Well-Being and Participation: Views on Policy Measures in Sparsely Populated Rural Municipalities in Finland

Abstract

This article examines how do municipalities aim to promote well-being in sparsely populated rural villages, and how are villagers involved in the measures of well-being undertaken in their municipality. The main analysis is based on the interviews of municipal representatives in the case study of North Karelia, Finland. The analysis of well-being and participation, and their relation to the social inclusion of rural inhabitants is executed under the themes of mobility, services, democratic involvement and civic action. The policy measures seek to improve liveability of the environment and the villagers' quality of life. Participation, as a means and an end of well-being and inclusion, involves the dimensions of structural inclusion, as well as genuine participation and citizen engagement.Abstrakti: Artikkelissa tarkastellaan, kuinka kunnat pyrkivät edistämään harvaan asuttujen alueiden ja kylien hyvinvointia, ja kuinka kunnissa tuetaan kyläläisten osallisuutta palveluissa ja muissa hyvinvointia tukevissa toiminnoissa. Pääanalyysi perustuu kuntaedustajien haastatteluihin, jotka on toteutettu case-tutkimuksena Pohjois-Karjalan alueella Suomessa. Hyvinvointia ja osallisuutta, sekä kytköksiä kyläläisten sosiaaliseen osallisuuteen, on analysoitu liikkuvuuden, palvelujen, demokraattisen osallistumisen ja kansalaistoiminnan näkökulmista. Politiikkatoimet pyrkivät parantamaan elinmahdollisuuksia ja elämänlaatua kylissä. Osallisuuden edistäminen hyvinvoinnin toimenpiteenä ja tavoitteena sisältää sekä rakenteellisen osallisuuden ulottuvuudet että aidon osallistumisen ja kansalaisten osallistamisen muodot.

What Is Rural Well‐Being and How Is It Measured? An Attempt to Order Chaos*

“…Access and mobility are considered one of the major disadvantages of rurality in terms of opportunity deprivation (Bernard 2018), transport disadvantage (Delbosc and Currie 2011), and social exclusion (Halonen and Kattilakoski 2018). This dimension refers to personal mobility to access public and private amenities and services, and transportation opportunities required for a meaningful life experience.…”

“…Thus, looking beyond objective statistics and measuring how the available infrastructure is perceived is argued to create a more accurate and practical picture of the quality of local infrastructure (Casini et al 2021;Richmond et al 2000). Transdisciplinary approaches and participatory methods, like interviews, surveys, and focus groups with local experts and community members, can be invaluable supplements to objective statistics (Bernard 2015;Halonen and Kattilakoski 2018) to establish what services and facilities are missing and what has to be added first.…”

“…For example, social deprivation measures are rooted in the lack of (White et al 2014) and the dissatisfaction with personal relationships (Michalska-Zyła and Marks-Krzyszkowska 2018) due to having no opportunities to create social ties (Johnson and Backman 2010) or having no time to maintain the existing ones (Millward and Spinney 2013). As a way to address rural social deprivation stemming from the lack of opportunity/time to cultivate relationships, online social interactions (Ahrendt et al 2018;Halonen and Kattilakoski 2018) are also considered to influence rural WB (Hollman et al 2021).…”

“…Among the most typical rural problems are the shortage of qualified employment opportunities, poor access to healthcare, education and public transportation infrastructure, and a lack of civic opportunities (Alam 2017; Halonen and Kattilakoski 2018). These have been associated with negative health outcomes (World Health Organisation 2010) and the risk of social exclusion (UN DESA 2021).…”

“…Sustainable well-being (WB) is increasingly recognized as the ultimate goal of local territory and community development (Halonen and Kattilakoski 2018;Moser et al 2018). Moreover, it is a strategic goal of international development policy (European Commission 2022; UNDP 2022).…”