Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rural-Urban Policies: Changing Conceptions of the Human-Environment Relationship

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Globalisation and Change in Forest Ownership and Forest Use

  • 348 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter describes how understandings of the “rural” have progressed from a focus on either decline or amenity, whereby these more simplified understandings can be seen to have had an impact on rural policy development. The chapter argues that rural areas, including forests, need to be understood in relation to both production and integration with urban landscapes. It thus illustrates the role of both historical processes and policy in creating current understandings of the rural: drawing upon an example from the Swedish case, it amongst others shows that a redistributive tax system has played a larger and more crucial role than rural policy in retaining active rural areas in Sweden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rural gentrification is often seen as “tied to economic restructuring and the creation of footloose service workers, declining employment in the traditionally resource based sectors, an aging population with loosening ties to the labor market, the rise of leisure and concurrent proliferation of second homes, dissatisfaction with suburban living, and the pursuit of a perceived higher quality of life available in the countryside” (Nelson et al. 2010). Thus, for instance, “[c]ounter-urbanization, net in-migration from urban to rural areas , has characterized the UK for over forty years and is a feature of an increasing number of OECD countries. While young adults continue to leave rural areas for enhanced opportunities in urban labour markets, rural areas have been the net recipients of persons in their mid-to-late forties, pre-retirement aged persons, and retirees” (Ward and Brown 2009: 1242).

  2. 2.

    There is thus a clear family connection. Rye and Gunnerud Berg note: “Often the second home is also a place for spending time with relatives, since the second home may represent long term ties to places and the use of it is a way of preserving these ties. More than a half of the informants in [a] … survey reported that their second home was located in a municipality where other members of their family resided. Further, most Norwegian second homes have been in family ownership for years, if not generations.… Thus, for many their second home may represent more permanence in their family history than their first home” (Rye and Gunnerud Berg 2011: 134–135). Nevertheless, they note, the “second home phenomenon has been largely neglected within rural studies” (Rye and Gunnerud Berg 2011: 135).

  3. 3.

    Reterritorialisation processes (e.g. Horlings and Marsden 2014) aiming to create more regional or local systems to counteract trends may constitute potential counterweights to such processes but are ultimately also affected by larger frameworks.

  4. 4.

    Some local voices claim that it would be better for the sparsely populated, but often large by land area, municipalities mainly located in northern Sweden to receive, for example, company taxes, preferably as a supplement to today’s equalisation system. These considerations highlight the fact that tax systems are based on the residence or registered location of companies, so businesses owned by people registered outside the municipality or in-commuters do not generate municipal tax and that company tax is not paid to the government. Similar considerations exist with regard to second homes, where one proposal is that taxes should be split between first (where all municipal tax is currently paid) and second homes due to the fact that many people spend substantial amounts of time in their second homes (cf. e.g. Rye 2011). This has also been underpinned by the situation that second homes require service provision, and the second-home population may outnumber local population in peak season and impose requirements for services to cope with this demand. Although localities may benefit greatly from the associated purchases of local municipal and business products and services “the costs of adjusting the infrastructure of public services to meet the demands of the second home populations may exceed these income sources” (Rye 2011: 264). Issues of local funds or mineral tax (and distribution) to manage or compensate municipal investment in cases of bankruptcy or environmental restoration in cases of abandonment or environmental risks are also other issues of potential increased funding at municipal levels that have been discussed. However (as illustrated above), national redistribution in these cases is substantial and cannot be replaced—only potentially added to—by changes in company taxation and second-home taxation to better approximate the potentially larger share of rural-urban habitation.

References

  • Almås, R. (2016). Omstart. Forslag til ein ny landbrukspolitikk. Melhus: Snøfugl forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almstedt, Å., Brouder, P., Karlsson, S., & Lundmark, L. (2014). Beyond post-productivism: From rural policy discourse to rural diversity. European Countryside, 6, 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almstedt, Å., Lundmark, L., & Pettersson, Ö. (2016). Public spending on rural tourism in Sweden. Fennia, 194(1), 18–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonsson, H., & Jansson, U. (2011). Introduction. Agriculture and forestry in a century of change. In H. Antonsson & U. Jansson (Eds.), Agriculture and forestry in Sweden since 1900. Stockholm: The Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, J. C. (2008). Family forest owners. In E. M. Donoghue & V. E. Sturtevant (Eds.), Community and forest connections (pp. 205–218). Washington, DC: Resources for the future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, J. C., & Kelly, E. C. (2008). Comparative advantages of small-scale forestry among emerging forestland tenures. Small-Scale Forestry, 7(1), 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blunden, J., & Curry, N. (1993). A future for our countryside. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, P., Halfacree, K., & Robinson, V. (1998). Exploring contemporary migration. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouder, P., Karlsson, S., & Lundmark, L. (2015). Hyper-production: A new metric of multifunctionality. European Countryside, 3, 134–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copus, A. K., Psaltopoulos, D., Skuras, D., Terluin, I., & Weingarten, P. (2008). Approaches to rural typology in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ds. (1999). Regionalpolitiken—En ESO-rapport om tro och vetande. Stockholm: Expertgruppen för Studier i Offentlig ekonomi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edlin, H. (1949). Woodland crafts in Britain: An account of the traditional uses of trees and timbers in the British countryside. London: Batsford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elands, B. H. M., & Praestholm, S. (2008). Landowners’ perspectives on the rural future and the role of forests across Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 72–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eskilsson, A. (2009). Natur och kultur i förening? Verksamheten i hembygdsföreningar. In Kultur-Natur: Konferens för kulturstudier i Sverige: Conference in Sweden, June 15–17 (p. 143).

    Google Scholar 

  • Flygare, I., & Isacson, M. (2003). Jordbruket i välfärdssamhället: 1945–2000. Det svenska jordbrukets historia. Natur och Kultur i samarbete med Nordiska museet och Stift. Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, G. (2005). Landsbygder i omvandling. In G. Forsberg (Ed.), Planeringens utmaningar och tillämpningar (pp. 203–214). Uppsala: Uppsala Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fothergill, S., & Gudgin, G. (1982). Unequal growth: Urban and regional employment in the United Kingdom. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisvoll, S., Storstad, O., Villa, M., Flø, B. E., & Almås, R. (2015). Kommunereformen og øykommuner uten landfast forbindelse. Rapport 1. Trondheim: Norsk senter for bygdeforskning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halfacree, K. (1993). Locality and social representation: Space, discourse and alternative definitions of rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, C., & Haandrikman, K. (2014). Repopulation of the Swedish countryside: Globalisation by international migration. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 128–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, M. (2016). Mapping the socioeconomic landscape of rural Sweden: Developing a typology of rural areas. Regional Studies, 50(3), 460–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidle, K., Cruickshank, J., & Nesje, L. M. (2006). Market, commodity, resource, and strength: Logics of Norwegian rurality. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift [Norwegian Journal of Geography], 60(3), 189–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjort, S. (2009). Socio-economic differentiation and selective migration in rural and urban Sweden. Report GERUM, Umeå University, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, I., & Monk, S. (2004). The economic diversity of rural England: Stylised fallacies and uncertain evidence. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoggart, K. (1990). Let’s do away with rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 6(3), 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horlings, L. G., & Marsden, T. K. (2014). Exploring the ‘new rural paradigm’ in Europe: Eco-economic strategies as a counterforce to the global competitiveness agenda. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(1), 4–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilbery, B. (Ed.). (1998). The geography of rural change. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, P. H., & Nielsen, N. C. (2012). Bridging between the regional degree and the community approaches to rurality—A suggestion for a definition of rurality for everyday use. Land Use Policy, 29(4), 781–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R., Shubin, S., & Thelen, T. (2012). Editorial: Rural realities in the post-socialist space. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2004). Negotiating the Arctic. The construction of an international region. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, E. C. H., Malmberg, G., Westin, K., Wiberg, U., Müller, D., & Pettersson, Ö. (2013). Contrasting Arctic and mainstream Swedish descriptions of Northern Sweden: The view from established domestic research. Arctic, 66(3), 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Southcott, C. (2015). Globalisation. In J. Nymand Larsen & G. Fondahl (Eds.), Arctic human development report. Regional processes and global linkages. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, H. (Ed.). (2014). Utsyn over norsk landbruk. Tilstand og utviklingstrekk 2014. Oslo: Norsk institutt for landbruksøkonomisk forskning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazlo Ambjörnsson, E., Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Karlsson, S. (2016). Forest discourses and the role of planning-related perspectives: The case of Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 31(1), 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madureira, L., Koehnen, T., Pires, M., Baptista, A., Cristovão, A., & Ferreira, D. (2014, September). The effectiveness of advisory services to respond to demands of diverse types of small-scale farmers: New small-scale farmers in the small fruits sector in Portugal. Report for AKIS on the ground: Focusing knowledge flow systems (WP4) of the PRO AKIS project. Retrieved from www.proakis.eu/publicationsandevents/pubs

  • del Mármol, C., & Vaccaro, I. (2015). Changing ruralities: Between abandonment and redefinition in the Catalan Pyrenees. Anthropological Forum: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Comparative Sociology, 25(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T. (1998). New rural territories: Regulating the differentiated rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., & Flynn, A. (1993). Constructing the countryside. Restructuring rural areas 1. London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morell, M. (1997). Family farms and agricultural mechanization in Sweden before world war II. In L. Jonung & R. Ohlsson (Eds.), The economic development of Sweden since 1870 (The economic development of Modern Europe since 1870) (pp. 67–86). London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, T. H., Lane, M. B., & Hibbard, M. (2015). Planning, governance and rural futures in Australia and the USA: Revisiting the case for rural regional planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(9), 1601–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, S. (2013). Transition culture: Politics, localities and ruralities. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. B., Oberg, A., & Nelson, L. (2010). Rural gentrification and linked migration in the United States. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 343–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orwell, G. (1947). The English people. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paniagua, A. (2014). Rurality, identity and morality in remote rural areas in Northern Spain. Journal of Rural Studies, 35, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson, Ö. (2001). Microregional fragmentation in a Swedish county. Papers in Regional Science, 80(4), 389–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson, Ö. (2002). Socio-economic dynamics in sparse regional structures. Report GERUM kulturgeografi. Umeå: Kulturgeografiska institutionen/SMC, Umeå University, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson, Ö., & Westholm, E. (1998). Gräddhyllor och fattigfickor. En mikroregional analys av välfärdens geografiska fördelning i Dalarna. Dfr-rapport 1998:1. Dalarnas forskningsråd, Falun.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risku-Norja, H., Voutilainen, O., & Yli-Viikari, A. (2010). Rural development in Finland: Revival of a natural resource sectors perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 24(1), 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rye, J. F. (2011). Conflicts and contestations. Rural populations’ perspectives on the second homes phenomenon. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rye, J. F., & Gunnerud Berg, N. (2011). The second home phenomenon and Norwegian rurality. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift [Norwegian Journal of Geography], 65(3), 126–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. (2006). Strategic spatial planning and contested ruralities: Insights from the republic of Ireland. European Planning Studies, 14(6), 811–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. (2008). Managing rural change and competing rationalities: Insights from conflicting rural storylines and local policy making in Ireland. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(1), 9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slätmo, E. (2014). Agricultural land use change in Sweden and Norway. An analysis of driving forces and the potential to influence change through policy. Publications edited by the Departments of Geography, University of Gothenburg, Series B, no. 125. (Dissertation) Department of Economy and Society, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slee, R. W. (2005). From countrysides of production to countrysides of consumption? Journal of Agricultural Science (Centenary Review), 143, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slee, B. (2015). Is there a case for community-based equity participation in Scottish on-shore wind energy production? Gaps in evidence and research needs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 540–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slee, W., Evans, R., & Roberts, D. (2004). Forestry in the rural economy: A new approach to assessing the impact of forestry on rural development. Forestry, 77(5), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SOU. (2015). Demografins regional utmaningar. Bilaga 7 till Långtidsutredningen 2015, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Norway. (2013). Mer regional spredning av arbeidsinnvandring. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from https://www.ssb.no/forskning/demografi-og-levekaar/befolkningsutvikling-flytting-og-dodelighet/mer-regional-spredning-av-arbeidsinnvandring

  • Statistics Norway. (2015). Flyttinger, 2015. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/statistikker/flytting

  • Statistics Sweden (SCB). (2016a). Statistics Sweden. Retrieved January 21, 2016, from http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__OE__OE0115/KomEkUtj/?rxid=e6fafc7e-b416-455e-8356-ccf600df1577

  • Statistics Sweden (SCB). (2016b). Statistics Sweden. Retrieved January 2, 2016, from http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Statistik-efter-amne/Offentlig-ekonomi/Finanser-for-den-kommunala-sektorn/Kommunalskatterna/11849/11856/67873/

  • Statskontoret. (2014). Det kommunala utjämningssystemet—En beskrivning av systemet från 2014. Stockholm, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stjernström, O., Karlsson, S., & Pettersson, P. (2013). Skogen och den kommunala planeringen [The forest and municipal comprehensive planning] PLAN, Nr. 1. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stjernström, O., & Lundmark, L. (2009). Environmental protection: An instrument for regional development? National ambitions versus local realities in the case of tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 9(4), 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storstad, O., & Rønning, L. (2014). Trender i norsk landbruk 2014. Med utviklingstrekk fra 2002 til 2014. Rapport 6. Trondheim: Norsk senter for bygdeforskning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillväxtanalys. (2012). Från aktiv lokaliseringspolitik till regional politik. Working Paper 2012:18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Törnqvist, G. (1963). Studier i industrilokalisering. Meddelanden från geografiska institutionen vid Stockholms universitet Nr. 153. Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallander, J. (1948). Flykten från Skogsbygden. Stockholm: Industriens Utredningsinstitut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, N., & Brown, D. L. (2009). Placing the rural in regional development. Regional Studies, 43(10), 1237–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westlund, H. (2004). Regionala effekter av högre utbildning, högskolor och universitet—En kunskapsöversikt. ITPS A2004:002, Östersund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wibberley, G. (1981). Strong agricultures but weak rural economies—The undue emphasis on agriculture in European rural development. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 8(2–3), 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiest, K. (2016). Migration and everyday discourses: Peripheralisation in rural Saxony-Anhalt from a gender perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 43, 280–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, M. (2011). Rural. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    E. Carina H. Keskitalo, Svante Karlsson, Urban Lindgren, Örjan Pettersson & Linda Lundmark

  2. James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, UK

    Bill Slee

  3. NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

    Mariann Villa

  4. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Diana Feliciano

Authors
  1. E. Carina H. Keskitalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Svante Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Urban Lindgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Örjan Pettersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Linda Lundmark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bill Slee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mariann Villa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Diana Feliciano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    E. Carina H. Keskitalo

Appendix: The Municipality Tax Equalisation System

Appendix: The Municipality Tax Equalisation System

The municipality tax equalisation system in Sweden consists of three parts, denoted as income equalisation, cost equalisation and structural grants. There are also two other posts (Swedish: “införandebidrag”, “regleringsbidrag”), but these are relatively insignificant in monetary terms.

Before 2005, the income equalisation system was based on the redistribution of tax revenues between municipalities. This was a zero-sum game to which the government made no additional contributions. Since 2005, the government contributes the main part of the redistributed sum while a minor part of the redistribution is financed by the municipalities with the highest tax capacity. The income equalisation system is based on the national average taxable income per inhabitant. The government then adds another 15 per cent, which means that the basis for the realignment of taxes (Swedish: skatteutjämningsunderlaget) amounts to 115 per cent of the average tax capacity. For each municipality, the basis for the realignment of taxes is subtracted from the municipality tax capacity. A grant is given to municipalities where the difference is positive, while municipalities showing a negative difference have to pay a fee (Statskontoret 2014). The amount of money the municipalities pay or receive is determined by a tax rate defined by the county. For 2015, municipalities received SEK 64.6 billion and paid SEK 4.2 billion. This implies that the government paid approximately SEK 60 billion to the municipalities within the income equalisation system (SOU 2015: 101). The municipalities of Årjäng, Eda and Bjurholm received the most from this system, collecting SEK 16,600, SEK 16,100 and SEK 15,600 per inhabitant, respectively. The municipality of Vilhelmina received SEK 14,200 per inhabitant. Fifteen municipalities paid fees to the income equalisation system (SCB 2016a, b).

The aim of the cost equalisation system is to take into account structural differences between municipalities. Cost differences may vary due to municipal needs and costs for producing services. Municipalities with a large share of children and adolescents have higher costs for childcare and schools, and those with small populations located in rural areas also face higher costs for schools since, for example, teaching has to be carried out in smaller classes. The fundamental idea behind the cost equalisation system is that it will compensate municipalities for costs they cannot control.

The cost equalisation system constitutes ten sub-models that take into account many differences between municipalities. The most important parts refer to childcare, elderly care, the nine-year compulsory school, upper secondary school, and individual and family social care. In each of the sub-models, a standard cost (SEK per inhabitant) is calculated. If the standard cost of a municipality exceeds the weighted average cost (taking into consideration population numbers) across all municipalities, the municipality receives additional funds, whereas there will be a deduction if it is the other way round. On the basis of all the calculated standard costs within each of the ten sub-models, a total structural cost (Swedish: strukturkostnad) is obtained (SEK per inhabitant). Municipalities ending up with a structural cost that is higher than the average structural cost across municipalities receive a cost equalisation contribution from the government, corresponding to the difference between the two factors. If the municipality structural cost is less than the average structural cost, the municipality has to pay the difference to the government. This is a zero-sum game, to which the state makes no additional contributions (Statskontoret 2014). Data collected in 2015 show that the municipalities of Dorotea, Åsele and Bjurholm receive the highest amount of cost equalisation—SEK 11,400, SEK 11,200 and SEK 10,700 per inhabitant, respectively. The amount per inhabitant received by Vilhelmina amounts to SEK 9527 (SCB 2016a, b).

Structural grants are given to municipalities as compensation for changes that occurred during the shift to the new tax equalisation system in 2005. In broad terms, it can be concluded that municipalities receiving structural grants have small populations. They also belong to a group of municipalities that, in 2013, were given support to strengthen their local employment situations and local trade and industry. The grant, expressed as SEK per inhabitant, is not adjusted for inflation, but population changes influence the amount received (Statskontoret 2014). For 2015, the municipalities of Gällivare (5000 per inhabitant), Kiruna (SEK 4800) and Övertorneå (SEK 4800) received the highest structural grants. Vilhelmina ’s structural grant amounted to SEK 2500 per inhabitant (SCB 2016a, b).

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Keskitalo, E.C.H. et al. (2017). Rural-Urban Policies: Changing Conceptions of the Human-Environment Relationship. In: Keskitalo, E. (eds) Globalisation and Change in Forest Ownership and Forest Use. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57116-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57116-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57115-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57116-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation