Journal of Rural Studies Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Elsevier

Journal description

International and interdisciplinary in scope, the Journal of Rural Studies publishes research articles relating to such rural issues as society, demography, housing, employment, transport, services, land-use, recreation, agriculture and conservation. The journal focuses on those areas encompassing extensive land-use, with small-scale and diffuse settlement patterns and communities linked into the surrounding landscape and milieux.

Current impact factor: 2.04

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2009 Impact Factor 2.348

Additional details

5-year impact 2.44
Cited half-life 8.40
Immediacy index 0.24
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.80
Website Journal of Rural Studies website
Other titles Journal of rural studies
ISSN 0743-0167
OCLC 10490841
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details


  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Authors pre-print on any website, including arXiv and RePEC
    • Author's post-print on author's personal website immediately
    • Author's post-print on open access repository after an embargo period of between 12 months and 48 months
    • Permitted deposit due to Funding Body, Institutional and Governmental policy or mandate, may be required to comply with embargo periods of 12 months to 48 months
    • Author's post-print may be used to update arXiv and RepEC
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Must link to publisher version with DOI
    • Author's post-print must be released with a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License
    • Publisher last reviewed on 03/06/2015
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • Journal of Rural Studies 12/2015; 42:43-51. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.010
  • Journal of Rural Studies 12/2015; 42:63-78. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.011
  • Journal of Rural Studies 12/2015; 42:29-42. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.005
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines new patterns of financial investment in farmland and agricultural production in Canada and Australia, focussing on the grains sector. I situate these trends in relation to the on-going financialization of the global agri-food sector, a process through which finance capital and financial logics exercise increasing influence over food production and distribution. Especially since the "global food crisis" of 2007-8, there has been growing investor interest in farming and agriculture. In the global South, large-scale farmland buy-ups, referred to as the global "land grab", have generated considerable controversy. Less is known, however, about how domestic and foreign investment is affecting patterns of farm ownership and control in the global North. I document recent corporate and financial investment in farmland and farm ownership in each country and how differences in regulatory environments, institutional factors, and politics are shaping the scope and pace of change in each farming sector.
    Journal of Rural Studies 10/2015; 41:1-12. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.007
  • Journal of Rural Studies 10/2015; 41:82-94. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.08.001
  • Journal of Rural Studies 10/2015; 41:95-108. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.07.007
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper explores the specific mechanisms of power in participatory rural planning projects. It follows up on suggestions in planning literature about directing focus at the relational level in the assessment of power, rather than on who has power and who doesn't. The paper argues that in such an assessment of power it is needed also to drawn in the social context because different social contexts will be more or less vulnerable to different mechanisms of power. The paper takes the stand the rural settings are especially vulnerable to dis-engagement of local citizens, sub-ordination of the rural by the urban privilege to define the rural qualities and creation of local conflicts and that mechanisms of power that cause such unintended outcomes of rural planning projects should be uncovered. Inspired by Foucault's interpretation of power the paper carries out a grounded theory inspired analysis of a Danish rural participatory planning project. The paper concludes that rural planning literature and analysis will benefits from paying attention to the three – in rural participatory planning projects – specific mechanisms of power ‘Institutionalising knowledge and competencies’; ‘Structuring of criticism’ and ‘Undermining the objectives of the others’
    Journal of Rural Studies 08/2015; 40. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.05.006
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The trend to multifunctional rural landscapes in developed economies is characterised by the contrasting values, land uses and land management practices of rural property owners. In agricultural regions, it seems these trends are, at least in part, an expression of the extent rural landholders identify as farmers. Investigation of these trends has been hampered by the absence of robust approaches to measuring occupational identity amongst rural landholders. Research discussed in this paper addresses that gap. The objective was to develop a valid, reliable and efficient measure of occupational identity. We did that using the collective identity construct (CIC) and adapted a widely accepted 17-item CIC scale to explore the extent rural landholders in south eastern Australia held a farmer identity. Drawing on a survey of 1900 rural landholders we assessed the reliability, validity and utility of that scale. Those tests resulted in a 12-item scale that we suggest provides a valid and reliable measure of occupational identity that can be applied in natural resource management contexts.
    Journal of Rural Studies 08/2015; 40:111-119. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.008
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The UK has had a Temporary Migrant Worker Programme (TMWP) for agricultural ‘guestworkers’ since 1943. Most recently referred to as the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS), SAWS accommodated 25,000 workers per annum by its 2004 peak. However, the UK government then announced the scheme's closure (initially for 2011, but then delayed until 2014). This paper examines employers' response to this closure and, specifically, juxtaposes the academic critiques of TMWPs with the very strong employer preference for them. This preference, the paper concludes, is about the way in which TMWPs allow labour to be more readily and more extensively controlled, and, also allow employers access to ‘better quality’ workers. Considering these benefits of quality and control, alongside the academic critiques, the paper concludes that SAWS should be retained, but with major changes and safeguards.
    Journal of Rural Studies 08/2015; 40. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.05.005