In Search of the Rurban Idyll? Developing the Residential Rural Areas in Finland

Chapter
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 107)

Abstract

This research focuses on perceptions of rurality in Finland. The chapter presents two different ways of delineating contemporary rural living: the approach of the Finnish Rural Policy Committee and the alternative approach arising from definitions given by the people living in rural Finland. The main aim is to study how the cultural meanings that rural residents attach to their home environments relate to the official vision of ‘Residential Rural Areas’ proposed by the Rural Policy Committee. This is done by comparing the experiential knowledge of rural residents to the official vision of future rurality. The research provides knowledge that can be used to evaluate the cultural sustainability of proposed development actions. This ethnographic research is grounded on fieldwork conducted during 2009 in rural areas of Central Finland.

Keywords

Rural Resident Urban Sprawl Rural Environment Rural Living Urban Living 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Åstöm, A.-M. (2005). Den etnologiska forskningsprocessen – en djupdykning I mental och materiella sfärer. In P. Korkiakangas, P. Olsson, & H. Ruotsala (Eds.), Polkuja etnologian menetelmiin (pp. 25–42). Helsinki: Ethnos ry.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, D. (2006). Variations on the rural idyll. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 149–160). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendix, R. (2000). Heredity, hybridity and heritage from one fin de siècle to the next. In P. Anttonen, A.-L. Siikala, S. Mathisen, & L. Magnusson (Eds.), Folklore, heritage politics and ethnic diversity (pp. 37–54). Botkyrka: Multicultural Centre.Google Scholar
  4. Brennan, M. A., Flint, C., & Luloff, A. E. (2009). Bringing together local culture and rural development: Findings from Ireland, Pennsylvania and Alaska. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunce, M. (2003). Reproducing rural idylls. In P. Cloke (Ed.), Country visions (pp. 14–30). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. Cadieux, K., & Hurley, P. (2011). Amenity migration, exurbia, and emerging rural landscapes: Global natural amenity as place and as process. GeoJournal, 76(4), 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cloke, P. (2003). Knowing ruralities? In P. Cloke (Ed.), Country visions (pp. 1–13). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  8. Cloke, P. (2006). Conceptualizing rurality. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 18–28). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dupuis, E. M. (2006). Landscapes of desires? In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 124–132). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fielding, A. J. (1989). Migration and urbanization in Western Europe since 1950. The Geographical Journal, 155(1), 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frykman, J., & Gilje, N. (2003). An introduction. In J. Frykman & N. Gilje (Eds.), Being there: New perspectives on phenomenology and the analysis of culture (pp. 7–51). Lund: Academic.Google Scholar
  12. Hienonen, K. (2011). The countryside in the society of meanings (Report 52). Helsinki: Sitra.Google Scholar
  13. Hompland, A. (1991). Chapter 9: Rurbanization, suburbia and metropolis. Social scenarios in Norway and Europe. In R. Almås & N. With (Eds.), Rural futures in an international world. Centre for Rural Research: Trondheim.Google Scholar
  14. Kaipainen, J. (2011). Järjestöjen kilpailukyky maaseudun palvelutuotannossa. Kokkola: Kokkolan yliopistokeskus Chydenius.Google Scholar
  15. Knuuttila, S., & Rannikko, P. (2008). Sivakka ja Rasinmäki tutkimuksina. In S. Knuuttila, P. Rannikko, J. Oksa, T. Hämynen, H. Itkonen, H. Kilpeläinen, M. Simula, S. Vakimo, & M. Väisänen (Eds.), Kylän Paikka. Uusia Tulkintoja Sivakasta ja Rasinmäestä (pp. 9–22). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
  16. Korkiakangas, P. (2010). The romanticised countryside – Ethnological research and countryside nostalgia. In T. Bata & Z. Szarvas (Eds.), Past and present stereotypes – Ethnological, anthropological perspectives (pp. 75–86). Budapest: Hungarian Ethnographical Society.Google Scholar
  17. Kuisma, J. (2005). Maaseutu yhteiskunnallisena kysymyksenä. In I. Niiniluoto & J. Sihvola (Eds.), Nykyajan Etiikka. Keskusteluja Ihmisestä ja Yhteisöstä (pp. 99–126). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar
  18. Macnaghten, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested natures. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Mahon, M., Fahy, F., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (2012). The significance of quality of life and sustainability at the urban–rural fringe in the making of place-based community. GeoJournal, 77(2), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marcus, G. (1986). Contemporary problems of ethnography in the modern world system. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 165–193). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell, C. (2004). Making sense of counterurbanization. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murdoch, J. (2003). Co-constructing the countryside: Hybrid networks and the extensive self. In P. Cloke (Ed.), Country visions (pp. 263–282). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  24. Nieminen-Sundell, R. (2011). Beautiful scenery, but no jobs. Helsinki: Sitra.Google Scholar
  25. Olsson, P., & Ruotsala, H. (2009). Introduction. In P. Olsson & H. Ruotsala (Eds.), Gendered rural spaces (pp. 7–17). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
  26. Panelli, R. (2006). Rural society. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 63–84). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rural Housing Development Programme (RHDP). (2007). Residential rural areas 2007–2010. Helsinki: Rural Policy Committee.Google Scholar
  28. Rural Policy Programme (RPP). (2009). Countryside for vigorous Finland. Rural Policy Programme 2009–2013. Helsinki: Rural Policy Committee.Google Scholar
  29. Savage, L., & Lapping, M. (2003). Sprawl and its discontents: The rural dimension. In M. Lindstrom & H. Bartley (Eds.), Suburban sprawl: Culture, theory and politics (pp. 5–18). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Short, J. R. (1991). Imagined country: Environment, culture and society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Siivonen, K. (2007). The right to stand outside the cultural heritage. A condition for sustainable cultural development. Ethnologia Fennica, 34, 6–19.Google Scholar
  32. Sireni, M. (2011). Climate policy and the utilization of housing space in sparsely populated rural areas. Helsinki: Rural Policy Committee.Google Scholar
  33. Snellman, H. (2003). Kansa tietää! In P. Laaksonen, S. Knuuttila, & U. Piela (Eds.), Tutkijat kentällä (Yearbook of Kalevala Society 82, pp. 44–61). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
  34. Strang, V. (2009). What anthropologists do? Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  35. Villa, M. (2000). Rural life courses in Norway: Living with the rural–urban complementarity. The History of the Family, 5(4), 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wade, P., & Rinne, P. (2008). A leader dissemination guide book based on programme experience in Finland, Ireland and the Czech Republic. Helsinki: Rural Policy Committee.Google Scholar
  37. Williams, R. (1985 [1973]). The country and the city. London: The Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  38. Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography. Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Wylie, J. (2003). Landscape, performance and dwelling: A Glastonbury case study. In P. Cloke (Ed.), Country visions (pp. 136–157). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and EthnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations