Rural-Urban linkages: do they foster cohesion?

1. Ian Smith Rural-Urban linkages: do they foster cohesion? Cities Research Centre

2. Discussion points Can we foster social cohesion through rural-urban linkages? Are rural-urban linkages special? Should we attempt to measure social/territorial cohesion derived from rural-urban linkages and if so how? Is there merit in considering social cohesion separately from the territorial agenda?

3. Vignettes – illustration • How will we illustrate the issues? • Seven vignettes in paper: • Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå, Sweden. • NGO-driven work with disadvantaged urban youth • Combined Universities in Cornwall • Tackling out-migration by young people in the Pays Berry Saint Amandois • Counteracting digital exclusion through broadband in Kuyavia-Pomerania • Joining up public transport in the Prague metropolitan area • Realignment of family protection and child-welfare service in Pécs ‘micro-region’ (Hungary).

4. Case vignettes Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå Implementing a Broadband Network in Kuyavia-Pomerania Social farming: Netherlands Imayla (NGO-led) social cohesion & youth – SW England Prague Integrated Transit System Realignment of family protection and child-welfare services, Pécs Combined Universities in Cornwall Tackling issues for young people: Pays Berry Saint-Amandois Source of base map: Wikipedia reproduced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

5. What was being done? • Infrastructure building • Improving public services • Training and employment • Tackling social problems

6. Creating social cohesion through experience • Imayla creates learning environments for disadvantaged young people • Young people from disadvantaged urban areas taken to experience rural environments (cohesion within group) • Also social farming – later • Are rural-urban linkages special?

7. Cohesion through improving public services • Improving family support services in Pécs (Hungary) • Re-organisation of service at city-region level • Improved access, specialist service and quality control • Are rural-urban linkages special?

8. Propositions • Proposition 1: cohesion outcomes of rural-urban linkages need to benefit both rural and urban communities • Proposition 2: cohesion can be the unintended or secondary outcome of linkages • Proposition 3: territorial and social cohesion are generally linked but they do not have to be • Proposition 4: linkages are good for dealing with service deficits, migration issues, shared experiences

9. Some thoughts from our case vignettes Rural-Urban linkages: do they foster cohesion? Cities Research Centre

10. Ian Smith Rural-Urban linkages: how do you create them? Cities Research Centre

11. Making rural-urban linkages • Outline some key ideas • What have we learnt from EU initiatives • Vignette illustrations • What you think

12. Rural-Urban Partnerships Benefits/opportunities • Reduced polarisation • Ability to address regional issues • Intelligence of local concerns at strategic level • Inclusion of multiple stakeholders • Increased global competitiveness • Increased capacity to provide fiscal relief for revitalisation Challenges/constraints • Political and cultural differences • Difficulties in cross-collaboration and building trust • Lack of regional policy frameworks and ambiguous structures • Operational complexity of process • Lack of resources • Competition between local authorities

13. Partnerships: EU initiative experience • Partnerships are important for problem identification and project delivery • Partnership programmes need to be integrated and area-based • Transfer of lessons at EU level important • Partnerships need to be encouraged to be innovative

14. Case vignettes Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå Implementing a Broadband Network in Kuyavia-Pomerania Social farming: Netherlands Imayla (NGO-led) social cohesion & youth – SW England Prague Integrated Transit System Realignment of family protection and child-welfare services, Pécs Combined Universities in Cornwall Tackling issues for young people: Pays Berry Saint-Amandois Source of base map: Wikipedia reproduced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

15. Institutional structures in vignettes • Voluntary local government associations (with and without incentives) • Regional partnerships • Non-governmental partnerships • Partnerships for identifying priorities and partnerships for delivering projects

16. Voluntary associations of municipalities • Giving small ‘rural’ authorities a voice: the city-region of Umeå • Umeå – city region of 143,000 residents • Voluntary association brings together 6 municipalities to pool some resources – this partnership identifies priorities • Project partnerships take forward projects calling on EU co-finance • Transferability? Probably good if have strong local government

17. Non-governmental public partnership • Providing HE for Cornwall – Combined Universities in Cornwall • 500,000 population of which 92% ‘rural’ and small towns • Partnership of 6 universities (independent public sector) comes together around accessing EU co-finance • Provides HE courses • Transferability? Depends on capacity of non-governmental sector

18. Propositions • Proposition 1: partnership is crucial in the delivery of rural-urban linkages – both in terms of issue identification and project delivery • Proposition 2: partnerships will probably mostly depend on local government but is not the only form of partnership • Proposition 3: EU co-finance/support has been important in facilitating rural-urban linkage • Proposition 4: lessons on partnership can be transferred across Europe

19. Some thoughts from our case vignettes Rural-Urban linkages: how do you create them? Cities Research Centre