ABSTRACT
Eurostat-OECD, 2005). The change of urban-rural administrative boundary or status is
not only a statistical but also a social issue. Attitudes towards the change of place
meaning and identity depend on ideological and geographical context, and prevailing
existing urban-rural bias. “The rural-urban dichotomy is imputed with an array of ideo-
logical elements, all with different amplitudes and linkages to current and historical dis-
courses” (Andersson et al., 2009, p. 2). Rigg (1998, p. 504) highlights practical
difficulties associated with the process of urban-rural categorization: incorrect regis-
tration of a residence and the definition of a household that ignores multispatiality; mul-
tiple residence, cyclical migrations, various sources of incomes, including additional,
casual and informal; short-term versus long-term perspective, ignorance of an individual
lifespan context and other realities of life. Despite the deficiencies, urban and rural as cat-
egories and typologies are used for various administrative, legal, academic or popular pur-
poses (Schaffter et al., 2010, p. 3). “Categorization-whether binary or not-is more than
an aid to coping with complexity, however; it is also a means for creating our identities,
again both individual and collective” (Cloke & Johnston, 2005, p. 1). Urban-rural cat-
egory making is a part of a self-identification process, experienced as informal primary
socialization in early childhood, children culture and the content of text books. Urban-
rural disparities are basis for widely exploited urban-rural stereotypes. Both disparities
and stereotypes can become development potentials, barriers or forces for urban-rural
interactions. Individual memories of urban-rural experiences (work, life, leisure and
movements) are a part of life story narratives and self-reference and thus, influence
decision-making processes by adults (Beitnere, 2003). Increased human mobility (neo-
nomads), multilocal living and new kinds of rural-urban lifestyles, rural industries, ser-
vices, governance and regulation challenge traditional rural-urban dichotomy and fixed
place identities (Andersson et al., 2009). Exiting urban-rural data do not capture informal,
voluntary and emergent activities, unless field studies are conducted or social agents con-
sulted. Even micro-scale, meaningful urban-rural interactions at everyday-life level can
act as catalyser and driver of local development, particularly in remote areas. It is
crucial that policy-makers can have an access to such evidence-based information and
knowledge of urban-rural interactions.
