The urban-rural interface is structured by intense social, economic, and environmental interdependencies among urban and rural places. Accordingly, we argue that the rural-urban interface should be governed in a new, hybrid manner—one that accounts for both place-based and relational exigencies. The United States lacks a coherent, coordinated approach to multijurisdictional planning and governance, but multijurisdictional governance can and often does succeed through cooperation at the state and local levels. To illustrate this point, and to ground the theoretical discussion, we present three examples of multijurisdictional planning that are effective at the local level, and one example that has failed to accomplish such goals. Governance of the zone of rural-urban interactions will be more effective and accountable if policies and programs involve not only the constituent municipalities located in this space, but also the social, economic, and environmental relationships in which these communities are embedded.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). 1977. A catalogue of federal grant-In-aid programs to state and local governments: Grants funded FY 1975. A- 52a. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
2.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). 1979. A catalogue of federal grant-in-aid programs to state and local governments: grants funded FY 1978. A-72. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3.
AllenJohnCochraneAllan D.2010. Assemblages of state power: Topological shifts in the organization of government and politics. Antipode42 (5): 1071–89.
4.
AllmendingerPhilChillaTobiasSielkerFranziska. 2014. Europeanizing territoriality: Towards soft spaces?Environment and Planning A46 (11): 2703–27.
5.
AllmendingerPhilHaughtonGraham. 2009. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames gateway. Environment and Planning A41(3): 617–33.
6.
AminAsh. 2002. Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning A34 (3): 385–99.
7.
AminAsh. 2004. Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place. Geografiska Annaler B86 (1): 33–44.
8.
AndersonBenMcFarlaneColin. 2011. Assemblage in geography. Area43 (2): 124–27.
9.
BerryBrian J .L.1967. Geography of market centers and retail distribution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
BeynonHuwHudsonRay. 1993. Place and space in contemporary Europe: Some lessons and reflections. Antipode25 (3): 177–90.
11.
BloomquistWilliamSchlagerEdella. 2005. Political pitfalls of integrated watershed management. Society and Natural Resources18 (2): 101–17.
12.
BogueDonald. 1950. The structure of the metropolitan community: A study of dominance and subdominance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
13.
BowmanAnnFrankeJames. 2008. The decline of substate regionalism. Journal of Urban Affairs6 (4): 51–63.
14.
CastellsManuel. 1989. The informational city: Information technology, economic restructuring, and the urban regional process. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
15.
CastellsManuel. 1997. The rise of the network society. London: Blackwell Publishers.
16.
ChristallerWalter. 1933/1966. Die zentralen orte in suddeutschland [Central places in southern Germany]. Trans. by Baskin.C. W.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
17.
ClokePaul. 2006. Conceptualising rurality. In The handbook of rural studies, eds. ClokePaulMarsdenTerryMooneyPatrick, 18–28. London: Sage Publications.
18.
CochraneAllenWardKevin. 2012. Researching the possibilities of policy mobility: Confronting the methodological challenges. Guest editorial. Environment and Planning A44 (1): 5–12.
19.
CoxKevin R.1993. The local and the global in the new urban politics: A critical view. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space11 (4): 433–48.
ForesterJohn. 1999. The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
25.
FriedmannJohn. 1993. Towards a non-Euclidian mode of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association59 (4): 482–84.
26.
GrahamStephenHealeyPatsy. 1999. Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies7 (5): 623–46.
27.
GualiniEnrico. 2006. The rescaling of governance in Europe: New spatial and institutional rationales. European Planning Studies14 (7): 881–904.
28.
HarrisonJohnHeleyJesse. 2014. Governing beyond the metropolis: Placing the rural in city-region development. Urban Studies52 (6): 1113–33.
29.
HealeyPatsy. 2007. Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge.
30.
HeleyJesse. 2013. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and spatial governance in post-devolution Wales. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37 (4): 1325–48.
HomsyGeorgeWarnerMildred. 2013. Climate change and the co-production of knowledge and policy in rural USA communities. Sociologia Ruralis53 (3): 291–310.
33.
JensenLeifChitoseYoshimi. 1997. Will workfare work? Job availability for welfare recipients in rural and urban America. Population Research and Policy Review16 (4): 383–95.
34.
IssermanAndrewRephannTerance. 1995. The economic effects of the Appalachian regional commission. Journal of the American Planning Association61 (3): 345–65.
35.
JonesMartinWoodsMichael. 2014. New localities. Regional Studies47 (1): 29–42.
36.
LewisNickHeronRichard LeCampbellHughHenryMatthewHeronErena LePawsonEricPerkinsHarveyRocheMichaelRosinChristopher. 2013. Assembling biological economics: Region-shaping initiatives in making and retaining value. New Zealand Geographer69 (3):180–96.
37.
LichterDanielBrownDavid L.2011. Rural America in an urban society: Changing spatial and social boundaries. Annual Review of Sociology37:565–92.
38.
LichterDanielBrownDavid L.2014. The new rural-urban interface: Lessons for higher education. Choices29 (1): 1–6.
39.
LoschAugust. 1940/1954. Die raumliche ordnung der wirtschaft [The economics of location]. Trans. by WoglomWalterStolperWolfgang. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
LowePhilipMurdochJohnWardNeil. 1995. Networks in rural development: Beyond endogenous and exogenous models. In Beyond modernisation: The impact of endogenous rural development, eds. van der PloegJan D.van DijkGert, 87–105. Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
41.
MackinnonDanny. 2010. Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics. Progress in Human Geography35 (1): 21–36.
42.
MasseyDoreen. 2004. The political challenge of relational space: Introduction to the Vega Symposium. Geografiska Annaler B86 (1): 3.
43.
MasseyDoreen. 2005. For space. London: Sage Publications.
44.
MelhadoEvan. 2006. Health planning in the United States and the decline of public-interest policymaking. Milbank Quarterly84 (2): 359–440.
OECD. 2013. Rural-urban partnerships: An integrated approach to economic development. Paris: OECD.
47.
OlsenKristianRichardsonTim. 2011. The spatial politics of spatial representation: Relationality as a medium for depoliticization?International Planning Studies16 (4): 355–75.
48.
PaasiAnssi. 2013. Regional planning and the mobilisation of regional identity: From bounded spaces to relational complexity. Regional Studies47 (8): 1206–19.
49.
PaasiAnssiZimmerbauerKaj. 2016. Penumbral borders and planning paradoxes: Relational thinking and the question of borders in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A48 (1): 75–93.
50.
PfefferMaxWagenetLinda. 2003. Communities of interest and the negotiation of watershed management. In Pathways for getting to better water quality: The citizen effect, eds. MortonLois WrightBrownSusan, 109–19. New York, NY: Springer.
51.
RayChris. 2006. Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. In The handbook of rural studies, eds. ClokePaulMarsdenTerryMooneyPatrick, 278–91. London: Sage Publications.
52.
ScottAllen J.2011. A world in emergence: Notes towards a resynthesis of urban economic geography for the 21st century. Urban Geography32 (6): 845–970.
53.
ShucksmithMark. 2008. New Labour’s countryside in international perspective. In New Labour’s countryside: Rural policy in Britain since 1997, ed. WoodsMichael, 59–78. Bristol, UK: Polity Press.
54.
ShucksmithMark.2010. Disintegrated rural development? Neo-endogenous rural development, planning and place shaping in diffused power contexts. Sociologia Ruralis50 (1): 1–14.
ShucksmithMarkBrownDavid L.VergunstJo. 2012. Constructing the rural-urban interface: Place still matters in a highly mobile society. In Rural transformations and rural policies in the US and UK, eds. ShucksmithMarkBrownDavid L.ShortallSallyVergunstJoWarnerMildred, 287–306. New York, NY: Routledge.
StamJeromeReidNorman. 1980. Federal programs supporting multicounty substate regional activities: An overview. Rural Development Research Report No. 23. Washington, DC: USDA-ERS.
59.
StorperMichaelKemenyThomasMakaremNajiOsmanTaner. 2015. The rise and fall of urban economies: Lessons from San Francisco and Los Angeles. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
