Speaker
Description
In general, the Latin American planning framework lacks a regulative body for characterizing the urban and the rural areas (Minvu et al., 2018), highlighting the need for integrated approaches that balance the complementarity roles of the urban and rural (Garzilli et al., 2022). Several authors have pointed out the necessity for a new scale of analysis to tackle the transitional spaces that have arisen from urban sprawl (Balta and Atik, 2022; Lopez-Goyburu and Gonzaga, 2018). Even though urban fringes are described as "adaptable and flexible" in accommodating innovative approaches to peripheral development (Sierra, 2003, p. 53), these areas (peri-urban) have historically been neglected by land-use planning and public agencies responsible for their management (Gallent et al., 2004).
Particularly in Latin America, these areas are experiencing high rates of urban expansion, leading to fragmented, dispersed, and highly segregated areas with negative environmental, economic, and social consequences (Alvarado-Peterson & Rojo-Mendoza, 2023). The urban-periurban-rural interface faces challenges posed by urban expansion and declining agricultural employment, impacting environmental management, livelihoods, quality of life, and sustainability (Blanc et al., 2022). Furthermore, the commodification of land and the high profitability at urban edges — where land is low-priced and planning tools are insufficient — allow the real estate sector to significantly influence the boundaries of urban expansion (de Mattos, 2010).
Addressing these challenges is complex due to various factors, including the rigid urban and rural divide, affecting institutions and spatial planning systems. The expansive mode of urbanization raises questions about the effectiveness of the conventional planning approach based on the urban-rural dichotomy, which deeply influences most Spatial Governance and Planning Systems (SGPSs) in Latin America (Blanc et al., 2022). Research indicates that the peri-urban interface is marked by institutional fragmentation, overlapping responsibilities, and inadequate governance, requiring a shift from the rigid urban-rural definitions to a holistic approach addressing complex resource flows and environmental management (Allen, 2003), especially as new morphologies emerge and disrupt traditional boundaries between urban and rural areas (Brenner, 2013). The oversimplification of the urban-rural dichotomy has drawn criticism across various dimensions of spatial planning (Andersen et al., 2011; Fienitz & Siebert, 2021; Morrill, 2004; Stewart, 1958; Wang, 2022). For instance, Allen (2003) advocates for a tailored approach that integrates rural, regional, and urban planning methods, recognizing the diversity of social groups and the ecological dynamics of the peri-urban landscape.
This research addresses the urban-rural dichotomy by examining planning instruments in Brazil and Chile, identifying governance gaps in urban-rural transition areas, and contributing to discussions on rethinking this divide through more integrated approaches. The analysis considers spatial planning frameworks at multiple governance levels — from national to local — for both countries. Although SGPSs are shaped by their context and are closely linked to the unique institutional, administrative, cultural, and socioeconomic characteristics of the countries and regions that created them (Blanc et al., 2022), the parallel analysis identifies common governance patterns that reinforce the urban-rural dichotomy in Latin America and explores potential pathways for transformations.
Methodologically, this research examines existing plans (documental analysis) in Brazil and Chile to determine whether and how urban expansion is addressed and how spatial plans facilitate modifications of urban-rural boundaries without considering the urban-periurban-rural interface and its specific dynamics. The goal is to contribute to the discussion on spatial governance in Latin America and emphasize the need for comprehensive and integrated multicriteria tools while promoting planning at an intermediate scale, focusing on the transition between urban and rural areas.
References
Alvarado-Peterson, et. al (2023). Iquique y la suburbanización en el norte chileno. Apuntes para una mirada al estudio de los bordes urbanos. In Urbanización y Ciudades Medias. Territorios y espacialidades en cuestionamiento.
Andersen et. al (2011). The end of urbanization? Towards a new urban concept or rethinking urbanization. European Planning Studies, 19(4), 595–611.
Balta et al. (2022). Rural planning guidelines for urban-rural transition zones as a tool for the protection of rural landscape characters and retaining urban sprawl: Antalya case from Mediterranean. Land Use Policy, 119, 106144.
Blanc, et. al. (2022). Latin American spatial governance and planning systems and the rising judicialisation of planning: Evidence from Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.
Fienitz, M., & Siebert, R. (2021). Urban versus rural? Conflict lines in land use disputes in the urban–rural fringe region of Schwerin, Germany. Land, 10(7).
Gallent et al (2004). England’s urban fringes: Multi-functionality and planning. Local Environment, 9(3), 217–233.
López-Goyburu et al (2018). The urban-rural interface as an area with characteristics of its own in urban planning: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43, 157
Morrill, R. (2004). New forms of urbanization – beyond the urban–rural dichotomy. Population, Space and Place, 10(6), 495–496.
| Keywords | Spatial governance, urban sprawl, planning systems, urban-rural dichotomy, Latin America |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
