Planning Quality of Life in Urban-Rural Regions – Seven Approaches in the Baltic Sea Region Petri Kahila, Stefanie Lange & Peter Schmitt Nordregio Managing the Urban Rural Interference Copenhagen 19-22 October 2010 Session topic: (7) Locally adapted strategies for rural-urban regions: from understanding of issues to finding of solutions

Interest to Quality of Life Motivated much research during last decades Taken a strong position on various policy agendas Inevitable connection to sustainability, equity and social cohesion People’s interest besides wealth to everyday environment became more important than wealth Twofold meaning of quality of life Provided opportunities to meet human needs Quality of life become “proper” goal of public policy

What is Quality of Life? Generally relates to overall well-being in society People’s possibilities to achieve their goals and to choose their ideal lifestyle Quality of life has three characteristics QL is a micro concept, i.e. focuses on individual life situation and perception QL is multi-faceted concept, i.e. comprises multiple life domains and relationships between them QL is subjective concept, i.e. includes individual goals and orientations as objective perceptions are relatedto living conditions

Quality of Life in Planning There is a contradiction between macro-level and micro-level Requirement to pay closer attention to quality of life Managing quality of life in the frameworks of urban- rural interaction have been rather limited However, wide range of objectives and strategies include approaches to quality of life But, individual aspects tend to be drowned under broader headings

Quality of Life in Urban-Rural Interference (II) Quality of life (IV) Quality of life Urban Rural (I) Quality of life (III) Quality of life Individual preferences

Approach in the NEW BRIDGES-project Conceptualisation of the quality of life approach Positioning macro (planning) level and micro (individual) level Meaningful definitions and approaches of quality of life in various urban-rural contexts Progressive approaches to quality of life cannot be based on hierarchical policy initiatives If individuals and stakeholders involved regions are able to generate own approach to quality of life

Priority Challenges Long-term provision of private and public (commercial) services Provision of well-functioning public transport connecting urban-rural Improved management, integrated planning, cooperation and communication Conservation of natural and cultural landscape Social issues (e.g. Crime, alcohol) Better understanding of quality of life

Reasoning Declining population, especially in rural areas Increasing number of elderly (less mobile) people Decreasing provision of local services in rural areas Non-existing or ineffective (planning) structures and networks between city and surrounding areas Lack of awareness regarding social demands among authority members Lack of cooperation/communication with inhabitants on quality of life related issues

Responses Individual perspective included Cross sectoral involvement of local stakeholders New partnerships Implementation of Pilot Actions in the city-regions Integration into ongoing decision making processes and strategies

Discussion Common approaches to quality of life are lacking in urban-rural interference There is a need for a common management approach involving urban and rural areas Involvement phase confirm necessity to engage individual aspects and preferences Important is to distinguish lifestyle choices that actually enhance quality of life Process will not only create opportunities but also reduce contraints

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Questions & Comments Petri Kahila petri.kahila@nordregio.se http://www.nordregio.se http://www.urbanrural.net