top of page

Understanding Sociospatial Characteristics of our Rural and Urban Spaces: a Sociospatial Complexity Framework

  • Writer: Abigail Arellano
    Abigail Arellano
  • Nov 26
  • 4 min read

Developed by Abigail Arellano, 2025


ree

This framework was specifically written with the goal of determining characteristics of everyday life within the spectrum of rurality and urbanity. This research is an ongoing project, this should be the initial structure the team carries through until necessary followthrough.


This structure consists of two (2) directions towards efforts of (A) knowing the distinctions between rural and urban areas, and (B) the movements that travel between them.


This approach further enables the identification of disparities and complementarities between rural and urban settings, informing strategies that address uneven growth while strengthening their mutual roles within a broader territorial system. Secondary, with this framework, rural and urban case studies can be streamlined to understand their socio-spatial characteristics, situating each context not as isolated environments but as interlinked spaces shaped by mobility, access, and development pressures.


rural-urban sociospatial complexity framework by Abigail Arellano
Rural-Urban Sociospatial Complexity Framework by Abigail Arellano, 2025.


A "distinctions"

The framework first starts with knowing the distinctions between rural and urban areas visualized by a spectrum (opposite arrows as seen in the graphic).
Graphic explanation: The framework first starts with knowing the distinctions between rural and urban areas visualized by a spectrum (opposite arrows as seen in the graphic).

A.1. Research Questions


What are the key differences between urban and rural communities?

  1. How does the everyday streetscape in (1) urban and (2) rural barangays look like? In terms of: Physical Space; Natural Space; Social Space.

  2. What are the factors that significantly shape community social interactions?

  3. What problems in terms of urban design are present, that pose hazards, inconveniences and neglect opportunities?

A.2. These questions then filter through yet another layer of structure that determines characteristics and the spatial make up of the selected sites. These characteristics are categorized through the following:

To deepen the understanding through rurality and urbanity, more layers are considered to determine their sociospatial characteristics. Both directions take an onion model that follows a theory showing that certain higher level factors influence the next smaller level factors, through a macro to micro deductive systems logic for this particular stage of the research.
Graphic explanation: To deepen the understanding through rurality and urbanity, more layers are considered to determine their sociospatial characteristics. Both directions take an onion model that follows a theory showing that certain higher level factors influence the next smaller level factors, through a macro to micro deductive systems logic for this particular stage of the research.

  1. High Level Influences

    The spatial influence level encompasses the overarching territorial and sociocultural structures that define how a place relates to its wider region.

    • It considers not only geography and infrastructure, but also historical narratives, socioeconomic governance systems, and collective identities that shape the form and purpose of space.

Such influences include but are not limited to:

  • Urban/rural morphological growth

  • Historical politico-administrative events

  • socioeconomy and industrial movements

  1. Immediate Functions,

    The immediate functions level interprets how macro spatial forces manifest in local activities and uses.

    • It analyzes the distribution of functions, accessibility, and circulation patterns that define how the site operates within its surrounding context.

Such functions include but are not limited to:

  • Functional catchment

  • Critical Facilties

  • Road/street network and transportation

  • Population (barangay) and density


  1. and Density Textures

    The density texture level reveals how broader social and functional forces become physically and experientially embodied.

    • It describes the fine-grain interplay between built form and social life — how culture, habit, and community presence are inscribed into the finer units of built space.

    • This should be seen through three lenses:

      1. environmental scale

      2. human scale

      3. social scale

these lenses are dissected through these indicators:

Environmental scale:

  1. utility

    1. utility mapping

      1. water and drainage

      2. light and electricity

      3. waste management

    2. smell and noise mapping

    3. open space utilization character

      1. alleyways if applicable

  2. ecosystems

    1. tree cover

    2. ecosystems and biological habitats

    3. rainfall and climate data

    4. flora and fauna data

Social Scale:

  1. public and socio cultural spatial character

    1. recreation and sports

    2. food/eateries

    3. transactive

      1. market

      2. street commerce and circulation of goods

        • mobile/temporary

          • ex: pushcarts

    4. social activities

    5. areas/nodes of worship

    6. human-animal relationships

  2. Security

    1. Public security

    2. sociopolitical: administrative/governmental herarchy and activities

Human scale:

  1. household spatial character

    1. household functions

      1. outdoor

      2. household surface

      3. indoor

      4. occupancy type/mix

    2. sociocultural character

    3. occupant persona




B "in-between movements"

The next conceptual direction of the framework is illustrated as the "circulation" of movements that occur between rural-to-urban and urban-to-rural relationships.
Graphic explanation: The next conceptual direction of the framework is illustrated as the "circulation" of movements that occur between rural-to-urban and urban-to-rural relationships.

B.1. The scope of these movements considers the following statements:

  1. The factors of socioeconomic growth and sociospatial morphology within both makes them distinct but also concern each other;

  2. and that the changes in density plays a crucial role in understanding the manifestations of their relationships.


B.2. The movements are led through (but not limited to) the following concerns:

  1. motivational push-pull patterns in urban-rural and rural-urban migrations

  2. agroindustrial movement

  3. the concept of economic centrality


thanks for reaching this far :)

Here's a Reading List, that provided insights for this project, that you may be interested in


Density textures: the crowd, everyday life, and urban poverty in Manila

by Colin McFarlane, Kristian Saguin, & Kaloy Cunanan

2024


Kowloon Cultural District: An Investigation Into Spatial Capabilities in Hong Kong

by Esther Lorenz and Shiqiao Li

2014


Some Rural and Urban Housing Differences in the Philippines

by D.C. Bennett

1970


Quantifying the urban environment: A scale measure of urbanicity outperforms the urban-rural dichotomy

by Darren L. Dahly and Linda S. Adair

2006


Last notes:


Special thanks to Officials and SK Officials of Barangay 69, Tondo, Manila for letting us proceed with our urban barangay site visit Ar. Raquel L. Baquiran for furthering the case study process.


This research does not suggest that urbanity and rurality is quantifiable as the opposite ends of a linear spectrum in general theory, which supports Darren L. Dahly's research.


This framework is subject to changes and improvements, and is not peer reviewed.

bottom of page