Towards Strengths-Based Planning Strategies for Rural Localities in Finland

Open access

Abstract

In this article, we will introduce the topic of strengths-based planning strategies for rural localities in Finland. The strengths-based approach focuses on capacity building and competence enhancement with the local people, encouraging communities to valorise, identify and mobilise existing but often unrecognised assets. Setting focus only on the deficiencies and problems easily inflicts a ‘surrender mentality‘ in places outside of the urbanisation impact, creating a narrative that both decision-makers and community members start to believe. Hence, the role and potential of smaller rural localities is easily forgotten by planners, politicians and the public at large. Addressing the scale of rural localities in spatial planning, we will first reflect upon the main findings from our earlier research project “Finnish rural localities in the 2010`s” conducted by Lahti University of Applied Sciences, the University of Oulu and Aalto University in 2013-2015. Findings from the research project affirmed the unfortunate consequences of rapid urbanisation, rational blueprint planning and overoptimistic expectations of growth in the 1960s and 70s, which have resulted in the state of permanent incompleteness in rural localities today. However, these localities possess many under-utilised strengths, and we consider it essential for the future development of rural localities to make the most of this potential, and not only tackle the downwards spiral. This requires the ability to engage local stakeholders around a common vision for the future, and strategic approach based on endogenous strengths. We will discuss these possibilities via two theoretically informed case studies. The first one, Vieremä, is situated in the region of Northern Savo, and the other one, Vääksy, is the main centre in the municipality of Asikkala, situated in the region of Päijät-Häme in Southern Finland. Our study design can be characterised as qualitative research benefiting from a case study approach, mixed methods research and participatory action research. Being critical-emancipatory by nature, the exploratory and normative perspectives of Future Studies have also provided methodologies to explore future alternative paths and the available, yet possibly hidden, resources of people, commodities and skills in new ways. Through these case studies, we have identified an urgent need for capacity building and preparedness for sustainable resource management in Finnish rural localities, including natural and cultural heritage protection, climate change management and human well-being. There is a need to start thinking creatively ‘outside-the-box‘ and create strategic alliances between civil society, business and government, and most importantly, between urban and rural areas. Now is the time to start innovating a range of policy options and strategic objectives for addressing rural localities as places where a sustainable future can be developed in Finland.

[1] Aarrevaara, E., ed. (2015). Suomalaiset maaseututaajamat 2010-luvulla- tutkimushankkeen loppuraportti [research project]. Lahti: Lahden ammattikorkeakoulu.

[2] Aarrevaara, E. & Rönkkö, E. (2015). Maaseututaajamien muutosprosessit aluehistorian ja kulttuuriperinnön näkökulmista. Maaseudun uusi aika –verkkolehti. Maaseutututkimuksen ja –politiikan aikakauslehti 23, 5–19.

[3] Auclair, E. & Fairclough, G., eds. (2015). Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability. Between past and future. New York: Routledge.

[4] Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Degerman, E. et al. (2013). Social and Cultural Sustainability: Criteria, Indicators, Verifier Variables for Measurement and Maps for Visualization to Support Planning. AMBIO 42(2), 215–228. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-012-0376-0.

[5] Blomstedt, Y. (1982). Asikkalan historia. Asikkala: Asikkalan kunta.

[6] Campbell, S. (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3), 296–312. DOI: 10.1080/01944369608975696.

[7] Davoudi, S. (2015). Planning as a practice of knowing. Planning Theory 14(3), 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/1473095215575919.

[8] Dopico, E. & Garcia-Vazquez, E. (2011). Leaving the classroom: a didactic framework for education in environmental sciences. Cultural Studies of Science Education 6, 311–326. DOI: 10.1007/s11422-010-9271-9.

[9] Elliott, C. (1999). Locating the Energy for Change: An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

[10] Hambleton, R. (2014). Leading the Inclusive City. Place-Based Innovation for a Bounded Planet. Bristol: Policy Press.

[11] Ghaye, T., Melander-Wikman, A., Kisare, M., Chambers, P., Bergmark, U., Kostenius, C. & Lillyman, S. (2008). Participatory and appreciative action and reflection (PAAR) – democratizing reflective practices. Reflective Practice 9:4, 361–397. DOI: 10.1080/14623940802475827.

[12] Hawkes, J. (2001). The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability. Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning. Melbourne: Cultural Development Network.

[13] Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning–Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.

[14] Helminen, V., Tiitu, M., Nurmio, K. & Ristimäki, M. (2016). Suomen taajamarakenne. Taajamien seututason luokittelu. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 32 / 2016, Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus.

[15] Janssens, N. (2008). Designerly thinking & research. In Hendrick, A., Janssens, N., Martens, S., Nollet, T., Van Den Berghe, J. & Verbeke, J., eds. Reflections 7 (pp. 203–211). Brussel: Sint-Lucas School of Architecture.

[16] Knox, P. L. & Mayer, H. (2009). Small Town Sustainability. Economic, Social and Environmental Innovation. Basel, Boston & Berlin: Birkhäuser.

[17] Kuhmonen, T. & Kuhmonen, I. (2015). Rural futures in developed economies: The case of Finland. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 101, 366–374. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.028.

[18] Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, JC. & Groen, A. (2010). The resource based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management 36:1, 349–372. DOI: 10.1177/0149206309350775.

[19] LaGro, J. (2008). Site Analysis. A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land Planning and Site Design. 2nd Ed. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.

[20] Mathie, A. & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based Community Development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice 13:5, 474–486. DOI: 10.1080/0961452032000125857.

[21] McCammon, S. (2012). Systems of Care as Asset-Building Communities: Implementing Strengths-Based Planning and Positive Youth Development. American Journal of Community Psychology 49, 556–565. DOI: 10.1007/s10464-012-9514-x.

[22] Moseley, M. (2003). Rural development. Principles and practice. London: Sage.

[23] Niiniluoto, I. (2001). Futures studies: science or art? Futures 33(5), 371–377. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00080-X.

[24] Oliver, H. (2014). Exploratory scenario planning. Planning 80(11), 46–47.

[25] Quay, R. (2012). Brave new world of scenario planning. Planning 78(9), 52.

[26] Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155–169. DOI: 10.1007/BF01405730.

[27] Roney, C. W. (2010). Intersections of strategic planning and futures studies: methodological complementarities. Journal of Future Studies 15(2), 71–100.

[28] Rönkkö, E. (2012). Kulttuuriympäristöselvitykset. Tieto, taito ja ymmärrys maaseudun maankäytön suunnittelussa [PhD Dissertation]. Oulu: University of Oulu.

[29] Rönkkö, E. (2015). Maaseudun kirkonkylien ja kulttuuriympäristöjen muutos 1970-luvun lopulta 2010-luvulle. In Aarrevaara, E. ed., Suomalaiset maaseututaajamat 2010-luvulla-tutkimushankkeen loppuraportti (pp. 20–33). Lahti: Lahden ammattikorkeakoulu.

[30] Rönkkö, E. (2017). Healthy Urban Planning – new approaches for strategic land use planning in the North. In Lankila, T. & Tervo-Kankare, K., eds., Geographies of well-being in the North (pp. 53–65). Oulu: Nordia Geographical Publications.

[31] Rönkkö, E., Luusua, A., Aarrevaara, E., Herneoja, A. & Muilu, T. (2017). New Resource-wise planning strategies for Smart urban-rural development in Finland. Systems 5:1, 10. DOI: 10.3390/systems5010010.

[32] Sevaldson, B. (2010). Discussions & Movements in Design Research. A systems approach to practice research in design. FORMakademisk 3(1), 8–35.

[33] Sneck, T. (1983). Skenaariomenetelmä aluesuunnittelussa. Vaiheittaisen skenaariomenetelmän kehittelyä ja käyttökelpoisuuden tarkastelua. Helsinki: Seutusuunnittelun keskusliitto.

[34] Soini, K. & Birkeland, I. (2014). Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 51, 213–223. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001.

[35] Soini, K. & Dessein, J. (2016). Culture-Sustainability Relation: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 8(2), 167. DOI: 10.3390/su8020167.

[36] Waylen, KA., Martin-Ortega, J., Blackstock, KL. et al. (2015). Can scenario-planning support community-based natural resource management? Experiences from three countries in Latin America. Ecology and Society 20(4):28. DOI: 10.5751/ES-07926-200428.

[37] Asikkala. 2017. Available at: https://www.asikkala.fi. [accessed 26.1.2017].

[38] Council of the European Union. (2014). Conclusions on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe. Education, youth, culture and sport council meeting Brussels, 20 may 2014. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/142705.pdf [accessed 30.1.2017].

[39] Harava. A survey tool for smart planning. Available at: https://www.eharava.fi/en/ [accessed 30.1.2017].

[40] Hirvonen, S. & Lohtander, L. (2017). Kansalaisyhteiskunta kulttuuriympäristötyössä. Helsinki: Finnish Local Heritage Federation. Available at: http://www.kotiseutuliitto.fi/julkaisut-ja-tuotteet/kansalaisyhteiskunta-kulttuuriymparistotyossa [accessed 20.4.2017].

[41] Järvien ja harjun solmukohta. Vääksyn kulttuuriympäristöohjelma – nykytila ja tavoitteet. 2017. Lahti University of Applied Sciences. Unpublished draft.

[42] Land Use and Building Act. (1999). Available at: http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990132.pdf [accessed 26.1.2017].

[43] Ministry of the Environment. (2014). Arviointi maankäyttöja rakennuslain toimivuudesta 2013 [Assessment of the effectiveness of the Land Use and Building Act in 2013]. Suomen ympäristö, 1/2014, Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment.

[44] Myllykylä, T. (1991). Suomen kanavien historia. Keuruu.

[45] National Cultural Environment Strategy 20142020. Government Resolution 20 March 2014. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture and Ministry of the Environment. Available at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/135508/Cultural%20Environment%20Strategy_2014.pdf?sequence= [accessed 19.4.2017].

[46] OECD (2017). OECD Territorial Reviews: Northern Sparsely Populated Areas, Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268234-en.

[47] Statistics Finland. Vieremä. Available at: http://www.stat.fi/tup/alue/kuntienavainluvut.html#?year=2016&active1=925 [accessed 25.1.2017].

[48] Tulonen, A. (1998). Asikkalan kulttuuriympäristöohjelma. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö.

[49] UNESCO. (2001). UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity. Records of the general conference, 31st session, 15 October – 3 November 2001, Paris, France. Paris: UNESCO.

[50] Valtakunnallisesti arvokas rakennettu ympäristö, RKY. [Nationally Valuable Built Environment, RKY]. Available at: http://www.rky.fi/read/asp/r_kohde_det.aspx?KOHDE_ID=1895 [accessed 26.1.2017].

[51] Vanha Vääksy. [Old Vääksy]. Available at: http://vanhavaaksy.fi/?page_id=829 [accessed 27.1.2017].

[52] Wager, H. (2006). Päijät-Hämeen rakennettu kulttuuriympäristö. Lahti: Päijät-Hämeen liitto.

[53] WCCD (1995). Our Creative Diversity. France: EGOPRIM.

[54] Vääksyn vesimyllymuseon naapuriin kerrostalo. Yle Online News 20.7.2010. Available at: http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-5599639 [accessed 27.1.2017].

[55] Wilenius, M. (2015). Pieni tulevaisuuskirja. Helsinki: Otava.

European Countryside

The Journal of Mendel University in Brno

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.78

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.265
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.607

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 197 197 16
PDF Downloads 112 112 8