What Is New Ruralism and Why It Is Needed for Spatial Planning?

Focusing on Application to Korea as a New Rural Planning Principle

Abstract

Urban sprawl and the reckless development of the peri-urban area exacerbated problems in rural areas. Korea experienced the fastest growth among the other OECD countries. As the country became highly urbanized, the number of people residing in rural regions decreased drastically. In 2018, based on the OECD’s regional definition of access to cities, only 11% of Korean people live in rural areas. The attractiveness of rural areas and multifunctional values have become more important in contemporary society. Recently, new planning principles in rural areas have emerged in conjunction with globalization, post-productivism, and demanding rural tourism. This study explores the meaning of New ruralism and traces the emergence of New ruralism for rural planning principles. In addition, the study identifies the contents of the future vision of rural areas to be achieved through New ruralism. The study review focuses on the discourse about New ruralism in academic research papers. Literature was retrieved by searching on Google Scholar using the four keywords ‘new rurality’, ‘neo-rurality’, ‘new ruralism’, and ‘neo-ruralism’. The search yielded 128 documents, which were thereafter screened for relevance to this study’s purpose. After sifting, only 44 publications were found suitable for inclusion in the final analysis. Forty-four pieces of literature were analyzed by year, research area and subject. Four features from the New ruralism concept were found through content analysis. Those are ‘Conservation’, ‘Cultivation’, ‘Community’ and ‘Creativity’. This presents the rural planning principle of a creative space with new technological innovation while allowing New ruralism to enjoy urban convenience in a rural environment. In the end, the study discussed some implications on the application of New ruralism to Korea as a new spatial planning principle.

Introduction

Flow of the Ruralism Concept in Korea

Around 1945, many developing countries around the world promoted various forms of industrialization to modernize their underdeveloped societies, and Korea also promoted modernization in the 1960s (Yoon, 1985). Up until the time when Korea began to achieve modernization, the rural population had outnumbered the urban population. During the modernization period, the phenomenon of immigration from countryside to cities occurred, and the city became a space in which more people live than the countryside. The rural population compared to the total population in the 1970s was 57.4%, but decreased to 18.4% in 2015 (Jang and Lee, 2019). Rural areas are facing a crisis due to continuous population decline and aging.

Population migration aggravated the vulnerability of the existing rural system (Kim and Choi, 1998). Due to rapid urbanization, the continuous outflow of population from rural areas, aging, and consequent labour shortage and deterioration of the living environment overlapped, resulting in the destruction of the rural environment and loss of traditional culture. Moreover, there is a problem of the loss of overall function of rural areas that perform pluralistic functions such as food security, environmental conservation, balanced national land development, and inheritance of traditional culture and values (Lee, Lim et al., 2019).

Since 1984, the Korean government has laid the groundwork for rural development and revitalization of rural tourism through the ‘Rural development act’ and the ‘Rural village improvement act,’ etc. (Song, 2004).

The background of the rural village development project in Korea in this period was first a increase in demand for rural tourism due to the implementation of the five-day work week system; second, a decrease in agricultural income due to the expansion of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations after the WTO was launched; third, the boom of amenity and well-being; and fourth, progress in the era of localization and decentralization (Suh, 2006).

‘Ruralism’ has appeared as a content related to rural development revitalization in the 2003. ‘Plan to create a welfare village where everyone wants to live.’ is very important concept in the ‘Agricultural and rural support plan’ and the ‘Food industry development plan’ of Ministry of agriculture and forestry. In creating a rural area where everyone wants to live, the concept of ‘Welfare’ and ‘Ruralism’ was emphasized together. As such, the concept of ‘Ruralism’ has been very important in the development of rural areas in Korea since the 2000s.

Changes of the Ruralism Concept and the Emergence of the New Ruralism Concept in Korea

The concept of ‘Ruralism’ in Korea has been extended to New ruralism. It is a value and planning direction of rural areas as a sustainable ‘settlement space’ based on nature and community in terms of rurality, which seeks to find the true form of rural life in the past (Lee, Lim et al., 2019). Recently, the use of the term ‘Ruralism’ is increasing in Korea. Ruralism is sometimes used interchangeably with terms such as rurality and rural-like, but it is a more comprehensive term and more easily conveys the planning direction pursued by future-oriented rural areas (Son and Kim, 2019).

It is necessary to develop the ruralism discussion to the level of seeking the future rural planning direction. In other words, it is necessary to approach it from the principle of planning the future of rural areas for those who have migrated in pursuit of rural life and as a competitive and attractive residential space across the country. In a situation where the number of rural villages where the ratio of returnees accounts for more than half of the villages is increasing, the residential environment is changing from a ‘given’ to a ‘choice’ of a comfortable living environment. This is because the quality of the residential circumstance with ruralism is a key factor influencing these choices and acts as a driver of influx of a new population (Lee, Lim et al., 2019).

As shown in Figure 1, in studies conducted in Korea until 2018, the concept of ‘Ruralism’ was focused on maintenance and restoration based on rurality. However, in studies conducted after 2019, the concept of ‘Ruralism’ in Korea refers to the principle of future-oriented planning as ‘New ruralism’ (Lee, Lim et al., 2019; Son and Kim, 2019).

New ruralism is a growth framework which grafts preserved farmland and sustainable agricultural principles into contemporary development planning.

Figure 1. The concept of New ruralism in Korea

Sibella Kraus defines New ruralism as the preservation and enhancement of urban edge, rural, and agricultural areas to create a comprehensive stage for efficient and sustainable agrarian-based growth (Newman and Saginor, 2016). Although Kraus does not introduce any clear philosophical root, New ruralism shows a closer correspondence to ‘Participatorism’ as it tries to include architects, planners, developers, and policymakers (Azadi, Van Acker et al., 2012).

The concept of ‘New ruralism’ in Korea refers to the future-oriented rural planning principle as shown in Figure 1 (Yi and Son, 2021). It is necessary to organize and discuss the concept of ‘New ruralism’ in this context in Korea because in the process of industrialization, Korea grew without consideration for sustainability in rural areas. Reckless development was carried out, focusing on short-term profits. Such reckless development and destruction of the rural environment lowers the value of rural areas to urban residents who are interested in rural areas and to urban residents who may want to settle in rural areas in the future. Principles for future rural spatial planning are required in Korea.

Therefore, in this study, literature review was conducted on the study of ‘New ruralism’ outside Korea to organize the features of the concept and consider ways to apply them to Korea as spatial planning principles. Through this, it was intended to be helpful in research on ‘New ruralism’ and policy establishment in Korea.

Methodology

The research questions in this study are “How has the term ‘New ruralism’ been used in various studies abroad?” and “How can the concept of ‘New ruralism’ in Korea be organized?” According to the research question, the literature search was conducted without any other detailed search conditions, such as the year, on June 3, 2021, using Google Scholar. Keywords are ‘New Rurality’, ‘Neo-rurality’, ‘New Ruralism’ and ‘Neo-ruralism’.

For each keyword, according to the search results, up to 100 literature references were selected. Among the documents in the results for each keyword, only papers published in academic journals in Korean and English were selected, excluding books, reports, and conference materials. The search yielded 128 documents from 400 documents which were thereafter screened for relevance to this study’s topic and purpose. After filtering, only 44 publications were found suitable for inclusion in the final analysis.

Figure 2. Literature selection process

The reason only 44 documents out of 128 documents were used for the analysis is because the contents of the remaining 84 documents have low relevance to spatial planning. They mainly targeted underdeveloped countries from a globalization point of view and were concentrated in the medical and welfare fields. Among the 44 documents, there were 25 sources searched for ‘New rurality’, nine sources searched for ‘Neo-rurality’, six sources searched for ‘New ruralism’ and four sources searched for ‘Neo-ruralism’ as shown in Figure 2.

Results

Publication Year, Research Area, Subject, Research Method Summary

For content analysis through literature review, 44 documents were organized by year, country, keyword, subject, and methodology, as in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of results of 44 literature sources

Author (Year)	Research Area	Keyword	Subject	Methodology
Smith, B. J. and Parvin (1973)	America	New rurality	Index	Statistical analysis
Cloke and Edwards (1986)	England	New rurality	Index	Statistical analysis
Mormont (1987)	Belgium	Neo-ruralism	Discourse about rurality	Case study
Halfacree, K. H. (1993)	No specific area	Neo-ruralism	Discourse about Defining rural	Literature review
Pratt (1996)	No specific area	New rurality	Discourse about rurality	Literature review
Woods (1998)	England	New rurality	Housing Development	Case study
Harrington and O’Donoghue (1998)	England	New rurality	Index	Literature review, Principal component analysis
Richardson (2000)	Europe	New rurality	Spatial policy	Literature review
Liepins (2000)	Australia New Zealand	New rurality	Community & Rurality	Case study (interview, participatory methods)
Smith, D. P. and Phillips (2001)	England	New rurality	Rural gentrification	Case study (survey, interview)
Hadjimichalis (2003)	Europe	New rurality	Spatial policy	Literature review
Svendsen (2004)	Denmark	New rurality	Conflict	Literature review
Rivera Escribano and Mormont (2007)	Spain	Neo-rurality	Ex-urbanization	Case study, in-depth interview
Halfacree, K. (2007)	No specific area	New rurality	Ex-urbanization	Literature review
Bartoš, Kušová et al. (2008)	Czech Republic	Neo-ruralism	Ex-urbanization	Interview, survey
Kay (2008)	Latin America	New rurality	Neoliberal Globalization	Literature review
Guimond and Simard (2010)	Canada	Neo-rurality	Gentrification of rural	Case study (interview, survey)
Woods (2010)	No specific area	New rurality	Discourse about rurality	Literature review
Duenckmann (2010)	German	New rurality	Discourse about rurality	Q-methodology
Azadi, Van Acker et al. (2012)	No specific area	New ruralism	Discourse about New ruralism	Literature review
Wilbur (2013)	No specific area	Neo-ruralism	Ex-urbanization	Literature review
Foley and Scott (2014)	Ireland	New rurality	Landscape change	Focus group interview
Donovan and Gkartzios (2014)	Ireland	Neo-rurality	Landscape change	In-depth interview
Rytkönen (2014)	Sweden	New rurality	Rural policy	Focus group interview
Ramírez-Miranda (2014)	Latin America	New rurality	Discourse about rurality	Literature review
Wright and Annes (2014)	France	New rurality	Gender and agritourism	Interview, participatory methods, Literature review
Donovan and Gkartzios (2014)	Ireland	Neo-rurality	Housing Development	Literature review (case study)
Pini, Carrington et al. (2015)	No specific area	New rurality	Exclusion (Education)	Literature review
Li, Long et al. (2015)	China	New rurality	Index	Statistical analysis
Paniagua (2016)	Spain	New rurality	Events and Festival (tourism)	Case study (documentary research)
Monllor i Rico and Fuller (2016)	Europe	New rurality	Discourse about rurality	Literature review
Newman and Saginor (2016)	America	New ruralism	Discourse about New ruralism	Literature review
Lin, Xie et al. (2016)	China	New rurality	Discourse about rurality	Interview, participatory methods
Orria and Luise (2017)	Italy	Neo-rurality	Discourse about rurality	Case study, in-depth interview
Dymitrow and Brauer (2017)	No specific area	New rurality	Discourse about rurality	Framework analysis
Phillips and Smith (2018)	No specific area	New ruralism	Discourse about rurality	Literature review
Chang, Yang et al. (2018)	Taiwan	New ruralism	Rural revitalization	Experiment participatory methods
Simard, Guimond et al. (2018)	Canada	Neo-rurality	Discourse about rurality	Interviews
Urquijo, Bocco et al. (2018)	Argentina	New rurality	Discourse about rurality	Case study (documentary research)
Lee, Lim et al. (2019)	Korea	New ruralism	Discourse about New ruralism	Network analysis, AHP analysis
Góngora, Milán et al. (2019)	Spain	Neo-rurality	Pathways of young farmers	Q-methodology
Son and Kim (2019)	Korea	New ruralism	Discourse about New ruralism	Centrality network analysis, LDA topic analysis
Vineet (2019)	India	Neo-rurality	Discourse about rurality	Case study
Schwake (2021)	Israel	Neo-rurality	Ex-urbanization	Case study

Forty-four articles were analyzed based on year. First, the frequency was analyzed by dividing it into ten-year units, and the period and country of the study were analyzed together in ten-year units from the 1970s. By dividing the study by keyword, the frequency by year was also examined.

As a result of classification by year, 44 studies were classified as one study before 1979, two studies from 1980 to 1989, four studies from 1990 to 1999, nine studies from 2000 to 2009, 27 studies from 2010 to 2019, and one study after 2019.

One paper that appeared in the 1970s was a study related to the United States. Two papers that appeared in the 1980s were the studies of the UK and Belgium. Of nine studies that appeared in the 2000s, two were European-related studies, and one each on Australia, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Spain, and the Czech Republic. One literature review study was related to the South (Latin) America. Of 27 studies that appeared in the 2010s, six were literature reviews. There were three papers on Ireland, two papers each on China, Canada, Spain, and Korea, and one paper each on Germany, Sweden, France, Europe, the United States, Italy, Taiwan, and India. After 2020, one paper related to Israel has appeared. Until 2010, there were mainly studies on Europe. After 2010, several studies related to North America, South America, and Asia began to appear.

As a result of dividing keywords by year, one study in the 1970s was related to new rurality. Among the two studies in the 1980s, one appeared as a paper on new rurality and one on neo-ruralism. Among the four studies in the 1990s, three appeared as a paper on new rurality and one on neo-ruralism. Among the nine studies in the 2000s, seven appeared as papers on new rurality, one on neo-rurality and one on neo-ruralism. Among the 27 studies in the 2010s, 13 appeared as papers on new rurality, seven on neo-rurality, six on new ruralism, and one on neo-ruralism. After 2020, one study appeared related to neo-rurality.

Results of Classifying the Subject Covered in the Literature by Decade

There were 25 papers related to ‘New rurality’. Among 25 papers related to ‘New rurality’, 14 research subjects appeared. The 14 subjects are Spatial Policy (2), Rural Policy (1), Neoliberal Globalization (1), Landscape Change (1), Index (4), Housing Development (1), Ryral Gentrification (1), Gender and Agritourism (1), Ex-Urbanization (1), Exclusion (Education) (1), Events and Festivals (Tourism) (1), Discourse about Rurality (9), Conflict (1), and Community & Rurality (1). By research area, 13 were found in Europe, three in South America, two in Asia, and one each in North America and Oceania. There were four cases from the UK, two from China, and one each from Sweden, Ireland, USA, France, Spain, Germany, Argentina, Denmark, Australia, and New Zealand.

There were nine papers related to ‘Neo-rurality’. Among the nine papers related to ‘Neo-rurality’, six research subjects appeared. The six subjects were Discourse about Rurality (3), Ex-Urbanization (2), Rural Gentrification (1), Housing Development (1), Landscape Change (1), and Pathways of Young Farmers (1). By research area, five were in Europe, and two each were in Asia and North America. There were two studies each in Canada, Spain, and Ireland, and one study each in Italy, India, and Israel.

There were six papers related to ‘New ruralism’. Among the six papers related to ‘New ruralism’, three research subjects appeared. The three subjects were Discourse about New ruralism (4), Discourse about rurality (1), and Rural revitalization (1). By research area, there were three articles from Asia, two articles from no specific area, and one article from North America. There were two cases in Korea and one each in the United States and Taiwan.

There were four papers related to ‘Neo-ruralism’. Among the four papers related to ‘Neo-ruralism’, three research subjects appeared. The three subjects were Discourse about rurality (1), Discourse about rural defining (1), and Ex-urbanization (2). By research area, there were two cases in Europe and two cases in no specific area. There was one study each on Belgium and the Czech Republic.

Methodologies used in 44 studies were case study, centrality network analysis, LDA topic analysis, experiment participatory methods, focus group interview, framework analysis, in-depth interview, interview, participatory methods, literature review, principal components analysis, mixed method (interview, survey), network analysis, AHP analysis, Q-methodology, statistical analysis, etc. Except for some studies, it was found that qualitative research methodologies were mainly used rather than quantitative research methodologies.

Table 2 summarizes research areas and related subjects by decade.

Table 2. Results of 44 literature sources sorted by subject covered in the literature by decade

Subject	~ 1980s	1990s	20000s	2010s ~
Index	WT1) (America) WT (England)	WT (England)		WT (China)
Discourse about rurality	OS2) (Belgium)	WT (No specific area)		WT (No specific area) WT (German) WT (Latin America) WT (China) WT (Europe) OT (Italy) WT (No specific area) WT (Argentina) OT (Canada) WS (No specific area) OT (India)
Discourse about Rural Defining		OS (No specific area)
Housing Development		WT (England)		OT (Ireland)
Community & Rurality			WT (Australia, New Zealand)
Spatial policy			WT (Europe) WT (Europe)
Rural Gentrification			WT (England)	OT (Canada)
Conflict			WT (Denmark)
Ex-Urbanization			OT3) (Spain) WT (No specific area) OS (Czech Republic)	OS (No specific area) OT (Israel)
Discourse about New ruralism				WS4) (No specific area) WS (America) WS (Korea) WS (Korea)
Landscape change				WT (Ireland) OT (Ireland)
Rural policy				WT (Sweden)
Gender and Agritourism				WT (France)
Exclusion (Education)				WT (No specific area)
Events and Festival(tourism)				WT (Spain)
Rural revitalization				WS (Taiwan)
Pathways of young farmers				OT (Spain)

WT¹⁾ : New rurality

OT²⁾ : Neo-rurality

WS³⁾ WS : New ruralism

OS⁴⁾ OS : Neo-ruralism

Studies Related to New Rurality

There were 25 studies related to new Rurality out of 44 literature sources. The 25 studies dealt with a total of 14 subjects. The 14 subjects are Community & Rurality (1), Conflict (1), Discourse about Rurality (8), Events and Festivals (tourism) (1), Exclusion (Education) (1), Ex-Urbanization (1), Gender and Agritourism (1), Rural Gentrification (1), Housing Development (1), Index (4), Landscape change (1), Neoliberal Globalization (1), Rural policy (1), and Spatial policy (2).

There was only one study dealing with community & rurality as a subject. Liepins (2000) considered the importance of the rural community through a case study of three regions in Australia and New Zealand. There was only one study dealing with conflict as a subject. Svendsen (2004) examined the differences between agriculturalist and non-agriculturalist views on new rural identity in Denmark during the 1970s.

There were eight studies dealing with discourse about rurality as a subject. Pratt (1996) analyzed existing studies on rurality and considered various viewpoints from the ideology perspective. Woods (2010) analyzed existing studies on rurality and reviewed them from a geographic perspective. Duenckmann (2010) used the Q-methodology for one case area in Germany and examined the thoughts of local members about the area in the new rurality dimension. Ramírez-Miranda (2014) reviewed Neoliberal Policies and Rural Territorial Development in Latin America from the perspective of new rurality through literature review. Monllor i Rico and Fuller (2016) reviewed the changes in European rurality, focusing on the newcomer, from the perspective of new rurality through literature review. Lin, Xie et al. (2016) examined how internet-based distribution companies changed rurality through interviews and participatory observation in a region of China in the new rurality dimension. Dymitrow and Brauer (2017) considered the concept of rurality through literature review and considered the phenomenon of rurality appearing mixed across regions in the era of globalization from the perspective of new rurality. Urquijo, Bocco et al. (2018) examined changes in rurality due to globalization in a new rurality dimension through case study (documentary research) targeting a region in Argentina.

There was only one study dealing with events and festivals (tourism) as a subject. Paniagua (2016) examined the effects and meanings of events and festivals in rural areas on new rurality using three festivals in Spain as examples. There was only one study dealing with extraction (education) as a subject. Pini, Carrington et al. (2015) reviewed the status of rural exclusion, focusing on education, from the perspective of new rurality through a literature review.

There was only one study dealing with ex-urbanization as a subject. Halfacree, K. (2007) re-examined the “back-to-the-land” of the 21st century by comparing it with the “back-to-the-land” of the 1960s and 70s, focusing on the 2004 studies. There was only one study dealing with gender and agritourism as a subject. Wright and Annes (2014) considered the change in the status of women in agritourism and rural areas from the perspective of new rurality, taking France as an example through interviews, participatory observation, and literature analysis.

There was only one study dealing with rural gentrification as a subject. Smith, D. P. and Phillips (2001) examined rural gentrification by in-migration from the perspective of rural consumption of the middle class through a case study of a region in the UK. There was only one study dealing with housing development as a subject. Woods (1998) reviewed the policy of a local government in the England with respect to rural housing development.

There were four studies that dealt with Index as a subject. Smith, B. J. and Parvin (1973) summarized the urban-rural index and examined new rurality in the United States through statistical analysis targeting the United States. Cloke and Edwards (1986) summarized the rurality index and examined new rurality in the UK through statistical analysis targeting the UK. Harrington and O’Donoghue (1998) stated that conceptualization and measurement of rurality (Index) for rural areas should be changed according to changes in rural areas. Li, Long et al. (2015) summarized the rurality index and reviewed China’s new rurality through statistical analysis targeting China.

There was only one study dealing with landscape change as a subject. Foley and Scott (2014) conducted FGI using photos for five groups in Ireland and examined housing development policy and rural landscape changes. There was only one study dealing with neoliberal globalization as a subject. Kay (2008) examines the decline of rural Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s from the perspective of neoliberal globalization. Rural exodus among young people was investigated. There was only one study dealing with rural policy as a subject. Rytkönen (2014) divided Sweden’s rural policy into two parts, the productivism and the new rural regime, and examined new rurality in seven regional groups. There were two studies dealing with spatial policy as a subject. Richardson (2000) considered urban-rural partnership in rural policy. Hadjimichalis (2003) reviewed the phases of rurality by dividing them into productivism and consumerist phases.

Studies Related to Neo-Rurality

There were nine studies related to neo-rurality out of 44 literature sources. The nine studies dealt with a total of six subjects. The 6 subjects are discourse about rurality (3), Ex-Urbanization (2), Rural Gentrification (1), Housing Development (1), Landscape change (1), and Pathways of young farmers (1).

There were three studies dealing with discourse about rurality as a subject. Orria and Luise (2017) examined neo-rurality by asking four questions about environment, farmers, food, and liberation through case study and in-depth interview targeting three regions of Italy. Simard, Guimond et al. (2018) conducted an interview with newcomers, long-time residents, and local decision makers (organizations, officials) in two regions of Canada and reviewed them from the perspective of new rurality. Vineet (2019) considered in terms of neo-rurality that rural youths are reducing the gap with urban areas through the development of media and internet and education in one area in India.

There were two studies dealing with ex-urbanization as a subject. Rivera Escribano and Mormont (2007) reviewed neo-rurality in a region of Spain as an example. Schwake (2021) examined how rural areas were changed by combining Israel’s policy and ex-urbanism in two areas of Israel in terms of neo-rurality. There was only one study dealing with rural gentrification as a subject. Guimond and Simard (2010) examined the relationship between gentrification by newcomers and long-time residents in two cases in Quebec, Canada, from the perspective of neo-rurality.

One study dealt with housing development as a subject. Gkartzios and Scott (2014) examined neo-rurality by linking Ireland’s rural housing policy change with rural development theory through literature review. One study dealt with landscape change as a subject. Donovan and Gkartzios (2014) conducted an in-depth interview with 12 people in Ireland and examined the change of landscape and neo-rurality according to housing development in Ireland. One study dealt with pathways of young farmers as a subject. Góngora, Milán et al. (2019) considered a region in Spain as a case and examined the path of young farmers’ participation in agriculture in terms of neo-rurality through Q-methodology.

Studies Related to New Ruralism

There were six studies related to New ruralism out of 44 literature sources. The six studies dealt with a total of three subjects. The three subjects are discourse about New ruralism (4), Discourse about rurality (1), and Rural revitalization (1).

There were four studies dealing with discourse about New ruralism as a subject. Azadi, Van Acker et al. (2012) compared New ruralism and new urbanism through literature review and summarized the concept of New ruralism. Newman and Saginor (2016) reviewed the application and use of new ruralism in the United States through literature review. Lee, Lim et al. (2019) reviewed the residential environment planning principle based on ruralism in Korea from the New ruralism dimension through Network analysis and AHP analysis. Son and Kim (2019) collected data through text mining of internet news articles in Korea and considered it from the perspective of New ruralism through Centrality Network analysis and LDA topic analysis.

There was only one study dealing with discourse about rurality as a subject. Phillips and Smith (2018) examined the necessity of a new perspective discourse on gentrification and rurality appearing in rural areas through literature review. One study dealt with rural revitalization as a subject. Chang, Yang et al. (2018) considered rural revitalization by supporting tea production companies in connection with a local university in a region of Taiwan through participation in the experiment.

Studies Related to Neo-Ruralism

There were four studies related to neo-ruralism out of 44 literature sources. The four studies dealt with a total of three subjects. The three subjects are Discourse about rurality (1), Discourse about rural defining (1), and Ex-Urbanization (2).

There was only one study dealing with discourse about rurality as a subject. Mormont (1987) looked at rurality from economic and social points of view, taking a nature park in Belgium as an example, and talked about the necessity of conservation.

There was only one study dealing with discourse about rural defining as a subject. Halfacree, K. H. (1993) said that the rural area should be understood as a society and culture, not simply a material space.

There were two studies dealing with ex-urbanization as a subject. Bartoš, Kušová et al. (2008) reviewed amenity migration from the perspective of landscape-ecology, targeting three regions in the Czech Republic. Wilbur (2013) did a modern reinterpretation of the concept of “back-to-the-land” in the 1960s through literature review by dividing it into ideal and reality in the dimension of neo-ruralism.

Discussion

Understanding the Concept of New Ruralism

To understand New ruralism, it is necessary to understand ruralism and new rurality. In the process, an understanding of new rurality, neo-rurality and neo-ruralism clarify New ruralism. Since ruralism is based on the understanding of rurality, if new rurality has appeared according to the change of rural areas, New ruralism should be based on the understanding of new rurality.

The English word ‘rural’ comes from the Latin word ‘RURALIS’, meaning of or relating to the country or to open land, as distinguished from a city or town, and ‘urban’ comes from the Latin word ‘URBANIS’, meaning of or belonging to a city (Smith, B. J. and Parvin, 1973).

A study on new rurality also begins with the question of “what is a rural area?” In this context, understanding new rurality requires a discussion on how to geographically divide rural regions from urban regions. Cloke and Edwards (1986) compared rurality indices for 1971 and 1981 in England and Wales. In addition, studies on rurality indices were conducted (Harrington and O’Donoghue, 1998; Li, Long et al., 2015; Smith, B. J. and Parvin, 1973).

Early definitions of rurality were based on sociological theories that highlighted the intrinsic differences between urban and rural communities (Harrington and O’Donoghue, 1998).

Since the early 2000s, research on new rurality has appeared in various countries dealing with various topics. The subjects of practice and performance of rurality are composed of community life, gender, farm identities, and adventure tourism (Woods, 2010). Rurality-related studies range from studies on space to studies on rural life (Duenckmann, 2010). New rurality is due to cultural, economic, physical, and political changes (Smith, D. P. and Phillips, 2001).

The emergence of new rurality is sometimes explained as changes brought about by globalization (Kay, 2008). It is also explained from a global, historical, and structural perspective in relation to neoliberal rurality (Ramírez-Miranda, 2014). Globalizing factors such as trade liberalization, in-migration, corporate concentration, use of migrant labor, increased tourism, and non-national rural property investment clarify the background of the emergence of new rurality due to globalization (Pini, Carrington et al., 2015).

Another large context for the emergence of new rurality is the steady decline and aging of the farm population and trends of newcomers to rural areas (Guimond and Simard, 2010; Monllor i Rico and Fuller, 2016). In this context, neo-rurality is a post-industrial phenomenon that includes the immigration of middle-class and upper-middle-class city dwellers to rural areas (Schwake, 2021). They are sometimes referred to as newly arriving ex-urban settlers, and some researchers say rural areas have therefore become an experience consumed by these migrating city dwellers.

In the post-World War II period in Europe, the early modernist model of rural development was an exogenous one. Rural areas were treated as dependent (technically, culturally, and economically) upon urban centers, while the main function of rural areas was to provide food for the ever-expanding urban populations (Gkartzios and Scott, 2014). Local government was influenced by the Fordist mode of regulation, mirroring hierarchical, bureaucratic, and corporatist organizational forms. However, the transition to a post-Fordist mode of regulation has fostered new requirements for local governance, promoting the development of entrepreneurialism, targeted consumption, limited state services, devolved management, deregulated labor markets, and the social goals of privatized consumption and active citizenship. Furthermore, in a rural context, the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism has been identified with the diversification of the rural economy away from intensive agriculture and the commodification of rurality (Woods, 1998).

The topic of landscape transformation has been receiving increasing attention from policy makers, land-use planners, and researchers throughout Europe, as rural areas change from places dedicated to agricultural production to multifunctional spaces of consumption as new land-use demands have been brought about, in part, by the growth of the recreation and tourism industries, nature conservation and landscape protection policies, energy production, regional industrial development, and residential housing (Foley and Scott, 2014). In its most general academic interpretation, the idea of new rurality focuses on the diversification of activities and livelihoods beyond the agricultural, acknowledging that “the rural is no longer equivalent to the agricultural” (Urquijo, Bocco et al., 2018).

Rural planning and rural policies need a good understanding of what is ‘rural’. In particular, effective rural development policies must be based on an accurate classification of the essential characteristics of the regional types (Li, Long et al., 2015). Rural areas that are subject to new pressures, for example, through economic growth and the expansion of neighboring settlements of metropolises and larger cities and areas hit by the decline of agriculture, must also face great problems. Because the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) regards urban areas as the sole development motors of the Europe, the question is raised as to the implications for migration if non-urban areas are constructed as areas of agriculture, green tourism, and environmental protection. The ESDP’s central response to the ‘problem’ of peripherality is to improve the accessibility of peripheral regions, thereby removing the problem. In rural ‘problem’ regions, only these towns can offer infrastructure and services for economic activities in the region and easing access to the bigger labor markets. The towns in the rural areas, therefore, require particular attention in the preparation of integrated rural development strategies (Richardson, 2000). Rural space was incorporated into sectoral policies dealing with agricultural production, transportation and infrastructures, environment, tourism, and housing. Additionally, for peripheral rural regions (identified mainly by agricultural characteristics), there were regional structural funds. These approaches and policies were associated with a ‘Geographical imagination’ of rural space and rurality as a place of production, where the emphasis was on sectoral policies (Hadjimichalis, 2003).

Neo-rurality is expressed through examples of agriculture and food production, more connected to social networks, and through a wider conception of environment and concern for health and human justice. In fact, a principal characteristic of neo-rural exponents is to promote a new relationship between producers (mainly in inner areas) and consumers (mainly in central areas) (Orria and Luise, 2017). The pathway has characteristics related to the phenomenon of neo-rurality, which was described in the 1980s as the settlement in rural areas of a collective of mostly young people coming from urban areas. The term ‘neo-rural’ refers to those people who leave the city to go to the countryside with the aim of adopting an alternative lifestyle (Góngora, Milán et al., 2019).

New ruralism was reconsidered by comparing research related to New ruralism, neo-ruralism, and research related to new rurality and neo-rurality. Of the 44 papers used in the final analysis, six papers related to New ruralism appeared. All six studies related to New ruralism appeared after 2010. One paper related to neo-ruralism appeared in the 1980s, and one paper appeared every 10 years after that until the 2010s.

Ruralism is distinguished from the abstract rural images of ordinary people who do not induce action. In conclusion, the study of ruralism should work as a practical means of suggesting solutions to real rural problems. In other words, “What is ruralism, and what problems exist?” together with, “How to solve problems and create rural landscapes?” should be included in the discussion of ruralism. One of the specific problems when starting a discussion about this is that the image of ruralism does not converge in one direction. The appearance of ruralism in villages felt by returnees, indigenous peoples, and visitors may be different (Son and Kim, 2019). Most of the New ruralism’s proponents are environmentalists whose main goal is to sustain rural areas compared to architectures in the New-urbanism (also called ‘smart growth’) who seek sustainable urban areas (Azadi, Van Acker et al., 2012).

The principal theoretical criticism of both the descriptive and socio-cultural definitions of rural areas is that they demonstrate an erroneous conceptualization of the relationship between space and society. There has recently been a very active debate concerning this relationship (Halfacree, K. H., 1993).

Since 2000, the population composition of villages has diversified and the characteristics of traditional rural areas have been changing due to the spread of urban-rural exchanges such as the influx of people returning to farming and returning to rural areas, the expansion of multicultural families, and rural experiential tourism. These changes affect the use and preference of the residential environment and public facilities that served important functions in the daily lives of rural residents. Returnees tend to be more interested in the aesthetic and functional quality of places than natives, prefer the excellent natural environment, and emphasize the comfort of the residential environment and the convenience (accessibility) of medical and cultural facilities (Lee, Lim et al., 2019).

Application of the New Ruralism Concept to Korea as a Spatial Planning Principle

For the application of New ruralism to Korea as a spatial planning principle, the concept of New ruralism is organized as shown in Figure 3

Figure 3. New Ruralism Concept Diagram to be applied as a principle for planning rural spaces in Korea

As shown in Figure 3, ruralism has the concept of solving the problems of urban while making use of the advantages of rural areas and their intrinsic value. The concept of ruralism was presented in terms of maintenance, restoration, and preservation in the planning of rural and peri-urban regions.

As rural areas change due to various endogenous (immigration, newcomers, ‘back-to-the-land’, ex-urbanization, etc.) and exogenous factors (ideology, globalization, etc.) the concept of rurality based on the rural physical environment and economic, social, cultural, and ecological characteristics has also changed. New ruralism solves the problems of the newly created rural areas and presents a new spatial planning principle based on the future oriented as a more advanced concept of ruralism in four practical features.

These four features are ‘Conservation’, ‘Cultivation’, ‘Community’, and ‘Creativity’. There are many things that can be thought of in relation to the concept of ‘Conservation’, such as clean water, fresh air, and heritage, as shown in Figure 4. The United Nations World Water Development Report, published by the United Nations in 2019, classified Korea as a ‘water stress country’. The reckless development of groundwater for agricultural use is exacerbating the water shortage in rural areas. It is necessary to devise a strategy for securing clean water in terms of spatial planning. In addition, in relation to the global climate change crisis, the systematic management of forests to contribute to carbon neutrality and to design facilities for new and renewable energy should be considered in rural spatial planning. Limiting facilities that cause indiscriminate water and air pollution in terms of spatial planning should also be considered. In relation to heritage, spatial planning of rural areas for the preservation and management of natural, cultural, and historical heritage is important. In relation to wildfires or floods caused by extreme weather events around the world in relation to climate change, in the event of a disaster, the improvement of access to disaster areas and consideration of resilience should also be considered very important in terms of spatial planning. Nature, or rather the social use of nature, is crucial to the development of rural areas because the representations it embodies condition the planning and management of rural land (Mormont, 1987). From the mid-1980s, it has been shown that it is possible to distinguish two key factors that cause amenity migration in the Czech Republic. The first is migration motivated by the opportunity to live in a better natural environment (natural amenities). Second, migration may be aimed at specific socio-cultural aspects of the target territory (cultural amenities) (Bartoš, Kušová et al., 2008).

Figure 4. The images of‘Conservation’ as the first feature from the concept of New ruralism

The second feature is ‘Cultivation’. Agriculture and food production are the core functions of rural areas. In relation to agricultural production, various subjects can be discussed, such as the traditional method, through the introduction of new technology and the relationship between newcomers and longtime residents, etc.

Figure 5. The images of ‘Cultivation’ as second feature from the concept of New ruralism

With respect to the global pandemic caused by COVID-19, in a situation where product trade with other countries are restricted, countries around the world should have self-rescue measures in terms of spatial planning for their own food security. In the rural regions of Korea, where labor is scarce due to aging, etc., the inability of foreign workers to move freely due to the COVID-19 pandemic is very fatal to rural areas. The reason that cultivation is important in spatial planning is very important, not only in terms of food security, but also in terms of landscape by cultivation. For food security and health, where, who, and how much food will be produced in relation to what crops, vegetables, fruits, cattle, pigs, chickens, forest products, fish farming, etc. are closely related to spatial planning.

The reason that cultivation is important in spatial planning is very important not only in terms of food security, but also in terms of landscape cultivation, as shown in Figure 5.

The third feature is ‘Community’. The first feature from the concept of New ruralism, ‘Conservation’, and the second, ‘Cultivation’, emphasize preservation through restrict considering human as well as biodiversity, while the third, ‘Community’, concentrates on smart development and usage.

Figure 6 . The images about ‘Community’ as third feature from the concept of New ruralism

The third feature, ‘Community’, talks about the development direction of sustainable rural settlement space, as shown in Figure 6. ‘Community’ talks about the spatial plan that rural settlement spaces, distinct from cities, should aim for, and spaces that enable communities to be revitalized, eco-friendly, and energy-saving. Low-carbon plans should also be considered.

The fourth feature is ‘Creativity’. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Korea's GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ranks 10th in the world in 2020. The Korean War, which lasted from June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953, left the entire country in ruins. About 70 years later, Korea has become the tenth-largest country in the world by GDP. During its difficult times, Korea received help from many countries around the world.

Figure 7. The images of ‘Creativity’ as the fourth feature from the concept of New ruralism

Now, in terms of international cooperation, Korea has become a country that can help many other countries in the world facing war and famine, a backward environment, and insufficient education and medical care. In this context, in order for Korea to provide more support to more countries, Korea must first become a prosperous country. To achieve this, a strategy is required with the spatial plan of the land. In addition, more creative space with service delivery in rural environments is needed to create a better environment for the Korean people, as well as overseas support. Rurality, through its strong cultural entanglement with ‘Nature’, is seen as a repository of more embedded and authentic values, especially in the context of any imagined urban dystopia (Halfacree, K., 2007).

There are many people in Korea who have a positive attitude toward returning to rural areas, including retirees of Korea’s baby-boomer generation and young people who wish to pursue organic farming. However, the lack of jobs and the lack of various living and cultural infrastructure among the factors that block the return to rural living are problems that must be solved, and the quality of life in rural areas should be improved through the use of social cooperatives and new technologies. ‘Creativity’ means ‘creative space with service delivery in rural environment’, as shown in Figure 7.

Consequently, the four features from the concept of New ruralism, the ‘4Cs’ (Conservation, Cultivation, Community, and Creativity), should be the basis for presenting the future rural spatial planning principles in Korea, as shown in Figure 8. It is necessary to establish a future rural spatial plan in consideration of the four features derived based on the concept of New ruralism and to reorganize and take charge of the space for sustainable development.

Recently, the Korean government has recognized the importance of the concept of ruralism in rural spaces. There is a movement in Korea to systematically organize the concept of ruralism and apply it to future rural spatial planning. Through the establishment of a theoretical concept, the basic foundation should be prepared for setting a practical direction in the future. Regarding how to apply the New ruralism to the future rural spatial planning, it is necessary to find and analyze actual cases of the four principles (the ‘4Cs’) and organize an action plan.

Figure 8. A diagram of the '4C’ features from the concept of New ruralism as a rural spatial planning principle in Korea

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to conduct a literature review on New ruralism (which is being dealt with in overseas studies), to organize it, and to consider how to apply the New ruralism concept as a spatial planning principle in Korea. To achieve the purpose of this study, ‘New rurality’, ‘Neo-rurality’, ‘New ruralism’, and ‘Neo-ruralism’ were used as keywords in Google Scholar, and academic papers published in journals were selected from up to 100 documents for each keyword. A literature review was conducted for each keyword, and according to the search results, up to 100 literature sources were selected. Among the 100 documents in the results of each keyword search, only papers published in academic journals in Korean and English were selected, excluding books, reports, and conference materials. The search yielded 128 documents, which were thereafter filtered for relevance to this study’s purpose. After filtering, only 44 publications were found suitable for inclusion in the final analysis.

Through the content analysis, the characteristics of New ruralism were summarized into four features to be applied as spatial planning principle in Korea. Consequently, the four features from concept of New ruralism, or ‘4Cs’: ‘Conservation’, ‘Cultivation’, ‘Community’ and ‘Creativity’ (Creative space with service delivery in rural environments), should be the basis for presenting the future rural spatial planning principle for sustainable development in Korea.

Humanity is living in an era in which the entire world must overcome any crisis together, transcending one country, like the pandemic situation caused by COVID-19 and the crisis caused by climate change. With urban developed due to industrialization, problems in rural areas have arisen nationally, and other rural problems have arisen due to globalization. Now, countries around the world are having problems that each must solve, and there are problems that need to be solved through international cooperation. This study of New ruralism is about spatial planning for sustainable development of peace and prosperity by solving the problems facing each country, as well as global problems.

The four features from the concept of New Ruralism, ‘4Cs’ (Conservation, Cultivation, Community and Creativity) presented in this study are principles for spatial planning for direct resolution of the crises facing each country and the international crisis of ‘Sustainability’. Sustainable development aims to create a better environment better conditions for both the present and future generations.

This study has revealed that there were insufficient theories for systematic planning and spatial planning in rural areas compared to urban areas, and preserving rural areas from the existing ruralism that made use of the advantages of rural areas differentiated from cities in spatial planning outside the city.

The conservation space should allow mankind to preserve essential values such as nature, cultural heritage, clean air, clean water, forests, and ecosystems. The space for cultivation should be a space for food cultivation, rural economy, rural tourism, healing and well-being, and smart agriculture, and there should be a specific production plan. Spaces other than essential arable land should be managed in an eco-friendly way for the rural landscape and ecology. The space for the community should be maintained and managed continuously, should help promote the relationship between community members, and should be created as a future-oriented, pleasant, eco-friendly space by applying energy-efficient, smart technology. It should be possible to present concerns and solutions on how to have the essential elements necessary for this. The space for creativity should be expanded from the existing agriculture-centered rural areas to make agriculture innovative, and creative tasks other than agriculture should be done in rural areas. You should be able to suggest a solution.

The future rural spatial plan should be capable of classifying regions and spaces according to their respective characteristics and suggesting concrete plans for sustainable, coexistence, prosperity, and happiness in spatial planning. Through follow-up studies, these contents should be made more sophisticated. A limitation of this study is the lack of case presentation. The follow-up study should be more specific and should be conducted on a case area with more specific spatial planning principles.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Yi, D.Y. and Son, Y.H.; methodology, Yi, D.Y. and Son, Y.H.; software, Yi, D.Y. and Son, Y.H.; investigation, Yi, D.Y.; resources, Yi, D.Y.; data curation, Yi, D.Y. and Son, Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Yi, D.Y.; writing—review and editing, Yi, D.Y. and Son, Y.H.; supervision, Son, Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Ethics Declaration

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of the paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with the support of "Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project title: Establishment of evaluation system for rural regenerative capacity for preservation of rural character, Project No. PJ017062)" Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

References

•  Azadi,  H.,  Van Acker,  V., et al. (2012). "Food Systems: New‐Ruralism Versus New‐Urbanism". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 92(11), 2224-2226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.5694.
• Bartoš, M., Kušová, D., et al. (2008). "Amenity Migration in the Context of Landscape-Ecology Research". Journal of Landscape Ecology, 1(2), 5-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10285-012-0006-3.
•  Chang , S. E.,  Yang,  Z.-J., et al. (2018). "Inventing Agricultural Humanities Via Revitalizing New Ruralism Tea-Town in Taiwan". Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies, 3(13), 98-104. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21834/ajbes.v3i13.147
•  Cloke,  P. and  Edwards,  G. (1986). "Rurality in England and Wales 1981: A Replication of the 1971 Index". Regional Studies, 20(4), 289-306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09595238600185271.
•  Donovan,  K. and  Gkartzios,  M. (2014). "Architecture and Rural Planning:‘Claiming the Vernacular’". Land Use Policy, 41, 334-343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.013.
•  Duenckmann,  F. (2010). "The Village in the Mind: Applying Q-Methodology to Re-Constructing Constructions of Rurality". Journal of Rural Studies, 26(3), 284-295. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.01.003.
•  Dymitrow,  M. and  Brauer,  R. (2017). "Performing Rurality. But Who?". Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 38(38), 27-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/bog-2017-0032.
•  Foley,  K. and  Scott,  M. (2014). "Accommodating New Housing Development in Rural Areas? Representations of Landscape, Land and Rurality in Ireland". Landscape research, 39(4), 359-386. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.723680.
•  Gkartzios,  M. and  Scott,  M. (2014). "Placing Housing in Rural Development: Exogenous, Endogenous and Neo‐Endogenous Approaches". Sociologia Ruralis, 54(3), 241-265. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12030.
•  Góngora,  R.,  Milán , M. J., et al. (2019). "Pathways of Incorporation of Young Farmers into Livestock Farming". Land Use Policy, 85, 183-194. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.052.
•  Guimond,  L. and  Simard,  M. (2010). "Gentrification and Neo-Rural Populations in the Québec Countryside: Representations of Various Actors". Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), 449-464. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.06.002.
•  Hadjimichalis,  C. (2003). "Imagining Rurality in the New Europe and Dilemmas for Spatial Policy". European Planning Studies, 11(2), 103-113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431032000072828.
•  Halfacree,  K. (2007). "Back‐to‐the‐Land in the Twenty‐First Century–Making Connections with Rurality". Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 98(1), 3-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00371.x.
•  Halfacree , K. H. (1993). "Locality and Social Representation: Space, Discourse and Alternative Definitions of the Rural". Journal of Rural Studies, 9(1), 23–37.
•  Harrington,  V. and O’ Donoghue,  D. (1998). "Rurality in England and Wales 1991: A Replication and Extension of the 1981 Rurality Index". Sociologia Ruralis, 38(2), 178-203. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00071.
•  Jang , M. H. and  Lee , M. S. (2019). "A Study on Methodology to Select the Target Areas of Rural Regeneration by Using Spatial Big Data". The Journal of Foreign Studies,, 46, 99-128. doi: http://doi.org/10.26863/JKARG.2019.5.25.2.261.
•  Kay,  C. (2008). "Reflections on Latin American Rural Studies in the Neoliberal Globalization Period: A New Rurality?". Development and change, 39(6), 915-943. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00518.x.
•  Kim,  N.-I. and  Choi,  S. (1998). "Internal Migration and Changes in the Gun's Population Structure in Korea". Korea journal of population studies, 21(1), 42-79.
•  Lee , C. H.,  Lim , J. E., et al. (2019). "Development and Importance Analysis of Evaluation Factors for Formation of Future-Oriented Rural Residential Environment: Using Network Analysis and Ahp Analysis". Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning, 25(2), 89-98. doi: https://Dx.Doi.Org/10.7851/Ksrp.2019.25.2.089.
•  Li, Y.,  Long,  H., et al. (2015). "Spatio-Temporal Pattern of China's Rural Development: A Rurality Index Perspective". Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 12-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.01.004.
•  Liepins,  R. (2000). "Exploring Rurality Throughcommunity': Discourses, Practices and Spaces Shaping Australian and New Zealand Ruralcommunities'". Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 325-341. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00067-4.
•  Lin,  G.,  Xie,  X., et al. (2016). "Taobao Practices, Everyday Life and Emerging Hybrid Rurality in Contemporary China". Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 514-523. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.05.012.
•  Monllor i Rico,  N. and  Fuller , A. M. (2016). "Newcomers to Farming: Towards a New Rurality in Europe". Documents d'anàlisi geogràfica, 62(3), 531-551. doi: http://doi.org/10.5565/rev/dag.376.
•  Mormont,  M. (1987). "Rural Nature and Urban Natures". Sociologia Ruralis, 27(1), 3-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.1987.tb00314.x.
•  Newman,  G. and  Saginor,  J. (2016). "Priorities for Advancing the Concept of New Ruralism". Sustainability, 8(3), 269-284. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030269.
•  Orria,  B. and  Luise,  V. (2017). "Innovation in Rural Development:“Neo-Rural” Farmers Branding Local Quality of Food and Territory". Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 7(1), 125-153.
•  Paniagua,  A. (2016). "New Rurality, Events, and Festivals in Selected Places of Rural Spain". Sociální Studia/Social Studies, 13(2), 113–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2016-2-113.
•  Phillips,  M. and  Smith , D. P. (2018). "Comparative Ruralism and ‘Opening New Windows’ on Gentrification". Dialogues in Human Geography, 8(1), 51-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820617752035.
•  Pini,  B.,  Carrington,  S., et al. (2015). "Schooling Elsewhere: Rurality, Inclusion and Education". International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(7), 677-684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.964489.
•  Pratt , A. C. (1996). "Discourses of Rurality: Loose Talk or Social Struggle?". Journal of Rural Studies, 12(1), 69-78. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(95)00046-1.
•  Ramírez-Miranda,  C. (2014). "Critical Reflections on the New Rurality and the Rural Territorial Development Approaches in Latin America". Agronomía Colombiana, 32(1), 122-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v32n1.41218.
•  Richardson,  T. (2000). "Discourses of Rurality in Eu Spatial Policy: The European Spatial Development Perspective". Sociologia Ruralis, 40(1), 53-71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00131.
•  Rivera Escribano,  M. and  Mormont,  M. (2007). "Neo-Rurality and the Different Meanings of the Countryside". Les mondes ruraux à l'épreuve des sciences socials, 33–45. doi: https://hdl.handle.net/2268/196160.
•  Rytkönen,  P. (2014). "Constructing the New Rurality-Challenges and Opportunities (of a Recent Shift?) for Swedish Rural Policies". International Agricultural Policy, 2, 7-19.
•  Schwake,  G. (2021). "The Community Settlement: A Neo-Rural Territorial Tool". Planning Perspectives, 36(2), 237-257. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2020.1728569.
•  Simard,  M.,  Guimond,  L., et al. (2018). "Neo-Rural Populations and Their Relations with Local Decision Makers in Rural Québec: Collaboration or Conflict?". GeoJournal, 83(3), 613-629. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10708-017-9789-4.
•  Smith , B. J. and  Parvin , D. W. (1973). "Defining and Measuring Rurality". Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 5(1), 109-113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S008130520001089X.
•  Smith , D. P. and  Phillips , D. A. (2001). "Socio-Cultural Representations of Greentrified Pennine Rurality". Journal of Rural Studies, 17(4), 457-469. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00014-6.
•  Son,  Y.-h. and  Kim,  Y.-j. (2019). "The Image of Ruralism in Korea through a Text Mining for Online News Media Analysis". Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning, 25(4), 13-26. doi: http://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2019.25.4.013.
•  Song , K. I. (2004). "A Study on of Green Tourism in Korea". Journal of Travel Study, (20), 49-70.
•  Suh,  G.-S. (2006). "Effect and Development Strategies of a Village Development Project Using It's Traditional Specific Items in Hwaseong City". Journal of Agricultural Extension and Community Development, 13(1), 49-67.
•  Svendsen , G. L. H. (2004). "The Right to Development: Construction of a Non-Agriculturalist Discourse of Rurality in Denmark". Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), 79-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00045-7.
•  Urquijo , P. S.,  Bocco,  G., et al. (2018). "New Rurality and the Experience of Place: The Small Rural Locality of La Niña, Buenos Aires, Argentina". GeoJournal, 83(6), 1301-1315. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317.x.
•  Vineet,  S. (2019). "Transforming Rurality and Politics of Aspirations". International Journal of Innovative Studies in Sociology and Humanities, 4(5), 118-123.
•  Wilbur,  A. (2013). "Growing a Radical Ruralism: Back‐to‐the‐Land as Practice and Ideal". Geography Compass, 7(2), 149-160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12023.
•  Woods,  M. (1998). "Advocating Rurality? The Repositioning of Rural Local Government". Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 13-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(97)00044-2.
•  Woods,  M. (2010). "Performing Rurality and Practising Rural Geography". Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 835-846. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509357356.
•  Wright,  W. and  Annes,  A. (2014). "Farm Women and Agritourism: Representing a New Rurality". Sociologia Ruralis, 54(4), 477-499. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12051.
•  Yi, D.-Y. and  Son,  Y.-H. (2021). "A Study on the Concept of Korean Ruralism-Focusing on the Comparison of Research on Ruralism and Rurality in Korea". Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning, 27(3), 69-84. doi: https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2021.27.3.069.
•  Yoon , Y. D. (1985). "Industrialization and the Formation of Urban Poor". Korean Studies Quarterly, 25-39.