, social cohesion and environmental sustainability,and those in which economic stagnation, depopulation and envi-ronmental degradation persist. This diversity can also be observedin the factors that determine these situations and in the diverseterritorial responses to the policies that affect them.

In recent years, the increasing intensity of the changes and thediversity of the dynamics that are taking place in rural areas havehighlighted the need to conduct research that can address theintellectual and political challenges arising as a result of these is-sues. As a consequence, several projects have attempted todistinguish between “leading” and “lagging” rural areas in order tocompare their characteristics and determine the factors that mightexplain these different processes of change. Some of the mostimportant projects in Europe include the Study on Employment,Growth and Innovation in Rural Areas (SEGIRA) (EC, 2010b), Eu-ropean Development Opportunities for Rural Areas (EDORA)(Copus et al., 2011), and Dynamics of Rural Areas (DORAS) (Brydenand Hart, 2001). Beyond European borders, one of the mostimportant projects in Latin American is the Rural Territorial Dy-namics Project (RIMISP, 2007). In this same line, several authorshave tried to identify key factors that influence the dynamics ofterritorial development from an economic (Terluin, 2003; Brydenet al., 2004; Agarwal et al., 2009), social (Putnam, 1993;Whiteley, 2000; Nelson and Sampat, 2001; Kahila et al., 2009;Hamdouch, 2010) and environmental perspective (Hoggart et al.,1995; Courtney et al., 2006; Langlais and Tepecik Dis, 2009).However, despite all these studies, there is still a lack of knowledgeof the underlying factors that explain the successful territorialdynamics across rural Spain, and of the most appropriate mecha-nisms and policies to foster improvements.

Furthermore, it should be noted that debates on territorialdevelopment no longer focus exclusively on growth, but aim tocover and analyze another type of phenomenon: territorial resil-ience or response to external changes or “shocks” (Hill et al., 2008).In this respect, one of the major external factors that determinediverse rural and urban territorial dynamics, while at the same timegenerating a powerful shock, is the aforementioned economic crisisthat is currently shaking up most of Europe. The variety of effectsresulting from recent crises has been documented previously (see,for example, Fallon and Lucas, 2002; Trivelli et al., 2009). To un-derstand the effects of the crisis some authors have used ananalytical approach based on the concept of territorial resilience(Ashby et al., 2009; Wells, 2009; Batty and Cole, 2010). Generallyspeaking, territorial resilience refers to the capacity of certain ter-ritories (cities, regions, rural areas, etc.) to prepare, resist or adapt tosituations of shock (economic, financial, social or political crises;natural, ecological, industrial or epidemiological disasters; climatechange; technological change, etc.) that affect the core elements ofthe territory, people and their activities (companies, institutions,markets, structures, sectors, etc.) (Hamdouch et al., 2012).

In the rural context, the concept of resilience has been used fromthe perspective of complex socioecological systems and sustainabledevelopment to address several specific issues pertaining to ruralareas (Walker et al., 2004; Stayner, 2005; Plummer and Armitage,2007; Nkhata et al., 2008; Van der Ploeg and Marsden, 2008;Wilson, 2010; McManus et al., 2012; Schouten et al., 2012). How-ever, the concept of resilience has not been widely applied to ruralareas from an integrated and territorial perspective that takes intoaccount economic, social and environmental dimensions. Researchon territorial resilience has focused mainly on urban areas and, insome cases, very large territorial areas (regions), with very fewexisting studies focusing on other types of territories (Pike et al.,2010). In a situation of economic crisis, it is more appropriate touse a conceptual framework of resilience to analyze territorial

dynamics in rural areas given the potential impact such a studycould have on the design of subsequent policies.

This paper aims to identify the factors that have determinedsuccessful territorial dynamics (STD) in rural areas during economicexpansion periods and analyzes their stability in the context ofeconomic crisis in order to provide useful information for policy-makers to design public policies, which, in turn, could allow ruralterritories to respondmore favorably to the current economic crisis.Our research is focused on rural areas in the Autonomous Region ofAndalusia, which consists of 698municipalities (LAU 2).4 In order toachieve this objective, we have used a methodology to identify STDand the factors that underlie such dynamics.

After this introductory section, the paper is organized as fol-lows: Section 2 briefly outlines the conceptual framework; Section3 outlines the methodology of the research; Section 4 presents themain results, whilst Section 5 draws discussion and conclusionsand provides recommendations.

2. The conceptual framework

2.1. From space to territory

In the field of human geography, several authors have pointedout the neglect, the little attention or the poor definition associatedto the concept of territory for a long time (Elden, 2005; Painter,2010; Raffestin, 1980). The use of this concept, considered essen-tial in studies of political geography and global politics (Elden,2008; Häkli, 2001; Newman, 1999a, 1999b; Paasi, 1999, 2003), haswidely spread in many research studies of the different disciplinesof the social sciences in the last years. However, the use of thenotion of territory is very often carried out without a precise,explicit and stable definition of the concept (Elden, 2010; Lussault,2007).

Both, the complexity of this term and some of the “definitions”or usages found in previous studies of different areas were collectedby Lévy (2003). Thus, the concept of territory, closely linked to thatof spatiality, has been used as a synonym of space, place, and“geographical space”. These terms, however, are imprecise anddenote a stationary character of territory. More specific and socialdefinitions are those that consider territory as an “appropriated”space (ethological and biological connotations) and as a regulatedspace-bounded (the oldest and for a long time the commonestdefinition). According to Lévy, these two definitions are specificcases of a larger class of spaces comprising all objects defined by acontinuous or topographical “metric”. Lévy distinguishes betweenthe two large metrical “families”: the topographical, comprisingspatially continuous objects, and the topological comprising net-works and rhizomes. In this way, the author defines territory as“metrical topographical space”.

Like Lévy and Lussault (2007) locates the concept of territory inthe topographical category but in his own definition eschews theterm’s ethological connotations and focuses squarely on the polit-ical structuring of space. “Territory is a space structured by principlesof contiguity and continuity which depend less on the material aspectsof space than on the systems of ideas (systèmes idéels) that frame thespace in question, as well as the related practices that take place there”(Lussault, 2007: 113). For Lussault, it is the political valorization of

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e25 13

the spatial continuity and coherence of a delimited area that de-fines the specificity of territory vis-a-vis other types of space.Similarly, there are several studies that highlight the political as-pects (political-legal and political-technical) as essential elementsto define territory (see Elden, 2007, 2010; Painter, 2010).

Therefore, territory in its topographical conception has a dualnature; it is both material and symbolic-ideal (Di Méo, 1998;Raffestin, 1986). Both, the ethological aspect that Lévy points outand the political aspect stated by Lussault, inevitably involve theappropriation of the space by a group of individuals (Brunet et al.,1992). This is why they can be referred to as actors that make ter-ritory (Debarbieux, 1999; Moine, 2006). From their social, conver-gent and legitimate relationships, and their systems ofrepresentation, territorial organization processes are carried out(D’Aquino, 2002). Territory becomes therefore a “field of applica-tion of power”, enclosed by quite rigid boundaries that are calledpolitical-administrative boundaries (Pinchemel and Pinchemel,1997; Sack, 1986, 1997).

Thus, from an operational point of view, territory can be un-derstood as a complex system. In order to analyze it, three sub-systems that are closely related to each other need to be addressed:i) the topographic metric space and its territorial resources; ii) theactors that make territory, and iii) the institutional agreements(Lamara, 2009; Moine, 2006).

Although several definitions currently exist to describe theconcept of territory (Lévy and Lussault, 2003), the evolution of theconcept of the term has always been accompanied by the identi-fication, description and definition of the elements a territorycontains, i.e. the resources and agents present in a territory.Consequently, the definition of this concept has been associatedwith the presence of features relating to natural heritage (Raffestin,1980; Schneider and Peyré, 2006), economic activities (Sánchez,1991; Colletis-Wahl et al., 2008), social actors and their relation-ships (Brunet, 1990; Pecqueur, 2001) or the cultural system, valuesand symbols of local identity (Van Der Ploeg, 1990, 1992; Ray, 1998;Flores, 2007). These territorial resources, that can be eithergeneric or specific (Pecqueur, 2004), are associated with the fivetypes of capital mentioned above (economic, human, social, cul-tural and environmental) and as a result studies now exist thatmake reference to “territorial capital” (OECD, 2001; Cocklin andAlston, 2003; Emery and Flora, 2006; Camagni, 2008).

Similarly, the actors in a territory, who act according to a terri-torial logic, are identified as belonging to a territory (which leads tothe idea of membership) (Gallardo et al., 2007) and known as ter-ritorial agents. In this respect, three types of actors can be iden-tified in rural areas: i) the state, in its broadest interpretation as aprovider of public services; ii) civil society and associations; and iii)private actors who are progressively integrated in developmentprocesses (Campagne and Pecqueur, 2012).

However, in order to analyze territory conceived as a socialconstruction (Pecqueur, 2001), an approach is required that goesbeyond the usual morphological focus. In this sense, in addition toresources and territorial agents, interactions or institutionalagreements established as a result of joint action among socialactors are essential in constructing a territory. This capacity forjoint action, and its importance in the development of a territory,refers to what is known as social relational capital (Woolcock andNarayan, 2000; Woolcock, 2001), and is closely linked to thestudy of governance (Stoker, 1998).

2.2. From territory towards rural territorial dynamics

In addition to the three elements or subsystems that constituteand define territory, in order to understand the processes of changetaking place in rural areas and the evolution undergone by

individual territories, it is essential to analyze in depth the pro-cesses, flows and dynamics developed within them (Gallardo et al.,2011). The concept of rural territorial dynamics refers to the pro-cesses of development in the socioeconomic structure, institutionalframework and environmental capital of rural territories, and thechanges that accompany the effects of development (RIMISP, 2007;Hamdouch, 2010). But studying the dynamics of the territories,involves not only analyzing changes in the territorial organization,but also to analyze the forces that cause and oblige them (Brunetet al., 1992). Previous studies reveal the complex and multidi-mensional nature of territorial dynamics and the decisive influencethat the availability of the five types of territorial capital exerts onthem (Agarwal et al., 2009). Factors which have been identifiedpreviously as influencing processes of change in rural areas areshown below:

2.2.1. Economic capitalThis form of capital comprises a wide range of different factors,

all of which have been identified previously as influencing pro-cesses of change in rural areas, including productivity (Porter andKetels, 2003; Bryden et al., 2004), employment (Terluin and Post,2000; Reimer, 2003; Bryden et al., 2004; Cernic and Copus,2009), investment (Bryden and Hart, 2001; Bryden et al., 2004;Agarwal et al., 2009), infrastructures and telecommunications(Bryden et al., 2004; Agarwal et al., 2009; EC, 2010b), enterprise(Bryden and Hart, 2001; Agarwal et al., 2009; Belo et al., 2009),innovation (North and Smallbone, 2000; Porter and Ketels, 2003;EC, 2010b), economic structure (Agarwal et al., 2009; EC, 2010b)and agriculture and agri-food sectors (Copus et al., 2009; EC,2010b).

2.2.2. Human capitalHuman capital has also been identified as a key issue in pro-

cesses of rural change. The factors that comprise human capitalinclude education and skills (Bryden and Hart, 2001; Porter andKetels, 2003; Reimer, 2003; Agarwal et al., 2009; EC, 2010b),entrepreneurship (Marsden and Little, 1990; North and Smallbone,1996; EC, 2010b), demographic structure (Reimer, 2003; Brydenet al., 2004; Johansson and Kupiszewski, 2009; EC, 2010b), migra-tion (van Dam et al., 2002; Bryden et al., 2004; Johansson andKupiszewski, 2009), ruraleurban interactions (Courtney et al.,2009), access to services (Bryden et al., 2004; Clifton et al., 2006;Noguera-Tur et al., 2009; EC, 2010b), and quality of life (Clokeand Thrift, 1987; Longino, 2001; EC, 2010b).

2.2.3. Social capitalThe degree of autonomy, cooperation and effectiveness within

and between institutional structures (Amin and Thrift, 1994;Whiteley, 2000; Nelson and Sampat, 2001; Kahila et al., 2009),publiceprivate partnerships, and the degree of interaction betweenthese networks (Bryden et al., 2004), the role of partnerships inrelationship-building between sectors, and the role of communityand voluntary organizations in the development process (Putnam,1993, 1995; Flora et al., 1997; Bryden et al., 2004; Moyano, 2008)are all aspects of social capital that have been highlighted as keyfactors that influence socioeconomic rural development processes.

2.2.4. Cultural capitalCultural capital has also been identified as an important issue of

the differential performance of rural areas (Dawe and Bryden,1999;Bryden and Hart, 2001; Courtney et al., 2004; MacLeod et al., 2009).Again, like the other types of capital, cultural capital consists ofmany facets, including the degree of commercialization of heritage,the environment and identity, the existence of heritage sites andcivic engagement (Agarwal et al., 2009).

5 Nationwide program for the development and economic diversification of ruralareas through the implementation of the LEADER approach.

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e2514

2.2.5. Environmental capitalThere is increasing recognition of the importance of maintaining

and commodifying the rural environment for rural development.Thus, the quality of the environment can have a direct influence onthe dynamics and development of rural areas (Hoggart et al., 1995;Courtney et al., 2006). Environmental capital consists of a numberof factors which include natural resource endowments, peripher-ality and remoteness, the cost of environmental maintenance,pollution and congestion, landscapes and the potential impacts ofclimate change (Agarwal et al., 2009; Langlais and Tepecik Dis,2009).

Among all these factors associated with processes of change,those promoting territorial dynamics which are able to overcomecommon problems in rural areas, are especially important. Theseproblems, which rural policies have sought to influence, are of ademographic (population loss, aging, etc.), economic (unemploy-ment, lack of economic diversification, etc.), social (quality of life,disparities between urban and rural areas, etc.), and environmentalnature (environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, etc.). Thus,the dynamics of development that are able to respond to thesespecific problems of rural areas, and that lead to situations of eco-nomic growth, social cohesion and environmental sustainability, arecalled successful rural territorial dynamics by RIMISP (2007).

Taking into account these challenges raised in rural areas andfrom an operational point of view, we understand by STD, ruraldynamics that obtain better results in terms of: i) maintenance ofthe rural population (human capital); ii) improvement of thequality of life of the inhabitants (social capital and economic cap-ital); and iii) improvement of environmental sustainability.

In short, in this research, rural territory is regarded as a metricaltopographical space defined by its specific resources (territorialresources), which, in turn, are defined by the aforementioned fivetypes of capital with which local actors (territorial agents) interact(or even create) through the establishment of institutional agree-ments in order to undertake a process of transformation anddevelopment aimed at solving a previously identified commonproblem (territorial construction). These interactions and trans-formations give rise to processes of change in the socioeconomicstructure, as well as the human, cultural and environmental capitalthat define the territory. These processes of change and theirimpact on development are what we understand in our analysis asrural territorial dynamics. When the dynamics result in situations ofeconomic growth, social cohesion and environmental sustainabil-ity, we talk about successful territorial dynamics.

2.3. From territorial dynamics towards territorial resilience

The concept of resilience has been used in various scientific dis-ciplines. The first transdisciplinary research on resilience was con-ducted by Holling (1973) to establish sustainable relationshipsbetween people and the natural resources of an ecological system. Inthis transdisciplinary context, the concept of resilience has beenapplied in studies on complex socioecological systems (Folke et al.,2002; Anderies et al., 2004; Leach, 2008) and the sustainable devel-opment of socioeconomic systems (Arrow et al., 1995; Limburg et al.,2002; Allenby and Fink, 2005; Cabezas et al., 2005; Fiksel, 2006;Nelson et al., 2007). Recently, this concept has attracted the atten-tion of “regional analysts”, “spatial economists” and “economic ge-ographers”who have applied it in their studies of urban and regionalareas (Hudson, 2010; Simmie and Martin, 2010).

In practice, the concept of resilience applied to the territoryacquires a dual definition. First, resilience can be measured as theability of a territory to withstand external pressures while main-taining its foundations of development (economic, social, cultural,etc.) or as its ability to respond positively to external changes. In

this case, it can be said that a territory is endowed with a “staticresilience” (Hamdouch et al., 2012) that allows it to return to a levelof equilibrium (Christopherson et al., 2010; Pike et al., 2010; Simmieand Martin, 2010).

A second explanation, via a more dynamic approach, which isessential in understanding the concept of resilience (Hassink,2010), can be defined as the permanent ability of a territory tocreate and deploy new resources and capacities in order to adaptfavorably to the dynamics of change driven by changing environ-mental conditions. In this case, it can be said that a territory de-velops a “dynamic resilience” (Hamdouch et al., 2012)characterized by the long-term ability to adapt to and learn fromexternal changes (Christopherson et al., 2010; Pendall et al., 2010;Pike et al., 2010; Simmie and Martin, 2010).

We believe that an operational vision demands a wider visioninsofar as territorial resilience transcends both definitions and isunderstood as “the ability of a territory to anticipate, prepare for,respond to, recover from and adapt to a shock or disturbance”(Foster, 2007). From this definition, we can distinguish four stagesof territorial resilience: 1) anticipation, preparation, 2) response 3)recovery, and 4) adaptation and learning in the long term.

This study focuses on the initial stages of territorial resilience,specifically on the ability of a territory to anticipate and prepare forchanges that could give rise to a situation of shock. We have chosento focus on this more restricted phase of the concept due to thecharacteristics of the factors that drive the shock, in our case thecurrent socioeconomic crisis. Although the crisis began in 2008, it isan ongoing phenomenon in which we are still immersed, and assuch it is difficult to measure the long-term capacity of territories torespond, recover and/or adapt. Despite this difficulty, we considerthat rural areas that have experienced STD before the crisis (duringeconomic expansion periods), and that have based their develop-ment on factors in which stability is not currently being lessened(factors predictably stable), are pre-resilient territories. They areable to develop and deploy new resources and capacities, whichenable them to prepare favorably to the dynamics of change drivenby the aforementioned crisis.

In this way, at the first stage of resilience, we can qualify a ter-ritory as pre-resilient when before a period of shock (in our case theeconomic crisis), it has undergone a successful territorial dynamicsdriven by factors (exogenous and/or endogenous, physical, eco-nomic, social, environmental, institutional or technological, simpleor complex) whose stability in crisis situations is not affected or it iseven reinforced. Therefore, in this research, the link between theconcepts of successful rural territorial dynamics and territorialresilience lies in the stability that driving factors present in crisissituations.

3. Methodology

Before designing a mathematical model that allows us toanalyze STD in rural areas, it is first necessary to select the studyarea and determine the most appropriate territorial unit for anal-ysis. The geographical area selected for our study is the rural area ofthe Autonomous Region of Andalusia. Andalusia is a region char-acterized by its geographical expanse and economic diversity, itswide range of ecosystems, its balanced urban/rural population ra-tio, the importance of the agri-food sector, the presence of a largeand heterogeneous network of associations, and also for being thesetting of an intense development process due to the imple-mentation of the EU LEADER initiative and the Proder5 program in

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e25 15

52 of its territorial units known as comarcas6 (LAU 1). All of thesefactors make Andalusia an excellent laboratory for our study, whoseresults could be extrapolated to other European rural areas (seeFig. 1).

As regards the most suitable territorial unit of analysis, we havechosen to conduct our analysis on two levels: i) counties (LAU 1),and ii) municipalities (LAU 2). Similar levels of analysis have alreadybeen used in the EDORA project (Copus et al., 2011), which suggeststhat in order to identify the determinants of processes of change inrural areas, it is necessary to operate at two geographical levels: i)at the meso level, which allows us to determine the diversity andthe different problems facing rural areas, such as those observed inthe typologies developed within the project, and ii) at the microlevel given the diverse local responses to external factors. In thecase of Andalusia, the expansion of local markets and the sphere ofapplication of rural policies suggest that counties are the mostsuitable unit of analysis. However, in order to identify factors ofchange, a municipal-level analysis should also be performed giventhat the municipalities located within the counties do not neces-sarily respond in a similar manner to the same external factors orthe implementation of the same policy, but their evolution and thefactors that determine such changes may differ.

Given that the term “rural” is open to a variety of interpretationsand there exists a diversity of criteria for defining the rural envi-ronment (Ceña, 1994), for this study we decided to restrict the termto a more instrumental and practical description. Therefore, ourdefinition of rural area for Spain refers to the counties in whichdevelopment programs are implemented. This definition covers alarge area of Andalusia (around 80%) that includes 698

6 The region of Andalusia is divided into eight provinces. The term comarcas isused to refer to geographical and administrative sub-divisions at the provinciallevel. For the purposes of our analysis, we have chosen to refer to comarcas usingthe English term “counties”, bearing in mind that the actual divisions and thenomenclature used to refer to these territorial units may differ greatly acrosscountries or even regions.

municipalities belonging to the 52 counties into which each of theprovinces of the region is divided, and which are managed by aLocal Action Group (LAG).

We have chosen the period 2000 to 2009 for the analysis of STD.This choice is based, firstly, on the importance given to ruraldevelopment during this period as it corresponds to the yearsfollowing the EU’s Agenda 2000 reform, which incorporated ruraldevelopment as the second pillar of the CAP scheme. Secondly, itwas a period of “economic bonanza” for most European rural areasbefore the economic crisis7 caused large-scale effects on theeconomies of these territories. Therefore it was a period that had astrong impact in shaping rural Europe and the diverse dynamicsassociated with territorial construction.

The four phases of the methodology used to achieve the pro-posed objectives and the key aspects of each of the phases areshown in Fig. 2.

3.1. Indicators defining the rural territory and its dynamics

The variables used in this study to define the elements of ruralareas and their processes of change were identified and selectedfollowing the theoretical contributions described in the conceptualframework. To estimate the variations in the values of the variablesfor the year 2000 and the year 2009, a list of indicators was made.The indicators were classified into four types: economic capital,human capital, social capital, and environmental capital. Thispermitted us to characterize the evolution of rural areas in Anda-lusia in the period analyzed.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the selection and definitionof the indicators was conditioned, in part, by the available statisticaldata published by official bodies (EUROSTAT, INE, SIMA, La CaixaYearbook, MAGRAMA, and the Regional Ministry of Agriculture), by

7 Although the crisis was already underway in 2009, its effects were not yetevident.

Fig. 2. Methodology used in the study.

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e2516

the need to make such information comparable at the LAU 1 andLAU 2 levels, and to reflect, directly or indirectly, the characteristicsof the territories to be analyzed.

Tables 1e4 show the indicators selected. There are a total of 56indicators grouped into the four previously mentioned types. Thetable also includes the notation of the indicators, their definitionand the units in which each indicator is expressed.

3.2. Identification of STD using DEA

The objective of this phase of the methodology was to identifySTD by measuring the changes that took place in rural areas duringthe 10-year study period. To do so, we used Data EnvelopmentAnalysis (DEA) to sort the territories according to the “successful”level of their territorial dynamics by means of a synthetic index.The usefulness of DEA has been explored in the literature in asimilar context to analyze the socioeconomic potential of munici-palities in Leader areas of the region of Valencia in Spain (Reig,2010).

The aim here is not to calculate an efficiency ratio by trans-forming inputs into outputs as is standard in DEA (see Thanassoulis,2001; Cooper et al., 2007; Cook and Seiford, 2009 for more on DEA),but to create a composite index based on a set of social, economicand environmental indicators. To this end, and from a multiplecriteria decision analysis (MCDA) perspective, DEA analysis can becompared to a function that adds inputs and outputs into a stan-dard measure of value (Stewart, 1996). In order to classify the ter-ritories according to their territorial dynamics, we thereforepropose the following model:

Max h0 ¼XRr¼1

mroIro

Subject to:

PRr¼1

mroIrk � 1 k ¼ 1;.;K

mro � 0 r ¼ 1;.;R

(1)

where h0 is the technical efficiency of the decision unit UD0; mro isthe weight of the indicator r that is more favorable in theassessment of successful performance of UD0 ; and Irk is the valueof indicator r for UDk. Therefore, the model maximizes theweighted sum of certain territorial attributes, so that it is possibleto build a ranking that reveals the relative situation of territorialdynamics.

More specifically, we applied a DEA model focusing on outputs(indicators that measure STD), with a virtual input equal to theunit for all the observations, i.e. for the 698 municipalities thatcomprise the rural areas in Andalusia. Following the principle thatthe comparison must be made between territorial entities withfairly similar general conditions (Löber and Staat, 2010), we con-structed a typology of rural areas (LAU 1) for the year 2009. Thisallowed us to group similar territorial problems and to analyze theevolution of the different territories during the study period. Toconstruct the typology, we performed a factor analysis (PCAmethod) of the territorial indicators followed by a cluster analysis(hierarchical aggregation procedure) using the resulting factors.Once each group was characterized, we obtained one typology ofAndalusian rural areas in 2009 with five different types of terri-tories. Therefore, we used a DEA model with the five categoriesobtained from the typology. As a result, for each analysis weincluded the municipalities (LAU 2) that comprise the ruralcounties in each type. Given that each one presents differentconditions, the efficient frontier differs for the units included ineach category. This analysis allowed us to identify the municipal-ities within each type that present STD.

The application of this model has proved to be suitable on twodifferent levels of analysis: territorial (LAU 1) and municipal (LAU2). Among other reasons, the LAU 1 level of analysis is appro-priate as it is the sphere of application of rural developmentpolicy. However, it has also been shown that the municipalitieswithin a territory may evolve in a different manner when thesame policy has been implemented in them. Indeed, in our studywe detected a certain heterogeneity between the countiesregarding the evolution of territorial indicators. Because of thisoccasional lack of internal territorial cohesion, a local-level ofanalysis (LAU 2) is needed to identify and define the different

Table 1Economic capital indicators characterizing rural areas: Categorization and definition.

Economic capital Indicator Notation Measurement

Productivity (income) Net income per capita INCO Amount of declared total net income divided by total population (V/person)Employment Unemployment rate UNEMPLO Number of unemployed registered by the Spanish Employment Office,

mitigated by the potential working-age population (20e64 years old) (%)Economic structure and

EnterpriseEconomically activeestablishments

EAE Number of establishments with economic activity weighted by population(% per 1000 people)

Commercial index CI Business tax rate corresponding to wholesale and retail trade activities,weighted by population (adimensional)

Commercial dynamism COMDYNA Average index numbers of population variables, number of landline telephones,cars, trucks, banks, and retail business (adimensional)

Industry index II Business tax rate corresponding to industrial economic activity (including construction)weighted by population (adimensional)

Hotel accommodation TOUR Number of overnight lodgings provided by hotels and similar establishmentsweighted by population (% per 1000 people)

Economic activity diversificationindex

EDI Average Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) economic activity concentration ratio.The data refer to business tax percentage (business and professional) in the fourmajor branches of economic activity (adimensional)

Energy consumption ENCON Total energy consumption per person (MW-h/person)Infrastructures and

TelecommunicationsBuilt-up and modified land BUILT Percentage of built-up areas, infrastructures and facilities, as well as mining areas,

landfills and areas under construction in relation to total land area (%)Highways, freeways and otherroad links

ROADS Percentage of highways, freeways and road links in relation to total land area (%)

Telephone lines, ISDN and ADSL ICT Number of telephone lines, ISDN and ADSL in the sub-region, weighted bypopulation (% per 1000 people)

Agriculture andAgri-food sectors

Used agricultural land UAL Share of cultivated and permanent pasture land in relation to total land area (%)Value of standard agriculturalproduction

VSAP Sum of the value of produce determined by multiplying production per unit bythe cost per unit of output excluding VAT, taxes and direct payments (V)

Units of work-years inAgriculture

UWA Work performed by a full-time worker over one year (228 full working days)(adimensional)

Farm license holders youngerthan 34

YOUAGR Percentage of farm license holders under 34 in relation to total number of farmlicense holders (%)

Farm license holders olderthan 64

OLDAGR Percentage of farm license holders over 64 in relation to total number of farmlicense holders (%)

Livestock units LU This is obtained by applying a coefficient to each species and type in order toadd different species to a common unit (adimensional)

Agri-food activity weighting AGRACW Relative weight of agri-food business tax (%)Level of CAP funding per UAL CAP Amount of funds received via CAP, in relation to used agricultural land (UAL) (V/Km2)Used organic agricultural land UOAL Percentage of UAL recognized as organic (certified and in conversion) in relation

to total used agricultural land (UAL) (%)Value of organic agricultureproduction

VOAP Sum of the value of organic produce determined by multiplying production perunit by the cost per unit of output excluding VAT, taxes, and direct payments (V)

Territorial quality markers QUALITY Total number of territorial quality markers (adimensional)

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e25 17

changes and dynamics that would otherwise be impossible toaddress at a different level of analysis. This local analysis mayreveal reasons for the differences among municipalities accord-ing to some indicators that may be masked in the county

Table 2Human capital indicators characterizing rural areas: Categorization and definition.

Human capital Indicator Notation Unit of mea

Demography Population density DENS PopulationPopulation growth rate POP PopulationPopulation dynamics POPDYN Center-peri

populationYouth index YOUTH PopulationAging index AGING PopulationDependency index DEPEN Weighting

to the poteNet migration MIGRA Difference b

(% per 1000Foreign population index FOREIGN Weight of f

Skills andEducation

Illiterate and uneducatedpopulation

ILUEP Percentage

Population with primaryand secondary studies

PRISEC Percentagebaccalaurea

Access toservices

Secondary education centers EDU Number of(% per 1000

Public libraries LIBR Number ofPrimary care resources HEALTH Number of

(% per 1000

aggregated analysis, in which “geographically homogeneous”predominates.

As regards the variables used in the analysis to measure STD, thecombination of the percentage changes over the 2000e2009

sure

per land area (inhab./km2)change rate in a given time period (1990e2000; 2000e2009) as a percentage (%)phery flows within regions, the core (regional center) receives a higherthan the rest (sub-regional periphery) (adimensional)aged 20 and under as a percentage of total population (%)aged 64 and over as a percentage of total population (%)of economically non-active population (children and the elderly) in relationntially economically active population (population aged 20e64) (%)etween total number of immigrants and total number of emigrantspeople)oreign population in relation to total population (%)of the illiterate or uneducated population (%)

of the population with primary or secondary studies (primary, secondary,te or similar) (%)secondary education centers expressed per thousand of total populationpeople)public libraries per thousand of total population (% per 1000 people)primary care resources expressed per thousand of total populationpeople)

Table 3Environmental capital indicators characterizing rural areas: Categorization and definition.

Environmental capital Indicator Notation Unit of measure

Peripherality andremoteness

Distance DIS Distance from the capital of the province (NUTS 3) (Km)Altitude ALT Altitude above sea level (m)

Natural resourceendowment

Woodlands and naturallandscapes

FOREST Woodland and natural land area as a percentage of total land area (%)

Areas of water and wetlands WATER Reservoirs, marshland, salt lakes, aquaculture areas, rivers, streams andother wetlands as a percentage of total land area (%)

Natura 2000 NATURA Protected areas such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and SpecialProtection Areas (SPAs) for birds as a percentage of total land area (%)

Environmentaldegradation

High to very high soil erosion EROSION Amount of land area with erosion levels classified as high (loss of between50 and 100 Tm/Ha/Year) or very high (loss of more than 100 Tm/Ha/Year) (%)

Table 4Social capital indicators characterizing rural areas: Categorization and definition.

Social capital Indicator Notation Unit of measure

Autonomy Budget expenditure EXPEND Volume of expenditure per inhabitant according to municipal budgetcalculations (V/inhab.)

Level of rural development funding RURDEV Level of rural development funding per inhabitant, received via the secondpillar of the CAP initiative (funding received in 2000 and 2009) and theRural Development Policy (during the periods 2000e2006 and 2007e2013)(V/inhab.)

Public and private sectornetworks

Public administration LAG members PUBPART Public sector members as a proportion of total members in LAGs (publicadministrations, city councils, groupings of municipalities, etc.) (%)

Business LAG members BUSPART Businesses as a proportion of total members in LAGs (corporations andself-employed) (%)

Community, organizationsand associations

Agriculture co-operative LAGmembers

COOP Agriculture co-operatives and agricultural processing associations as aproportion of total members in LAGs (%)

Sectoral association LAG members SECTASSO Sectoral and business associations as a proportion of total membersin LAGs (%)

Women’s association LAG members WOMASSO Women’s associations as a proportion of total members in LAGs (%)

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e2518

period were selected in the following indicators relating to human,economic, social, and environmental capital: i) the rural population(POP), ii) income per capita (INCO), iii) the employment rate8

(UNEMPLO), and iv) the environmental index (ENVIRON). The lastindicator was calculated based on the availability of natural re-sources (natural protected areas and woodland areas) and theirdeterioration (erosion and built-up land). To aggregate the vari-ables of the environmental index, the same weighting was given toall four variables of the index (1/4), which were previously stan-dardized to prevent the possible perturbation of different units ofmeasurement.

The percentage increases of the four indicators used to measure“successful” level were calculated using the equation,

Ri ¼�V2

V1

�� 1; (2)

where Ri is the increase rate of the indicator value defining theterritory; V1 is the value of indicator i on date t1; and V2 is the valueof indicator i on date t2.

3.3. Obtaining determinants of STD using regression analysis

Once we identified the municipalities with territorial dy-namics that can be classified as “successful”, our aim was todetermine which of the municipal-level variables had a significanteffect on these dynamics, and to what extent. This permitted us to

8 We chose to use employment rate rather than unemployment rate for the DEAanalysis because all the variables included in the DEA analysis are of the “the morethe better” type. By doing so, an increase in the numerical value of the variable hasa positive connotation in terms of resilience.

identify the dependency structure that best explains theirbehavior.

To do so, we used multiple linear regression analysis to obtainfour regression models. In each regression model, a componentmeasuring STD was used as a dependent variable: RiPOP, RiINCO,RiUNEMPLO and RiENVIRON. The percentage change in the in-dicators (concerning to economic, human, environmental and so-cial capital) that define the territories from 2000 to 2009 was usedas an independent variable in each model and measured accordingto Equation (2).

4. Results

4.1. Typology of rural areas as previous tool for DEA analysis

Using factor and cluster analyses, we identified five types ofrural counties for the year 2009 (Fig. 3). The main characteristics ofeach of the types are shown below.

4.2. Identification of STD

In order to analyze “successful” behavior by type as indicated inthe methodology section, we have changed the territorial unit tothe municipal level (LAU 2). As shown in Table 5, the values of thedescriptive statistics for the indicators that measure STD revealsome internal dispersion in terms of the behavior of the munici-palities belonging to the territories in each rural type.

We performed five DEA analyses, one for each group or type. Theanalyses identified 68 municipalities that presented STD in theirevolution (Fig. 4), i.e. they obtained better results than the othermunicipalities belonging to the same rural type in terms of popu-lation growth, per capita income, employment rate and the envi-ronmental index.

Fig. 3. Typology of rural counties in Andalusia for 2009.

Rural type 1: Territories with natural constraints that present serious problems related to demographics and economic dynamism and in which agriculture activities arenot very significant. These territories are characterized by their important stock of environmental capital, maximum availability of facilities and rural development funding,and focus on women and youth empowerment.Rural type 2: Isolated, peripheral territories with problems related to demographics and economic dynamism. Intense livestock and organic farming activity. Importantstock of environmental capital and maximum availability of facilities and rural development funding. High concentration of farmers in LAGs.Rural type 3: Coastal territories in close proximity to provincial capitals. High demographic potential and strong economic dynamism coupled with a high unemploymentrate. High degree of tourism and low impact of the primary sector. High level of infrastructures but minimum availability of facilities and rural development funding.Rural type 4: Inland territories in close proximity to provincial capitals. High demographic potential and strong economic dynamism. Low degree of tourism and highimportance of farming and CAP funding. High level of infrastructures but low level of environmental capital, and minimum availability of facilities and rural developmentfunding.Rural type 5: Territories characterized by the importance of agriculture, high level of CAP funding, high potential for agricultural innovation and high skilled-employmentrate. Private sector partnerships with LAGs.

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e25 19

4.3. Determinants of STD

The number of municipalities we identified as experiencing STDallows us to explore the interaction between the changes in theindicators measuring “successful” dynamics and the changes in thesociodemographic, economic, and environmental indicators thatdefine the territory. The results of the four regression models areshown in Table 6. In general, the analysis reveals optimal values forthe coefficient of determination (R2), thus indicating that the mu-nicipalities were properly defined from the selected indicators.

In light of the results, it can be observed that the first regressionmodel shows that the percentage increase in population (RiPOP) isinfluenced by positive or negative changes in four variables duringthe study period:

- Percentage of foreign population (FOREIGN). Although the foreignpopulation has spread to other rural areas in recent years, thehighest concentration is found on the Mediterranean coast andin the southern agricultural regions of Spain. In general, theforeign immigrants are young people of childbearing age, whocome from countries with high birth rates.

Table 5Descriptive statistics of indicators measuring STD by type and total.

Rural type 2009 N Ri POP Ri INCO

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard

Rural type 1 157 0.054 0.237 1.082 0.528Rural type 2 179 �0.020 0.146 1.194 0.362Rural type 3 105 0.248 0.238 1.007 0.315Rural type 4 162 0.093 0.209 1.134 0.301Rural type 5 95 0.029 0.426 1.120 0.371Total 698 0.070 0.261 1.120 0.381

- Percentage of built-up land (BUILT). The increase in built-up landin rural areas has led to an increase in infrastructures and fa-cilities. This fact, coupled with better accessibility to the terri-tory in question, has contributed enormously to retaining thepopulation and attracting new residents.

- Level of common agricultural policy funding (CAP). The resultsreveal a direct relationship between the increase in this factorand population growth. This circumstance may be associatedwith “territorial” function of the CAP. Public support foragriculture has improved its ability to generate wealth andretain the population via the enhancement of economic ac-tivities closely related to the agri-food industry, tourism, andtrade.

- Availability of primary health care resources (HEALTH). There isan inverse relationship between the changes in this variableand the indicator analyzed. Despite the widespread view thathealthcare is a determining factor in population mobility,it should be noted that this indicator measures the percent-age of change, in other words, after minimum healthcareneeds are covered, and is not a determinant of populationdynamics.

Ri UNEMPLO Ri ENVIRON

deviation Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

6.592 3.615 0.532 0.8896.307 3.272 0.352 0.5287.859 3.895 �0.327 0.7306.169 3.007 �0.359 0.3834.132 2.343 �0.161 0.8376.277 3.433 0.055 0.773

Fig. 4. Location of the municipalities that have experienced STD.

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e2520

The changes in these parameters explain 78.7% of the increase inpopulation.

The results of the second regression analysis model reveal howthe increase in net income per capita (RiINCO) is influenced bychanges in three of the explanatory variables:

- Availability of primary health care resources (HEALTH). There is adirect relationship between the increase in this variable and theincrease in net income per capita. Indeed, improving access tohealth care and other public services has been one of the coreobjectives of European policy for territorial cohesion. In fact, theGreen Paper on Services of General Interest (EC, 2003) highlightshow the efficiency and quality of these services can become a

Table 6Results of the regression models used to identify the determinants of STD.

Capital category Variables Multiple linear regression model

RiPOP model RiIN

Regression coefficients (Standardiz

Constant �0.088 1.55EconomicEconomic structure RiII

RiTOURInfrastructures RiBUILT 0.324 (***)Agriculture RiYOUAGR

RiCAP 0.297 (***)RiVOAP

HumanDemography RiFOREIGN 0.534 (***) �0.4Access to services RiHEALTH �0.338 (***) 0.46EnvironmentalNatural resources RiNATURASocialGovernance RiRURDEV 0.46Model diagnosticsAdjusted R2 0.781 0.54F 35.813 (***) 16.6N 68 68

(***) Significant at 1 percent level (p < 0,01).(**) Significant at 5 percent level (p < 0,05).(*) Significant at 10 percent level (p ¼ 10).

factor for economic growth, competitiveness and cohesion,particularly in terms of attracting investment.

- Level of funds received for rural development (RURDEV). As thisfactor increases the net income per capita also increases.Improving the quality of life in rural areas is a priority issue bothfor LEADER þ and for the Rural Development Policy for 2007e2013. The analysis reveals that funding for this purpose arerelated to an increase in income per capita, one of the indicatorsof quality of life enhancement.

- Percentage of foreign population (FOREIGN). The increase in theforeign population and the lowering of wages in relation to theaverage wage in the territories analyzed explains this inverserelationship. In fact, according to the Spanish Survey of Living

s used to identify key variables in successful TRD

CO model RiUNEMPLO model RiENVIRON model

ed B)

2 (***) 4.106 (***) 2.504

�0.248 (**)�0.288 (**)0.365 (**) �0.514 (***)

0.299 (**)

�0.346 (**)

28 (***)2 (***)

0.444 (***)

2 (***) 0.299 (**)

7 0.249 0.46967 (***) 5.306 (***) 7.882 (***)

68 68

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e25 21

Conditions 2008, the difference between the earnings of im-migrants and Spanish nationals was 15.2% in rural areas and19.3% in urban areas (INE, 2008).

In this case, the RiINCO indicator of the estimated regressionmodel has an explanatory power of 54.7%.

The results of the third regression analysis model show a rela-tionship between an increase in unemployment rate (RiUNEMPLO)and changes in three of the explanatory variables:

- Percentage of built-up land (BUILT). As this variable increases, theunemployment rate also increases. While the full effects of theeconomic crisis will only be felt in the medium to long term, theeffect of the housing bubble had a stronger impact on thoseterritories where this sector grewmost, leading to an immediateand significant increase in unemployment.

- Overnight lodging capacity of hotels and similar establishments(TOUR). There is an inverse relationship between the two in-dicators analyzed here. In rural Andalusia, much of the fundingtargeted at the diversification of economic activity during thestudy period (2000e2009) was used to develop a large numberof rural tourism projects. The activities generated around theindustry and society’s growing demand for this type of tourismhave created new jobs in rural areas.

- Value of organic farming production (VOAP). The unemploymentrate decreases as this variable increases. Organic farming inAndalusia has expanded considerably from just over 100,000 haand 1000 operators in the year 2000 to 877,321 ha and nearly8000 operators in 2009, making the region the leading organicproducer in Spain.

It should be noted, however, that this model has the lowestexplanatory power (R2 ¼ 0.249). This suggests that other featuresnot included in the analysis could have an influence on the vari-ability of the unemployment rate.

Finally, the last analysis reveals relationship between the in-crease in the value of the environmental indicator (RiENVIRON) andchanges in five of the explanatory variables:

Table 7Summary of the variables determining STD.

- Percentage of built-up land (BUILT). In this case, the inverserelationship of this variable with RiENVIRON is obvious. Ashumans occupy territories and invade natural spaces, first-orderenvironmental impacts are generated such as the loss of biodi-versity, soil sealing and impermeability, the distortion of thehydrological cycle, and increasing energy consumption, amongothers.

- Percentage of land designated as Natura 2000 (NATURA). Again,the direct relationship between the increase in this variable andthe indicator analyzed is also evident owing to the fact that theNatura 2000 network is a key mechanism for the conservationof nature in the EU.

- Level of funds received for rural development (RURDEV). RiEN-VIRON increases as this variable increases. In fact, agri-environmental measures were contemplated as part of fund-able measures in the 2000e2006 period. Similarly, for the2007e2013 period environmental and rural enhancement wasthe second thematic axis of the rural development policy, whichexplains the relationship between the indicator and the level ofrural development funding.

- Number of young farm owners (YOUAGR). Because younger farmowners have a greater awareness of agriculture-related envi-ronmental issues, they are faster to incorporate new eco-compatible technologies, adapt more easily to changes in agri-culture and rural policy, and are less likely to abandon theiractivity.

- Industrial index (II). RiENVIRON increases when this indicatordecreases. This inverse relationship can be explained by thenegative externalities of industrial activity, such as waterpollution, waste generation, increased energy consumption andCO2 emissions in the atmosphere, which collapse natural re-sources and contribute to climate change.

In this analysis, changes in the indicators explain 46.9% of thechanges in the environmental index.

Overall, the results show that a series of factors are related to theprocesses of change in rural areas and territorial dynamics. Theseresults empirically support and extend upon the elements that

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e2522

have been identified theoretically in previous research as the basisof territorial resilience.

The results are summarized in Table 7.

5. Discussion, conclusions and policy implications

The factors involved in development processes in rural areas arecomplex and varied as are the relationships established betweenthem and can be both a cause and a consequence of the results ofprocesses of change in these territories. In this research study, wehave identified several factors associated with these processes andSTD. The results support, complement and expand upon thoseobtained in previous studies, demonstrating the validity of themodel and the proposed methodology. The methodology used hereis of great practical utility based on the following characteristics:

1. It presents an integrated view of the processes of change takingplace in rural areas, taking into account economic, social andenvironmental dimensions. Although we did not attempt toperform a comprehensive analysis on each of these dimensions,as this is already covered by specific methodological techniques,we did try to incorporate all three dimensions in a compre-hensive way in order to understand STD as a whole.

2. The methodology is able to address the different units of anal-ysis (LAU 1 and LAU 2) that are suitable for the study of ruralterritorial dynamics and which can be extrapolated and specif-ically adapted to a wide range of European rural areas.

3. It incorporates a large number of indicators of territorial dy-namics that have been selected according to criteria of reliability(official sources) and applicability (allows operational calculusbased on information sources).

4. It identifies STD through the aggregation of indicators, whichmakes it easier to understand the complexity of this concept, byfacilitating its operationalization.

Taking into account all of these features, it should be emphasizedthat determining STDand the factors associatedwith themusing themethods suggested here, is a potentially valuable tool for policy-makers responsible for designing and implementing policies whichimpact rural areas. Rural territories that have experienced STD, andthe good performance based on factors predictably stable, are ter-ritories that could a priori be qualified as pre-resilient. However, aspointed out, themethodologywas usedwithin the framework of aninitial phase of territorial resilience: the preparation of territory forchanges that could give rise to a situation of shock. Future research(as time goes by or when the crisis has come to an end) is thereforeneeded to validate and improve the results obtained here. Likewise,it should be noted that this study has been carried out in a specificgeographical area, and in a context of particular economic crisis(despite the general character of the economic crisis, the Spanishone and specifically the Andalusian, present a number of specific-ities that make it different from the rest of Europe). Therefore, theresults cannot be extended to other types of crisis of different nature.Despite this, our findings provide an initial idea of where policiesthat impact rural areas should be targeted.

Some factors that have been decisive in promoting STD in eco-nomic expansion periods have been observed. While the stability ofsome of these factors is being threatened by the impacts of thecrisis, the stability of others turned out to be less affected and evenenhanced. These latter factors are those that are closely linked tothe resilient character of the territories. In designing future policies,policymakers should consider this factors if they are to cope betterwith the impact of the current crisis. Factors related to this dy-namics and their stability in a time such as the present one, areexpressed below:

- Economic diversification. Territories with more diversified eco-nomic activity are better prepared when faced with “shocks”,and exhibit a higher level of resilience (Christopherson et al.,2010). Although diversification of the rural economy does notnecessarily mean rural tourism, most of the actions in this wayhave resulted in activities related to this sector. As a result ruraltourism is beginning to suffer the consequences of a dispro-portionate growth of supply well above the demand. However,despite these problems of regulation in the sector, it can beconsidered stable in the current situation since the tourismsector is one of the best to resist the effects of the crisis. Eco-nomic diversification is therefore a key element in promotingSTD that could contribute to the resilience of rural areas face thecurrent crisis.

- Agriculture. Despite the economic diversification of rural terri-tories, agriculture continues to play an important role in therural economy, and is believed to be one of the most importantelements to take into account in processes of change in theseterritories. In fact, the agricultural sector has become a havensector against the current economic crisis, increasing the num-ber of employees, often young people, as a result of stoppingtransfers of labor to other sectors, and absorbing unemployedpeople in rural areas. This enhancement of the sector can also beseen in organic farming. This type of farming has steadily grownsince it was regulated, and it has stabilized in 2011, without anydecrease. Besides these factors, it should be noted that theagricultural sector is now reinforced by a CAP that despite thebudget decline due to the prevailing austerity, remains a priorityat the European level (budget cuts have been lower than in otherpolicies). Thus, the results indicate that a CAP that is able toattract young farmers and promote a competitive, dynamic, andinnovative agricultural sector will give rise to territorialresilience.

- Infrastructure and facilities. The results showed that when theincrease in built-up land in rural territories results in a dispro-portionate increase in housing and urban fabric it is a barrier topromote STD. Indeed, although the construction sector has beenone of the drivers of the economy in the economic expansionperiod experienced in Spain during the last decade, since thehousing bubble burst, there has been an alarming job loss rate,making this sector to be the worst positioned facing the currenteconomic crisis. On the other hand, when the increase in built-up land results in increased infrastructure and facilities,improved access to public services and the connectivity of ruralareas, these factors contribute to STD. However, this factor isbeing threatened in the current situation. Items in infrastructureprojects that will suffer the biggest budget cuts within the EUare expected to take place. It is not therefore a factor that favorsthe resilience of rural areas.

- Foreign population. STD contributes to the presence of a foreignpopulation in the rural territory. Nevertheless, this is a factorthat not contributes in the resilience of rural areas since itsstability is being strongly affected by the crisis. In economicexpansion periods, it has been favored by hiring foreign labor,mainly in the construction sector, as well as in agriculture.However, the present situation in the construction sector iscausing a high rate of unemployment and affects more inten-sively the immigrant population. Besides, this population findsit difficult to access other jobs in sectors where they previouslyhad no problem (e.g. case of agriculture), but instead tend nowto hire local workers.

- Natural Resources. Natural resources and environmental qualityhave a direct influence on the dynamics and development ofrural territories. Changing consumer consumption preferencesand a rise in “green” tourism and recreation have created

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e25 23

opportunities for many rural areas, particularly areas with highquality natural assets. Despite the economic crisis, the stabilityof this factor is currently being reinforced becoming a keyelement linked to the resilient nature of rural areas. Theincreased awareness of the importance of environmental sus-tainability is now a booming reality. This is proved by theincorporation and the continuous increase of the conditionalityof direct aid of CAP in compliance with environmental stan-dards, or the inclusion of the environment and the countrysideas amajor axis of rural development policy. In the current periodof political reform, it appears that agri-environmental measures,the conditionality of aid and environmental protection, willcontinue to be reinforced.

- Institutional capacity and governance.Managing funding for ruraldevelopment can be seen as an indicator of governance. Propermanagement facilitates cooperation between people and publicinstitutions, thus building positive synergies, promoting properfunctioning of the system of governance, and contributing to thedevelopment of rural areas. These collaborative networks builtbetween actors of the territory are key elements that contributeto STD. This is a factor that can be considered stable in thecurrent period and which may favor the resilience of rural areas.As mentioned above, despite the budget cuts practiced in thedifferent EU policies, those that have an influence in rural areasare less affected. The Leader program has proven to be a prof-itable initiative since it handles European funds with minimalcosts, easy to control by administrations, transparent and withhigh efficiency even in crisis situations.

In any case, we can remark that because this complex set offactors is related to the sphere of application of several policies(rural, agricultural, cohesion, etc.), there is a need for comprehen-sive policies as well as complementarity and coordination betweenfunds as reflected in the EU 2014e2020 legislative proposal forcohesion policy (EC, 2011). The development of rural areas is drivennot only by the development policies implemented so far, but alsoby factors beyond the scope of rural development policies, whichare equally critical to these processes. Complementarity betweenrural, agrarian and territorial policies requires implementing andintegrating programs with global regulations and standards, andcommon and specific requirements.

Finally, the results obtained from the typology reflect andconfirm the diversity of rural areas. This diverse rural reality alsodeserves diverse objectives and measures (flexibility and subsidi-arity), or at least different priorities, which will enable rural areasto progress by taking action on the issues that affect them andrelying on those factors onwhich they can base their development.While recognizing the diversity of rural areas, public policies thatimpact on rural territories have not sufficiently incorporated thisnotion in their objectives and measures. A rural policy that doesnot consider the diversity of rural reality from both a socioeco-nomic and environment perspective will have difficulty in thefuture addressing the problems faced by such diverse types ofrural territories.

References

Agarwal, S., Rahman, S., Errington, E., 2009. Measuring the determinants of relativeeconomic performance of rural areas. J. Rural Stud. 25 (3), 309e321.

Allenby, B., Fink, J., 2005. Toward inherently secure and resilient societies. Science309 (5737), 1034e1036.

Amin, A., Thrift, N., 1994. Living in the global. In: Amin, A., Thrift, N. (Eds.), Glob-alization Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, pp. 1e22.

Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E., 2004. A framework to analyze therobustness of socioecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol.Soc. 9 (1), 18 (online) URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/.

Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jansson, B.-O.,Levin, S., Mäler, K.-G., Perrings, C., Pimentel, D., 1995. Economic growth, car-rying capacity, and the environment. Science 268 (5210), 520e521.

Ashby, J., Cox, D., McInroy, N., Southworth, D., 2009. An International Perspective ofLocal Government as Stewards of Local Economic Resilience. Holt: NorfolkCharitable Trust, Manchester.

Batty, E., Cole, I., 2010. Resilience and the Recession in Six Deprived Communities:Preparing for Worse to Come? Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Belo, M., Psaltopoulos, D., Skuras, D., 2009. Rural Business Development. EDORAProject, Working Paper 3 (Annex 1). ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute,Luxembourg.

Brunet, R., 1990. Les territoires dans les turbulences. Reclus, Paris.Brunet, R., Ferras, R., Théry, H., 1992. Les Mots de la géographie. Reclus-La Docu-

mentation française, Paris.Bryden, J.M., Courtney, P., Atterton, J., Timm, A., 2004. Scotland e north and south.

In: Bryden, J., Hart, K.J. (Eds.), Why Local Economies Differ: the Dynamics ofRural Areas in Europe. Edwin-Mellen Press.

Bryden, J.M., Hart, K.J., 2001. Dynamics of Rural Areas: International ComparativeAnalysis. The Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research, University ofAberdeen, Aberdeen.

Cabezas, H., Pawlowski, C.W., Mayer, A.L., Hoagland, N.T., 2005. Sustainable systemstheory: ecological and other aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (5), 455e467.

Camagni, R., 2008. Regional competitiveness: towards a theory of territorial capital.In: Capello, R., Camagni, R., Chizzolini, P., Frasati, R. (Eds.), Modelling RegionalScenarios for the Enlarged Europe: European Competitiveness and GlobalStrategies. SpringereVerlag, Berlin, pp. 33e48.

Campagne, P., Pecqueur, B. (Eds.), 2012. Processus d’émergence des territoires rur-aux dans les pays méditerranéens: Analyse comparée entre 10 pays du Nord, duSud et de l’Est Méditerranéens. CIHEAM, Options Méditerranéennes: Série B.Etudes et Recherches, n. 69, Montpellier.

Ceña, F., 1994. Planteamientos económicos del desarrollo rural: Perspectiva his-tórica. Rev. Estud. Agrosoc. 169, 11e52.

Cernic, M., Copus, A., 2009. Rural Employment. EDORA Project, Working Paper 2(Annex 1). ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute, Luxembourg.

Christopherson, S., Michie, J., Tyler, P., 2010. Regional resilience: theoretical andempirical perspectives. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 3 (1), 3e10.

Clifton, J., Comin, F., Diaz-Fuentes, D., 2006. Privatization in the European Union:ideological, pragmatic, inevitable? J. Eur. Public Policy 13 (5), 736e756.

Cloke, P., Thrift, N.,1987. Intra-class conflict in rural areas. J. Rural Stud. 3 (4), 321e333.Cocklin, C., Alston, M., 2003. Community Sustainability in Rural Australia: a Ques-

tion of Capital? Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia e Center for RuralSocial Research, Canberra.

Colletis-Wahl, K., Corpataux, J., Crevoisier, O., Kebir, L., Pecqueur, B., 2008. Theterritorial economy: A general approach in order to understand and deal withglobalization. In: Aranguren, M.J., Iturrioz, C., Wilson, J.R. (Eds.), Networks,Governance and Economic Development: Bridging disciplinary frontiers.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 21e29.

Cook, W.D., Seiford, L.M., 2009. Data envelopment analysis (DEA): thirty years on.Eur. J. Oper. Res. 192 (1), 1e17.

Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K., 2007. Data Envelopment Analysis: acomprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solversoftware, second ed. Springer-Press, New York.

Copus, A.K., Weingarten, P., Noguera-Tur, J., 2009. Farm Structural change. EDORAProject, Working Paper 9 (Annex 1). ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute,Luxembourg.

Copus, A.K., Courtney, P., Dax, T., Meredith, D., Noguera, J., Shucksmith, M.,Talbot, H., 2011. European Development Opportunities for Rural Areas (EDORA).Applied Research 2013/1/2. Final Report, ESPON 2013 Programme, Brussels.

Courtney, P., Agarwal, S., Errington, A., Moseley, M., Rahman, S., 2004. Determinantsof Relative Economic Performance of Rural Areas. Final Research Report Pre-pared for DEFRA, July. University of Plymouth and Countryside and CommunityResearch Unit, Cheltenham.

Courtney, P., Hill, G., Roberts, D., 2006. The role of natural heritage in rural develop-ment: an analysis of economic linkages in Scotland. J. Rural Stud. 22 (4), 469e484.

Courtney, P., Psaltopoulos, D., Sakuras, D., 2009. Rural-urban Relationships. EDORAProject, Working Paper 4 (Annex 1). ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute,Luxembourg.

D’Aquino, P., 2002. Le territoire entre espace et pouvoir: pour une planificationterritoriale ascendante. Esp. Géogr. 1, 3e23.

Dawe, S., Bryden, J.M., 1999. Competitive advantage in the rural periphery: rede-fining the globalelocal nexus. In: Lithwick, H., Gradus, Y. (Eds.), Urban Devel-opment in Frontier Regions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Debarbieux, B., 1999. L’exploration des mondes intérieurs. In: Knafou, R. (Dir.),Géographie, état des lieux. Belin, coll. Mappemonde, Paris, pp. 371e384.

Di Méo, G., 1998. Géographie sociale et territoire. Nathan, coll. Fac., Paris, pp. 42e43.Elden, S., 2005. Missing the point: globalization, deterritorialization and the space

of the world. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 30, 8e19.Elden, S., 2007. Governmentality, calculation, territory. Environ. Plan. Soc. Space 25,

562e580.Elden, S., 2008. Why is the world divided territorially? In: Edkins, J., Zehfuss, M.

(Eds.), Global Politics: A New Introduction. Routledge, London, pp. 192e219.Elden, S., 2010. Land, terrain, territory. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 34, 799e817.Emery, M., Flora, C., 2006. Spiraling up: mapping community transformation with

community capitals framework. Commun. Dev. J. Commun. Dev. Soc. 37 (1),19e35.

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e2524

European Commission (EC), 2003. Green Paper on Services of General Interest.European Commission, Brussels.

European Commission (EC), 2010a. Investing in Europe’s Future: Fifth Report onEconomic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. European Commission, Brussels.

European Commission (EC), 2010b. Study on Employment, Growth and Innovationin Rural Areas (SEGIRA). European Commission, Brussels.

European Commission (EC), 2011. Cohesion Policy 2014e2020: Investing in Job andGrowth. European Commission, Brussels.

Fallon, P., Lucas, R., 2002. The impact of financial crises on labor markets, householdincomes, and poverty: a review of evidence. World Bank. Res. Obs. 17 (1), 21e45.

Fiksel, J., 2006. Sustainability and resilience: towards a systems approach. Sustain.Sci. Pract. Policy 2 (2), 14e21.

Flora, J., Sharp, J., Flora, C., Newlon, B., 1997. Entrepreneurial social infrastructureand locally initiated economic development in the non metropolitan UnitedStates. Sociol. Q. 38 (4), 623e644.

Flores, M., 2007. La identidad cultural del territorio como base de una estrategia dedesarrollo sostenible. Rev. Obs. Polít. Públ. Opera 7, 35e54.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Walker, B., 2002.Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a worldof transformations. Ambio 31 (5), 437e440.

Foster, K., 2007. A Case Study Approach to Understanding Regional Resilience.Berkeley: Building Resilient Regions Network, Working Paper 8. University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Gallardo, R., Garrido, M.D., De Haro, T., Pedraza, V., Ramos, E., Ramos, F., Sánchez-Zamora, P., 2011. Desarrollo Rural Territorial. Metodología y Aplicación para elEstudio de Casos. MARM, Madrid.

Gallardo, R., Ortiz, D., Ramos, F., Ceña, F., 2007. The emergence of territories in theprocesses of rural development. In: Basili, C., Fanfani, R., Rastoin, J.L. (Eds.),Knowledge, Sustainability and Bioresources in the Further Development of theAgri-food System. Bologna University Press, Bologna, pp. 401e423.

Häkli, J., 2001. In the territory of knowledge: state-centred discourses and theconstruction of society. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 25, 403e422.

Hamdouch, A., 2010. Développement durable. Dynamiques des territoires ruraux etlogiques d’acteurs. Écon. rurale 320, 4e8 (online) URL: www.cairn.info/revue-economie-rurale-2010-6-page-4.htm.

Hamdouch, A., Depret, M., Tanguy, C., 2012. In: Mondialisation et resilience desterritoires: Trajectoires, dynamiques d’acteurs et experiences locales. Presses del’Université du Québec, Québec.

Hassink, R., 2010. Regional resilience: a promising concept to explain differences inregional economic adaptability? Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 3 (1), 45e58.

Hill, E.W., Wial, H., Wolman, H., 2008. Exploring Regional Resilience. MacArthurFoundation Research Network on Building Resilient Regions. Working Paper2008e04. Institute for Urban and Regional Development, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley.

Hoggart, H., Buller, H., Black, R., 1995. Rural Europe. Identity and Change. Arnold,London.

Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol.Evol. Syst. 4, 1e23.

Hudson, R., 2010. Resilient regions in an uncertain world: wishful thinking or apractical reality? Cambridge. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 3 (1), 11e25.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), 2008. Encuesta de Condiciones de Vida año2008. España.

Johansson, M., Kupiszewski, M., 2009. Rural Demography. EDORA Project, WorkingPaper 1 (Annex 1). ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute, Luxembourg.

Kahila, P., Nemes, G., High, C., 2009. Institutional capacity. EDORA Project, WorkingPaper 7 (Annex1). ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute, Luxembourg.

Lamara, H., 2009. Les deux piliers de la construction territoriale: coordination desacteurs et ressources territoriales. Développement durable et territoires [on-line] URL: http://developpementdurable.revues.org/8208.

Langlais, R., Tepecik Dis, A., 2009. Climate Change. EDORA Project, Working Paper 8(Annex 1). ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute, Luxembourg.

Leach, M. (Ed.), 2008. Re-framing Resilience: a Symposium Report. STEPS Centre,University of Sussex, Brighton.

Lévy, J., 2003. Territoire. In: Lévy, J., Lussault, M. (Eds.), Dictionnaire de la géo-graphie et de l’espace des sociétés. Belin, Paris, pp. 907e910.

Lévy, J., Lussault, M. (Eds.), 2003. Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l’espace dessociétés. Editions Belin, Paris.

Limburg, K.E., O’Neill, R.V., Costanza, R., Farber, S., 2002. Complex systems andvaluation. Ecol. Econ. 41 (3), 409e420.

Löber, G., Staat, M., 2010. Integrating categorical variables in data envelopmentanalysis models: a simple solution technique. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 202 (3), 810e818.

Longino, C., 2001. Demographic trends and migration issues for rural communities.Public Policy Ageing Rep. 12 (1), 103e124.

Lussault, M., 2007. L’homme spatial: la construction sociale de l’espace humain.Seuil, Paris.

MacLeod, M., Van Well, L., Sterling, J., Kahila, P., 2009. The Role of Cultural Heritagein Rural Development. EDORA Project, Working Paper 5 (Annex 1). ESPON &UHI Millennium Institute, Luxembourg.

Marsden, T., Little, J., 1990. Political, Social and Economic Perspectives on the In-ternational Food System. Avebury Press, Aldershot.

McManus, P., Walmsley, J., Bourke, L., Argent, N., Baum, S., Martin, J., Pritchard, B.,Sorensen, A., 2012. Rural community and rural resilience: what is important tofarmers in keeping their country towns alive? J. Rural Stud. 28 (1), 20e29.

Moine, A., 2006. Le territoire comme un système complexe: un concept opératoirepour l’aménagement et la géographie. Esp. Géogr. 35, 115e132.

Moyano, E., 2008. Capital social y acción colectiva en el sector agrario. Rev. Esp.Sociol. 10, 15e37.

Nelson, D.R., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., 2007. Adaptation to environmental change:contributions of a resilience framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 395e419.

Nelson, R., Sampat, B., 2001. Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping eco-nomic performance. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 44 (1), 31e54.

Newman, D. (Ed.), 1999a. Boundaries, Territory and Postmodernity. Frank Cass,London.

Newman, D., 1999b. Geopolitics renaissant: territory, sovereignty and the worldpolitical map. In: Newman, D. (Ed.), Boundaries, Territory and Postmodernity.Frank Cass, London, pp. 1e16.

Nkhata, A.B., Breen, C.M., Freimund, W.A., 2008. Resilient social relationships andcollaboration in the management of socialeecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 13 (1),2 (online) URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art2/.

Noguera-Tur, J., García-García, M.M., Veloso-Pérez, E., Lückenkötter, J., 2009. Reviewof Current Situation and Trends: Access to Services of General Interest. EDORAProject, Working Paper 6 (Annex 1). ESPON & UHI Millennium Institute,Luxembourg.

North, D., Smallbone, D., 1996. Small business development in remote rural areas:the example of mature manufacturing firms in Northern England. J. Rural Stud.12 (2), 151e167.

North, D., Smallbone, D., 2000. The innovativeness and growth of rural SMEs in the1990s. Reg. Stud. 34 (2), 145e157.

OECD, 2001. Territorial Outlook 2001, Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD), Paris.

Paasi, A., 1999. Boundaries as social processes: territoriality in a world of flows. In:Newman, D. (Ed.), Boundaries, Territory and Postmodernity. Frank Cass, London,pp. 69e88.

Paasi, A., 2003. Territory. In: Agnew, J., Mitchell, K., Toal, G. (Eds.), A Companion toPolitical Geography. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 109e122.

Painter, J., 2010. Rethinking territory. Antipode 42, 1090e1118.Pecqueur, B., 2001. Qualité et développement territorial: L’hypothèse du panier de

biens et de services territorialisés. Econ. Rurale 261, 37e49.Pecqueur, B., 2004. Vers une géographie économique et culturelle autour de la

notion de territoire. Rev. Géogr. Cult. 49, 71e86.Pendall, R., Foster, K., Cowell, M., 2010. Resilience and regions: building under-

standing of the metaphor. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 3 (1), 71e84.Pike, A., Dawley, S., Tomaney, J., 2010. Resilience, adaptation and adaptability. Camb.

J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 3 (1), 59e70.Pinchemel, P., Pinchemel, G., 1997. La Face de la Terre. A. Colin, Paris.Plummer, R., Armitage, D., 2007. A resilience-based framework for evaluating

adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complexworld. Ecol. Econ. 61 (1), 62e74.

Porter, M.E., Ketels, H.M., 2003. UK Competitiveness: Moving to the Next Stage.Department of Trade and Industry Economics Paper No. 3. Department of Tradeand Industry, London.

Putnam, R., 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Putnam, R., 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J. Democr. 6(10), 65e78.

Raffestin, C., 1980. Pour une géographie du pouvoir. Litec, Paris.Raffestin, C., 1986. Ecogenèse territoriale et territorialité. In: Auriac, F., Brunet, R.

(Dirs.), Espaces, jeux et enjeux. Fayard, Paris.Ray, C., 1998. Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development. Sociol.

Rural. 38 (1), 3e20.Reig, E., 2010. Análisis del potencial socioeconómico de municipios rurales con

métodos no paramétricos: Aplicación al caso de una zona Leader. Documentode Trabajo n�4/2010, Fundación BBVA, Bilbao.

Reimer, B., 2003. The New Rural Economy Project: What Have we Learned?. PaperPrepared for Presentation to the Rural Sociological Society, Montreal.

Rimisp, 2007. Rural Territorial Dynamics: A Research-based Policy Advice andCapacity-Development Program for Rural Economic Growth, Social Inclusionand Sound Environmental Governance. Latin American Center for RuralDevelopment, Santiago de Chile.

Sack, R.D., 1986. Human Territoriality. Its Theory and History. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Sack, R.D., 1997. Homo Geographicus. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimoreand London.

Sánchez, J.E., 1991. Espacio, economía y sociedad. Siglo XXI, Barcelona.Schneider, S., Peyré, I.G., 2006. Territorio y enfoque territorial: De las referencias

cognitivas a los aportes aplicados al análisis de los procesos sociales rurales. In:Manzanal, M., Neiman, G., Lattuada, M. (Eds.), Desarrollo rural. Organizaciones,Instituciones y Territorio. Ciccus, Buenos Aires, pp. 71e102.

Schouten, M.A.H., Martijn van der Heide, C., Heijman, W.J.M., Opdam, P.F.M., 2012.A resilience based policy evaluation framework: application to European ruraldevelopment policies. Ecol. Econ. 81, 165e175.

Simmie, J., Martin, R., 2010. The economic resilience of regions: towards anevolutionary approach. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 3 (1), 27e43.

Stayner, R., 2005. The changing economics of rural communities. In: Cocklin, C.,Dibdin, J. (Eds.), Sustainability and Change in Rural Australia. University of NewSouth Wales Press, Sydney, pp. 121e138.

Stewart, T.J., 1996. Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 47 (5), 654e665.

P. Sánchez-Zamora et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 35 (2014) 11e25 25

Stoker, G., 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50 (155),27e28.

Terluin, I., 2003. Differences in economic development in rural regions of advancedcountries: an overview and critical analysis of theories. J. Rural Stud. 19 (3),327e344.

Terluin, I., Post, J.H., 2000. Employment Dynamics in Rural Europe. CABI Publishing,Oxon.

Thanassoulis, E., 2001. Introduction to the Theory and Application of DataEnvelopment Análisis. A foundation text with integrated software.Springer.

Trivelli, C., Yancari, J., de los Ríos, C., 2009. Crisis and Rural Poverty in Latin America.Rural Territorial Dynamics Program, working paper 37. Rimisp, Santiago deChile.

Van Der Ploeg, J.D., 1990. Labour, Markets and Agricultural Production. WestviewPress, San Francisco y Oxford.

van Dam, F., Heins, S., Elbersen, B.S., 2002. Lay discourses of the rural and states andrevealed preferences for rural living: some evidence of the existence of a ruralIdyll in the Netherlands. J. Rural. Stud. 18 (4), 461e476.

Van Der Ploeg, J.D., 1992. The reconstitution of locality: technology and labour inmodern agriculture. In: Marsden, T., Lowe, P., Whatmore, S. (Eds.), Labour andLocality: Uneven Development and the Rural Labour Process. David Fulton,London, pp. 19e43.

Van der Ploeg, J.D., Marsden, T., 2008. Unfolding Webs: the Dynamics of RegionalRural Development. Van Gorcum, Assen.

Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability andtransformability in socialeecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9 (2), 5 (online) URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/.

Wells, H., 2009. Resilient Local Economies: Preparing for the Recovery. ExperianInsight Report, Quarter 4. Experian, Nottingham.

Whiteley, P., 2000. Economic growth and social capital. Polit. Stud. 48 (3), 443e466.Wilson, G., 2010. Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural community resilience. Trans.

Inst. Br. Geogr. 35 (3), 364e381.Woolcock, M., 2001. The place of social capital in understanding social and eco-

nomic outcomes. ISUMA Can. J. Policy Res. 2 (1), 11e17.Woolcock, M., Narayan, D., 2000. Social Capital: implications for development

theory, research, and policy. World Bank. Res. Observer 15 (2), 225e249.