There is a long history of area-based interventions targeted at places seen as being particularly disadvantaged. However, the implementation of such approaches is problematic in rural areas on a number of grounds, including the more dispersed patterns of deprivation and a reliance on high-profile indices of multiple deprivation that are arguably less appropriate in rural contexts. While there is a growing interest in place-based service delivery and localism as a means to tackling geographical inequalities, this sits alongside the pursuit of fiscal austerity by national government that has disproportionately affected local government expenditure. Based on a case study of two largely rural regions in the South of Scotland, this paper explores how deprivation and spatial inequalities are understood and addressed by local government in rural regions, and what evidence is used as a basis for targeting ‘deprived’ areas. The results show that although interventions are targeted at specific areas in a variety of ways, local targeting is broadly undertaken within nationally determined frameworks, and in particular based on those indicators identified by central government as constituting an appropriate evidence base. It is argued that there are fundamental tensions around whether the aim of this type of targeting is to direct resources at specific area-based problems, or whether individuals' residence within particular ‘deprived’ areas is used as a proxy for their likely experience of specific types of deprivation. This ambiguity has particular implications for rural regions, where residence is less closely linked with individual- or household-level deprivation. While there are opportunities for rural authorities to contest the dominance of ‘urban-centric’ indicators, these are limited by central control of resources and the ongoing hollowing out of local government through austerity.

针对被视为特别不利的地方的基于区域的干预措施已有悠久的历史。但是，在农村地区，由于多种原因，这种方法的实施存在问题，包括更加分散的剥夺模式和对引人关注的多重剥夺指数的依赖，这些指数在农村环境中可能不那么合适。尽管人们越来越关注基于位置的服务提供和本地化作为解决地理不平等的一种手段，但与此同时，各国政府对财政紧缩的追求也大大增加了对地方政府支出的影响。基于苏格兰南部两个主要农村地区的案例研究，本文探讨了农村地区地方政府如何理解和解决贫困和空间不平等问题，以及哪些证据被用作针对“贫困”地区的基础。结果表明，尽管干预措施以多种方式针对特定领域，但在国家确定的框架内，尤其是根据中央政府确定为构成适当证据基础的那些指标，广泛开展了针对当地的行动。有人争论说，这种针对性的目的是针对特定地区的问题，还是个人在特定“贫困”地区的居住是否被用来代替他们在特定地区的经历，这之间存在着根本性的紧张关系。剥夺的类型。这种含糊不清对农村地区具有特殊的影响，因为农村地区的居住与个人或家庭一级的贫困关系不大。