URRUC - Urban-rural Connectivity in Non-metropolitan Regions. Annex II: Conceptualisation and Methodology

Annex II contains a methodological overview of the URRUC project

Urban-rural Connectivity in Non-metropolitan Regions (URRUC)

Annex I focuses on contextualising non-metropolitan regions, including an in-depth focus on literature and European projects related to urban-rural connectivity in these areas

URRUC - Urban-Rural Connectivity in Non-Metropolitan Regions. Annex VIII: Policy Guidelines and Recommendations

Annex VIII contains a methodological overview of the policy development approach as well as the creation of European policy recommendations

European shrinking rural areas: Key messages for a refreshed long-term vision.

The paper begins with a discussion of the concept of 'shrinking', and its origins, outside the realm of rural development. Building on this, the paper shows the distribution of shrinking rural areas across Europe. Using both the project's literature review and findings from its eight case studies the socio-economic processes which drive demographic decline in rural areas are then described. A brief account of the evolution of EU interventions to alleviate the effects of shrinking, and some remarks about the current policy/governance landscape follow. We conclude by considering how a better understanding of the problem and process of shrinking may lead to more effective interventions, within the context of a refreshed long-term vision for Rural Europe. The latter needs to fully acknowledge the expanding repertoire of opportunities confronting rural areas as COVID-19 changes in working behaviour, and the geography of economic activity, accelerate, and fulfil, previously incremental shifts in technology and markets

URRUC - Urban-rural Connectivity in Non-metropolitan Regions. Final report

Urban-rural linkages and interactions are of vital importance for the future development of the non-metropolitan regions and to achieve the Europe 2020 goals of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth actively supported by the current European Structural and Investment Funds and a number of EU policy initiatives. In particular, the new Cohesion Policy Regulation (2014-2020) puts a strong emphasis on the role of urban-rural interactions for achieving better coordination of structural funds as well as new tools fostering integrated strategies which can allow for EU Member States to make territorial investments in a more flexible and targeted way. The European Commission is currently working with the Member States, industry and public authorities to roll-out the “Intelligent Transport Systems” (ITS) initiative, which is considered “vital to increase safety and tackle Europe's growing emission and congestion problems”, but also for creating new services and jobs as well as supporting growth in the transport sector. This type of innovative demand-response transport management system provides an ideal solution for rural and low-population metropolitan areas as it allows for tailor-made services giving rural residents possibilities to move with the same freedom as residents in cities and towns. This has proven to be a cost-effective type of transport system offering wider territorial coverage The four stakeholders involved in this targeted analysis have identified a potential opportunity to improving transport policy and systems related to urban-rural connectivity in non-metropolitan areas by engaging in knowledge transfer processes and activities based on networks of exchange. This process will help identify good practices and generate recommendations for policy makers and stakeholders in the stakeholder regions and countries as well as in territories across the EU faced with similar challenges, particularly coastal locations with nearby isolated communities and hinterlands. The territorial evidence that will be produced within this activity will be particularly useful with regards to developing policies for non-metropolitan regions that suffer from limitations of connectivity, poor accessibility to services and unbalanced development by identifying good practices to improve the internal connectivity and sustainability of transport systems, supporting synergies and cross-sectoral dialogue, and advancing public transport planning

NO-lärare om betygens inverkan på undervisningen

I detta självständiga examensarbete undersöks lärares upplevelse av hur betygsättning påverkar deras arbete ur olika synvinklar. De aspekter som behandlas i undersökningen är motivation, stress och kreativitet. Studien är kopplad till de naturorienterande ämnena och riktar sig mot årskurs sex. Syftet med studien är att få en djupare förståelse för hur lärare upplever betygsättning och jag har använt mig av kvalitativa intervjuer för att besvara min frågeställning. Vid sammanställningen av resultaten ur intervjuerna framgick det att inom samtliga kategorier fanns en direkt och en indirekt påverkan på lärarnas arbete. Lärarnas tankar och åsikter om betygsättning i no-ämnena kunde också kopplas till den forskning som belyses under litteraturdelen och det framkom att många av lärarna i intervjuerna är väl bekanta med no-ämnets olika ord och begrepp som ligger som grund för ämnet och hur man kan undervisa om dessa. Hälften av de intervjuade lärarna berättade att de kände sig stressade medan den andra hälften inte kände av det alls

Cross-border transport infrastructure planning in the Nordic Region : An introduction

This report aims to increase knowledge of cross-border transport infrastructure planning in the Nordic Region. The project covers four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) and explores institutional and other challenges and opportunities associated with better and more coordinated cross-border transport infrastructure planning. The publication gives an overview of the transport infrastructure planning systems in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, with a focus on the policy goals, the main actors and their responsibilities within the transport infrastructure planning system, central elements of the planning process, analytical tools and tools for impact analysis

The right to access the city : Nordic urban planning from a disability perspective

The purpose of this report is to add a disability perspective to the discussion on the inclusive city in the Nordic region. This is done by studying Nordic municipal strategies and planning practices related to accessibility, universal design and inclusion and interviewing national and local representatives from the selected countries and cities. In addition, we have included the perspective of users, via representatives of Nordic authorities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the Council of Nordic Co-operation on Disability. The cities in focus in the report are Trondheim in Norway, Viborg in Denmark, Tampere in Finland, Reykjavik in Iceland, Qeqqata Kommunia in Greenland and Borås in Sweden

Cross-border transport infrastructure planning in the Nordic Region : an introduction

Throughout history, transport infrastructure has played a crucial role inindustrialisation, economic growth and regional development and continues to do so. In recent decades, international trade, the growth potential of extended crossborder labour markets and new connections, such as the Öresund bridge (finalised in2000) and the Fehmarn Belt connection between Denmark and Germany (to beopened in 2029), have further increased interest in cross-border transportinfrastructure. This is the first report in the NORDINFRA project, aiming at increasing knowledge ofcross-border transport infrastructure planning in the Nordic Region. The project covers four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) and explores institutional and other challenges and opportunities associated with better and more coordinated cross-border transport infrastructure planning. NORDINFRA is a research project financed by the Swedish Transport Administration(Trafikverket) and run by Nordregio and Umeå University. Its research methods consist of literature and document studies as well as interviews with stakeholders.Three Nordic cross-border transport infrastructure case studies have been selected:a new fixed link between Sweden and Denmark, namely the Helsingborg–Helsingör road and rail tunnel; an improved railway connection between Stockholm and Oslo; and the road and ferry connection from Mo i Rana in Norway, via Umeå in Sweden, to Vasa in Finland. This report begins with an overview of the transport infrastructure planning systemsin Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, with a focus on the policy goals, the main actors and their responsibilities within the transport infrastructure planning system, central elements of the planning process, analytical tools and tools for impact analysis. Overall, we find many similarities between the Nordic countries, although there are also important differences. In terms of transport goals, all four countries share important commonalities in that they focus on efficiency, accessibility, sustainability, and safety – although the specific goals are formulated in different ways and with different emphases. We find that, to a large extent, the countries share the same timeframe when it comes to the planning period (Denmark 2021–2035, Finland2021–2032, Norway 2022–2033 and Sweden 2022–2033). These commonalities are positive and can be expected to facilitate the planning of cross-border transport infrastructure objects. The analysis of the countries’ national infrastructure and transportation plans shows that although Nordic cross-border transport is mentioned, the focus is primarily on national transport infrastructure that is not adjacent to a border. In all the countries, planning takes place via step-bystep, formalised processes, including impact assessments. Here, too, the similarities between the countries can be expected to increase the potential for cross-border collaboration. We also find similarities between the Nordic countries studied when it comes to the main actors involved in transport infrastructure planning. At national level, the relevant ministry holds the responsibility for transport infrastructure, along with one or several national authorities in the field. However, one important difference between the Nordic countries is that, according to the Danish and Norwegian public administration models, the national transport authorities have less independence from the transport ministry than the equivalent agencies in Sweden and Finland. In all of the countries, the regional councils are responsible for elaborating a regional development strategy and are frequently involved in public transportation. The municipalities are responsible for local physical planning but may also have other tasks relating to transport infrastructure, such as local roads, local public transport, ports and airports. Looking closer, the division of transport infrastructure tasks between different levels of government varies depending on the country, and there can sometimes be territorial differences within the country, too. However, a general pattern can be observed whereby actors at national level have overall responsibility for the national transport infrastructure system, whereas regional and local actors are endowed with specific tasks and responsibilities within the transport infrastructure system. In order to facilitate cross-border transport infrastructure planning it is important that those actors involved in cross-border transport infrastructure planning have knowledge about these differences between the countries and regions involved to be able to better understand the prerequisites for cross-border infrastructure planning and adapt to the circumstances involved. Although transport infrastructure planning primarily takes place within a national context, also the European Union plays an important role for cross-border transport infrastructure planning. A policy area of great importance is EU transport policy – for example, the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) which aims to link territories across the EU via a core network of corridors, of which the Scandinavian –Mediterranean (Scan-Med) and North Sea–Baltic corridors are most important for the Nordic countries. The EU’s policy for regional development and its Cohesion Policy are both central to cross-border collaboration – not least the Interreg A programmes, which are targeted at cross-border co-operation. Just as the EU regional development policy is connected to measures and financing mechanisms such as the Interreg, the implementation of EU transport policy is facilitated by, e.g.the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). While EU policies in the fields of regional development and transport support cross-border transport infrastructure planningin the Nordic Region, it is less evident to what extent Nordic co-operation supports cross-border transport infrastructure planning. Even though the national transport authorities are involved in knowledge-sharing networks (e.g. Nordisk Vejforum, and NJS – Forum for Nordisk Jernbanesamarbeid), since the dissolution of the Council of Ministers for Transport in 2005, there has been a lack of a Nordic political platform to discuss cross-border transport infrastructure. Previous research and literature show that cross-border transport infrastructure faces challenges in many different fields. Challenges relating to governance involve, for example, many stakeholders at different levels of government. Economic challenges may relate to, for example, only calculating benefits on one side of a national border or increased costs due to higher insecurity. Among the legal and administrative challenges, we find conflicting laws and regulations; and among the political challenges, a lack of political interest or the risk of altering the balance of power between countries or within a country. Other challenges may relate to differences in technology, calculation models or language. However, research literature and previous findings also highlight opportunities to overcome those challenges. These include establishing clear common goals, promoting transparency, working with relevant stakeholders and ensuring their commitment, allocating benefits and risks, and promoting effective governance. NORDINFR