Detached buildings or homes?, singular areas or unique regions?, booms or development?, rural areas or rustic land?

Abstract

This paper discusses the interpretation of results presented in a study published in issue 225 of Scripta Nova, following an analysis of the background to the latter. The discussion is a two-fold one. On the one hand, it disagrees from a terminological, theoretical and conceptual perspective and, on the other, it disagrees in terms of the methodological approach and interpretation of the results. The discussion focuses particularly on the interpretation of two concepts coined by the author of this article in 1995 (the agricultural belt) and 1997 (the third tourism boom) and on the use of variables associated with rustic land (detached buildings) in order to either approve or object to the concepts and definitions that have been used, particularly in relation to urban land and land rated as apt for development.