Situación de los principales Destinos Turísticos Inteligentes

Urban-rural dichotomy, divide and difference underlines urban versus rural and relationship, relation, interdependency, linkages, partnership, transactions and transformation focuses urban with rural on the contrary. Classification of these conceptual definitions of urban-rural relationship which is taken from the work of Tacoli (1998) and Bah et. al. (2003) requires a division into determinants which considers access to productive units, natural resources, social services, employment, credits/assets, transportation, markets and variations of relationship determined by locational, household and individual factors. Concluding the classification of descriptive definitions requires the overview of concepts trying to collect them with their similar and differentiating notions in to an inclusive frame.

Secondly, empirical studies of the literature are taken under a survey under the guidance of the two conceptual works mentioned above to focus on the time-space variations in several territories in the world of urban-rural relationships. As an introductive step, subjected literatures general and related content is expressed and projected as our second data set to be evaluated in terms of their focus on time period, scalar preferences considering their territorial field of study and attention on linkages and/or flows across concerned territories. Considering linkages within migrant networks between rural producers and urban traders, household dynamics, gender and generation relations and flows of people, goods, wastes and sectoral interactions, geographical differences across global territories needs evaluation.

Therefore, empirical parts of the literature that deals with urban-rural relationship listed under a second framework to discuss the findings about the relative spatial variations of linkages between urban and rural areas across various regions of the world.

Thus, time-space focus on the urban-rural relationships literature survey concludes the aim to trace and frame changing patterns of urban-rural relationships literature with a discussion on the contemporary state of these relationships across the subjected parts of the world concerning the variations along with their contradictory development paths. End of the chapter revises two ways of illustrations to frame literature of urban-rural relationship into an inclusive concept and to screen global variations of urban-rural relationships in order to set a framework to understand diversification of rural areas in following chapters.

Seperately visualized global variance of urban rural relationships illustrated in two frames inspired by radar charts that collects six global territories determinants in chart of linkages and chart of flows (Figure 3.9). Each chart expresses determinants influence for each global territory in local, national and global (the order distributed inward to the center) scales. Linkages as migrant networks, production-trade linkages, household dynamics and gender and generational relations coded as “a, b, c and d”, and flows of people, flows of goods, flows of wastes and sectoral interactions coded as “e, f, g and h”. Differences between the influences of determinants in three-scaled evaluation of global territories give significant spatial divergences and convergences to highlight.

Figure 3.9: Chart of linkages and chart of flows.

Interpretation of linkages among global territories shows obvious differences.

Sharpest one is that Sub-Saharan African territories include almost all influences of linkages in all three scales and on the contrary, European territory has few influences of considered linkages. The difference might give the evidence to argue the strong linkages of Sub-Saharan Africa in all aspects together with carrying both opportunities and issues that crosscut spatial interactions of the territory in almost every scale. Majority of spatial interactions influences, which crosscut three scales, seem clustered in developing territories, in other words “The Global South” of the world. This might show the attempt of The Global South to integrate into global and national networks comparing to North American and European Territories. The Global North on the other hand seems to be least integrated into global networks, which is misleading. Argument that is more coherent might be the European and North American origin literatures inward-oriented emphasis on the spatial interactions. Comparison of linkages according to territories shows that production-trade linkages covers all five territoties pathways of scales, keeping the North American territory as an exception. So that linkages related with production and trade still have the majority among all spatial interactions. Gender and generational relations on the contrary, have comperatively least emphasized linkages. Migrant networks importance differentiates by the scale they reinforce spatial interactions.

While North America, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa’s migrant networks shaped by global-national dynamics, East Asia, Southeast Asian and European territories migrant ties seem more dense in national dynamics. Finally, the interpretation shows that only Sub-Saharan African household dynamics play role in global scale.

Interpretation of geographical flows shows the comperatively more evenly distributed composition of flow paths among global territories than paths of linkages.

Similarly, most local-national-global territorial integration observed for Sub-Saharan Africa. In the opposite, the least influence of flows take place in Southeast Asia, which perhaps not because this relatively empty pie of radar reflects the reality of contemporary urban-rural relationships in the territory, but because the surveyed literature did not focus on such interactions. Apart from more homogenously distributed flow paths of Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia, remaining four global territories seem influenced specifically by national and global dynamics. Focus on

flows one by one reveals that only Latin American and Sub-Saharan African territories have flows of people beyond local and national contexts. That does not mean other territories societies limited commuting across different spatial spheres but may highlight the historical origins and contemporary tendencies of tight ties of these two territories human mobility. Flows of goods dealt within all territories, which overlap with production-trade linkages dominance in the first illustrated frame. Excepting East Asia and Southeast Asia, remaining four territories goods flows dealt in their national or local context, which might help to argue these two territories export-oriented political and economic structure in the world order of spatial interactions. The last but not the least, the emphases given on flows of wastes within territories shows a general neglect for the issue.