Speaker
Description
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly reshaped urban and rural dynamics, challenging the conventional urban growth paradigm and accelerating counter-urbanization. This shift has profound implications for postgrowth urbanism, which advocates for an alternative to growth-driven urban development, emphasizing ecological balance, sustainability, and social equity. Counter-urbanization, initially conceptualized by Berry (1976), refers to the demographic movement from urban to rural areas, often driven by environmental concerns, affordability, and changing work conditions (Walmsley et al., 1998). The pandemic-induced transformation, particularly in Mediterranean cities such as İzmir, Turkey, has led to a reconfiguration of spatial and socio-economic structures in rural areas, requiring a critical examination of its long-term consequences (Vinci et al., 2022).
This study investigates the rural transformation in Seferihisar, a peripheral district of İzmir that experienced one of the highest population growth rates in the post-pandemic period (TURKSTAT, 2023). The research employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative demographic and economic data with qualitative insights from planning policies and community responses. The findings highlight three major transformations:
Spatial Transformation: Increased housing demand, rising land prices, and changing land use have led to rural gentrification, whereby wealthier urbanites displace traditional rural populations (Stockdale, 2010). This process alters the built environment, impacting agricultural land use and accelerating commodification. The redistribution of population also intensifies urban sprawl, leading to a hybrid rural-urban landscape that disrupts existing ecological systems (Nelson et al., 2010).
Socio-Economic Transformation: The influx of higher-income populations has contributed to the restructuring of rural economies. The shift from agriculture-based livelihoods to service-oriented economic activities fosters disparities between long-term rural residents and new arrivals. Rural gentrification in Seferihisar manifests through a change in occupational structures, increasing the cost of living and social tensions between different socio-economic groups (Rojo-Mendoza et al., 2022).
Governance and Sustainability Challenges: Counter-urbanization presents governance challenges, as rural municipalities struggle to provide adequate infrastructure and services to an expanding population. Policy gaps in rural planning contribute to unregulated construction, inefficient land use, and environmental degradation. The lack of a strategic framework for sustainable rural development threatens the long-term viability of counter-urbanization as a resilient postgrowth model (Rezvani, 2007).
The findings of this study suggest that counter-urbanization in Seferihisar reflects broader tensions in postgrowth urbanism, revealing the need for innovative rural planning strategies. Current rural transformations are largely market-driven, favoring economic growth at the expense of environmental and social equity. Alternative models, such as cooperative housing, participatory land-use planning, and circular rural economies, could mitigate the negative consequences of counter-urbanization while fostering sustainable rural futures.
This research contributes to the growing discourse on post-pandemic urban-rural transitions, providing insights into the governance, economic, and ecological dimensions of counter-urbanization. By integrating principles of postgrowth urbanism, policymakers and planners can adopt context-sensitive strategies that balance economic opportunity with environmental stewardship and social inclusion. Addressing the challenges of counter-urbanization requires a decentralized, community-driven planning approach that prioritizes adaptive resilience, resource-efficient land management, and inclusive rural policies. The lessons from Seferihisar can inform broader debates on rethinking urbanization and reimagining sustainable rural development in a post-pandemic world.
References
Berry, B.J.L. (1976) Urbanization and counter-urbanization. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Nelson, P.B., Oberg, A. and Nelson, L. (2010) ‘Rural gentrification and linked migration in the United States’, Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), pp. 343-352.
Rezvani, M. R. (2007) ‘Counter-urbanization and functional changes in Northern rural areas of Tehran’, Geographical Research Quarterly, 39(59).
Rojo-Mendoza, F., Salinas-Silva, C. and Alvarado-Peterson, V. (2022) ‘The end of indigenous territory? Projected counterurbanization in rural protected indigenous areas in Temuco, Chile’, Geoforum, 133, pp. 66-78.
Stockdale, A. (2010) ‘The diverse geographies of rural gentrification in Scotland’, Journal of Rural Studies, 26(1), pp. 31-40.
TURKSTAT (2023) ‘Data of demography’, Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas
Vinci, S., Scognamiglio, A. and Mastrodicasa, D. (2022) ‘Counter-urbanization and the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons from Mediterranean cities’, Urban Planning and Design Review, 10(3), pp. 221-235.
Walmsley, D.J., Epps, W.R. and Duncan, C.J. (1998) Migration and mobility in Britain since the Second World War. London: Routledge.
| Keywords | Counter-urbanization; Postgrowth urbanism; Rural transformation; COVID-19; Seferihisar |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
