Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright page -- Table of Contents -- List of Boxes -- List of Figures -- List of Figures (in Boxes) -- List of Tables -- List of Tables (in Boxes) -- List of Plates -- List of Plates (in Boxes) -- List of Contributors -- PART ONE: INTRODUCTION -- 1 Contested Worlds: An Introduction -- 2 Philosophical Arguments in Human Geography -- PART TWO: GLOBAL WORLDS -- 3 Unravelling the Web of Theory: Changing Geographical Perspectives on Development -- 4 Global Crises? Issues in Population and the Environment -- 5 Nation States and Super-States: The Geopolitics of the New World Order -- PART THREE: REGIONAL WORLDS -- 6 Inequalities at the Core: A Discussion of Regionality in the EU and UK -- 7 Southeast Asian Development: Miracle or Mirage -- 8 Post-Socialist East and Central Europe -- PART FOUR: LOCAL WORLDS -- 9 Places on the Margin: The Spatiality of Exclusion -- 10 People in the Centre? The Contested Geographies of 'Gentrification' -- 11 People in a Marginal Periphery -- PART FIVE: SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS -- 12 Still Just Introducing the Contested Worlds of Human Geography -- References -- Index

AbstractShucksmith (2012) has recently suggested that rural research might be refreshed by incorporating theoretical insights that have emerged through a renewal of class analysis. This article seeks to advance this proposed research agenda by exploring the concept of asset‐based class analysis and its association with the concept of social capital. The article explores connections between social capital, class analysis and understandings of community, noting how all have been associated with long running and unresolved debates. Attention is drawn to the problems of modernist legislative approaches to these debates and the value of adopting more interpretive perspectives. A distinction between 'infrastructural' and 'culturalist' interpretations of social capital is explored in relation to 'asset‐based' theorisations of class and culture. It is argued that an infrastructural conception of social capital might usefully be employed in association with a disaggregated conception of cultural capital that includes consideration of emotion and affect, as well as institutional, objectified and technical assets. These arguments are explored using studies of rural communities, largely within Britain.

Shucksmith (2012) has recently suggested that rural research might be refreshed by incorporating theoretical insights that have emerged through a renewal of class analysis. This article seeks to advance this proposed research agenda by exploring the concept of asset‐based class analysis and its association with the concept of social capital. The article explores connections between social capital, class analysis and understandings of community, noting how all have been associated with long running and unresolved debates. Attention is drawn to the problems of modernist legislative approaches to these debates and the value of adopting more interpretive perspectives. A distinction between 'infrastructural' and 'culturalist' interpretations of social capital is explored in relation to 'asset‐based' theorisations of class and culture. It is argued that an infrastructural conception of social capital might usefully be employed in association with a disaggregated conception of cultural capital that includes consideration of emotion and affect, as well as institutional, objectified and technical assets. These arguments are explored using studies of rural communities, largely within Britain.

This paper suggests that recent debates over the future of rural studies have been, in some cases, highly dualistic, claiming that it is necessary to choose between political–economy or poststructuralism and between adopting a structuralist/modernist class–analysis or a poststructuralism/postmodernism in which class does not figure. It is argued that there are good reasons for resisting such constructions of choice, and the paper seeks to demonstrate the value of paying attention to discursive constructions of class. Drawing on four pieces of rural research, it is suggested that class is still a salient discursive construct, both within popular images of rurality and within the descriptions of rural life made by, at least some, rural residents. It is also argued that while many rural residents do explicitly reject class identities, often preferring to construct identities through a range of rural lifestyle discourses, these themselves often draw upon cultural textures of class

Shucksmith (2012) has recently suggested that rural research might be refreshed by incorporating theoretical insights that have emerged through a renewal of class analysis. This article seeks to advance this proposed research agenda by exploring the concept of asset-based class analysis and its association with the concept of social capital. The article explores connections between social capital, class analysis and understandings of community, noting how all have been associated with long running and unresolved debates. Attention is drawn to the problems of modernist legislative approaches to these debates and the value of adopting more interpretive perspectives. A distinction between 'infrastructural' and 'culturalist' interpretations of social capital is explored in relation to 'asset-based' theorisations of class and culture. It is argued that an infrastructural conception of social capital might usefully be employed in association with a disaggregated conception of cultural capital that includes consideration of emotion and affect, as well as institutional, objectified and technical assets. These arguments are explored using studies of rural communities, largely within Britain. ; Peer-reviewed ; Publisher Version

It is now over 50 years since the term 'gentrification' was first coined by the British urbanist Ruth Glass in 1964, in which time gentrification studies has become a subject in its own right. This Handbook, the first ever in gentrification studies, is a critical and authoritative assessment of the field. Although the Handbook does not seek to rehearse the classic literature on gentrification from the 1970s to the 1990s in detail, it is referred to in the new assessments of the field gathered in this volume. The original chapters offer an important dialogue between existing theory and new conceptualisations of gentrification for new times and new places, in many cases offering novel empirical evidence. Scholarly contributions are drawn from both established and up and coming experts in gentrification studies world-wide, and a deliberate attempt has been made to broaden the geographical scope of study. As such, the Handbook covers processes of gentrification in the global north and the global south. It also looks at different mutations of gentrification and pays proper attention to both resistance to gentrification and the importance of thinking about alternatives. The Handbook challenges readers to look at both the future of gentrification studies as well as the actual process of gentrification itself. Gentrification studies is interdisciplinary and this Handbook will be especially useful to scholars in many fields including geography, sociology, anthropology, planning, law, urban studies, policy studies, rural studies, development studies, and cultural studies. It will also be of value to those activists fighting gentrification worldwide

AbstractAlternative food network research has referred to farm shops but rarely examined them in detail. This article argues that farm shops are not simply places of exchange but are complex, immersive, sensory‐rich places of meaning and experience. These arguments are developed through a study that adopts an interpretive/embodied perspective on conventions and applies them through a multi‐methods approach, incorporating autoethnography, interviews, a questionnaire and website analysis. The influence of farm shop interiors and farm context were investigated through thematic analysis. It was found that consumers desired a rustic interior aesthetic, an external ambience enabling exploration and an opportunity to escape time poverty through consumption. Farm shop owners endeavoured to provide a rich multi‐sensory interactive consumption experience, encompassing both enterprise buildings and surrounding farm sites. It is argued that use of 'farm‐site' consumption experiences distinguishes these enterprises from each other, contributes to consumer immersion and positively contributes to the collective identity of 'farm shops'. Furthermore, the provision of retroscaped experiential consumption promises resilience from supermarket co‐optation.

This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Dialogues in Human Geography and the definitive published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820617752009 ; The epistemologies and politics of comparative research are prominently debated within urban studies, with 'comparative urbanism' emerging as a contemporary lexicon of urban studies. The study of urban gentrification has, after some delay, come to engage with these debates, which can be seen to pose a major challenge to the very concept of gentrification. To date, similar debates or developments have not unfolded within the study of rural gentrification. This article seeks to address some of the challenges posed to gentrification studies through an examination of strategies of comparison and how they might be employed within a comparative study of rural gentrification. Drawing on Tilly (Big structures Large Processes Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage), examples of four 'strategies of comparison' are identified within studies of urban and rural gentrification, before the paper explores how 'geographies of the concept' and 'geographies of the phenomenon' of rural gentrification in the United Kingdom, United States and France may be investigated using Latour's (Pandora's Hope. London: Harvard University Press) notion of 'circulatory sociologies of translation'. The aim of our comparative discussion is to open up dialogues on the challenges of comparative studies that employ conceptions of gentrification and also to promote reflections of the metrocentricity of recent discussions of comparative research.

The epistemologies and politics of comparative research are prominently debated within urban studies, with 'comparative urbanism' emerging as a contemporary lexicon of urban studies. The study of urban gentrification has, after some delay, come to engage with these debates, which can be seen to pose a major challenge to the very concept of gentrification. To date, similar debates or developments have not unfolded within the study of rural gentrification. This article seeks to address some of the challenges posed to gentrification studies through an examination of strategies of comparison and how they might be employed within a comparative study of rural gentrification. Drawing on Tilly (Big structures Large Processes Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage), examples of four 'strategies of comparison' are identified within studies of urban and rural gentrification, before the paper explores how 'geographies of the concept' and 'geographies of the phenomenon' of rural gentrification in the United Kingdom, United States and France may be investigated using Latour's (Pandora's Hope. London: Harvard University Press) notion of 'circulatory sociologies of translation'. The aim of our comparative discussion is to open up dialogues on the challenges of comparative studies that employ conceptions of gentrification and also to promote reflections of the metrocentricity of recent discussions of comparative research.

Cover -- Book Title -- Copyright -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Picture Credits -- Foreword -- Prologue -- Chapter One -- Chapter Two -- Chapter Three -- Chapter Four -- Chapter Five -- Chapter Six -- Chapter Seven -- Chapter Eight -- Chapter Nine -- Chapter Ten -- Chapter Eleven -- Chapter Twelve -- Chapter Thirteen -- Chapter Fourteen -- Chapter Fifteen -- Chapter Sixteen -- Chapter Seventeen -- Plate section -- Chapter Eighteen -- Chapter Nineteen -- Chapter Twenty -- Chapter Twenty-One -- Chapter Twenty-Two -- Chapter Twenty-Three -- Chapter Twenty-Four -- Chapter Twenty-Five -- Chapter Twenty-Six -- Chapter Twenty-Seven -- Chapter Twenty-Eight -- Chapter Twenty-Nine -- Chapter Thirty -- Chapter Thirty-One -- Chapter Thirty-Two -- Chapter Thirty-Three -- Index -- Back Cover.

AbstractThis paper brings together research on rural gentrification with emerging work on lived landscapes that has emphasized the intertwining of the human and more‐than‐human with the performance of activities of everyday living and their affective significance. It draws on research examining rural gentrification in three contrasting landscapes, termed 'the wood', 'the village' and 'the moortop'. These landscapes connect to earlier studies of rural social change and gentrification in England, with 'the wood' and 'the village' being sites research by Ray Pahl and the 'moortop' one of the landscapes identified in Darren Smith and Deborah Phillips' examination of the role of representations of rurality in processes of rural gentrification. The paper draws on research that returned to the locations of this earlier research, and seeks to re‐examine arguments advanced by these studies about the formation of socially differentiated worlds and representations of rurality through a lived‐landscape perspective.