Periodic Reporting for period 2 - Re-Place (REFRAMING NON-METROPOLITAN LEFT BEHIND PLACES THROUGH MOBILITY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2024-03-01 do 2025-02-28
Recent scholarship on Left-Behind Areas (LBAs) has primarily focused on outmigration and the resulting population decline, often overlooking the increasing diversification of mobility patterns occurring within these territories. The work we are conducting in Re-Place seeks to reposition mobility not merely as a vector of loss, but as a potential lever for development, particularly within the framework of alternative development. The overall objective of Re-Place is to mobilize participative research in non-metropolitan left-behind areas to examine the impact that spatial mobility has on origin and destination areas and how it can be harnessed to improve alternative local development across different contexts.
Re-Place, adopting a place-based, gender+, intersectional lens, addresses these issues and their contextual variations through the following research activities: 1) elaborating a unique typology of LBAs developed through the creation of a Local Human Development Index based on local community capital; 2) generating evidence at the national level through representative survey data on individual place identity, attachment, wellbeing and mobility; 3) choosing case studies to scale down to the local level in 12 non-metropolitan LBAs; 4) developing mobility profiles of the LBAs; 5) mapping policy and bottom up initiatives relating to mobility and local development; 6) generating qualitative evidence through local stakeholder interviews in the policy, civic and private sectors; 7) identifying and making visible the livelihood strategies and micro practices of local households through in-depth interviews; 8) engaging citizens through village labs to actively envision future solutions; 9) developing a policy toolbox; 10) reframing narratives and place representations through the curation of visual outputs.
Re-Place, adopting a place-based, gender+, intersectional lens, addresses these issues and their contextual variations through the following research activities: 1) elaborating a unique typology of LBAs developed through the creation of a Local Human Development Index based on local community capital; 2) generating evidence at the national level through representative survey data on individual place identity, attachment, wellbeing and mobility; 3) choosing case studies to scale down to the local level in 12 non-metropolitan LBAs; 4) developing mobility profiles of the LBAs; 5) mapping policy and bottom up initiatives relating to mobility and local development; 6) generating qualitative evidence through local stakeholder interviews in the policy, civic and private sectors; 7) identifying and making visible the livelihood strategies and micro practices of local households through in-depth interviews; 8) engaging citizens through village labs to actively envision future solutions; 9) developing a policy toolbox; 10) reframing narratives and place representations through the curation of visual outputs.
In the first year of the project two main activities were completed. Activity 1 centred on creating a Local Human Development Index (LHDI), using material, socio-human, and health capital data. Six country datasets and metadata were produced. A Regional Human Development Index (RHDI) was also constructed using EUROSTAT data, allowing LBAs to be classified by regional development levels within the EU. Activity 2 focused on an online population survey across the six Re-Place countries. The survey reached over 12,000 individuals, with oversampling of international and return migrants (300 per country).
In the second year, seven key activities were completed: Activity 1 involved combining the LHDI with the large-scale survey data. Using multi-level modelling, we analysed the relationship between individuals' (migrants, non-migrants and returnees) place attachment, mobility preferences, subjective wellbeing, and regional human development. Activity 2 focused on the selection of 12 case study areas across the six countries, using a multi-level selection procedure based on LHDI/RHDI scores, national statistics (e.g. economic decline, population change, migration patterns) and qualitative assessments. Three types of areas were selected: (1) areas with low LHDI in less developed EU regions, (2) areas with low LHDI in mid-to-high RHDI regions, and (3) areas with high LHDI in low-to-mid RHDI regions.Activity 3 involved developing methodological tools, including guidelines for visual methodologies, expert interview guides, and household interview guides to guide the research at the local level in the 12 case study areas. Activity 4 advanced local-level analysis of (im)mobility drivers, developing historical and contemporary mobility and structural profiles for each area. Activity 5 involved conducting 152 interviews with local key actors across the case study areas. These interviews focused on understanding conventional and non-conventional strategies to promote local development and the impacts of migratory and non-migratory mobilities on these areas. Gaps remain regarding how different types of (im)mobile individuals experience place attachment, identity, and wellbeing, the strategies they use for dealing with peripherality and livelihoods. This is currently being addressed in Activity 6 through household interviews in the 12 case study areas. Activity 7 established a visual methods taskforce, setting the foundation for a co-produced visual archive to create new narratives and representations of migrants and places, promoting more complex portrayals of life in Europe’s peripheries.
In the second year, seven key activities were completed: Activity 1 involved combining the LHDI with the large-scale survey data. Using multi-level modelling, we analysed the relationship between individuals' (migrants, non-migrants and returnees) place attachment, mobility preferences, subjective wellbeing, and regional human development. Activity 2 focused on the selection of 12 case study areas across the six countries, using a multi-level selection procedure based on LHDI/RHDI scores, national statistics (e.g. economic decline, population change, migration patterns) and qualitative assessments. Three types of areas were selected: (1) areas with low LHDI in less developed EU regions, (2) areas with low LHDI in mid-to-high RHDI regions, and (3) areas with high LHDI in low-to-mid RHDI regions.Activity 3 involved developing methodological tools, including guidelines for visual methodologies, expert interview guides, and household interview guides to guide the research at the local level in the 12 case study areas. Activity 4 advanced local-level analysis of (im)mobility drivers, developing historical and contemporary mobility and structural profiles for each area. Activity 5 involved conducting 152 interviews with local key actors across the case study areas. These interviews focused on understanding conventional and non-conventional strategies to promote local development and the impacts of migratory and non-migratory mobilities on these areas. Gaps remain regarding how different types of (im)mobile individuals experience place attachment, identity, and wellbeing, the strategies they use for dealing with peripherality and livelihoods. This is currently being addressed in Activity 6 through household interviews in the 12 case study areas. Activity 7 established a visual methods taskforce, setting the foundation for a co-produced visual archive to create new narratives and representations of migrants and places, promoting more complex portrayals of life in Europe’s peripheries.
Building on the well-established beyond GDP and alternative development agenda, Re-Place moved beyond “hard infrastructures” and classical economic performance measures. Local areas are conceptualised as "community capital structures" through the development of the Local Human Development Index (for Re-Place countries) and Regional Human Development Index (for the EU), considering economic-material, human capital, and health assets.
The Re-Place survey provided individual-level data to explore links between (im)mobile individuals, the region in which they live and place attachment, subjective well-being, and mobility preferences/intentions. Findings showed that while immigrants generally reported similar levels of place attachment as non-migrants, returnees reported higher levels (except in Germany). Migration experience was not a strong direct predictor of well-being; well-being was more linked to household financial status, quality of life, trust in institutions, and social support. Migration status directly influenced mobility preferences, with immigrants and returnees more likely to want to move to another European country. In analysing RHDI values, we found that most variation in individual attitudes occurred at the personal level, with regional human development levels explaining little of the differences.
In 12 peripheral case study areas, ongoing fieldwork explores mobility drivers and local transformations through expert interviews, providing important diagnostics to help with the future co-creation of policy to harness the benefits of mobility. Despite challenges with issues like discontent, population retention, brain drain and limited services, several places show potential for positive change, reflected in a typology of three left-behind area trajectories:(1) Critical juncture - Hope for change; (2) Legacy locks - Seeds of change; (3) Regenerative currents - Winds of change. This typology provides insights into the potential for our case studies to transition from their current local development status, as measured by our LHDI.
The Re-Place survey provided individual-level data to explore links between (im)mobile individuals, the region in which they live and place attachment, subjective well-being, and mobility preferences/intentions. Findings showed that while immigrants generally reported similar levels of place attachment as non-migrants, returnees reported higher levels (except in Germany). Migration experience was not a strong direct predictor of well-being; well-being was more linked to household financial status, quality of life, trust in institutions, and social support. Migration status directly influenced mobility preferences, with immigrants and returnees more likely to want to move to another European country. In analysing RHDI values, we found that most variation in individual attitudes occurred at the personal level, with regional human development levels explaining little of the differences.
In 12 peripheral case study areas, ongoing fieldwork explores mobility drivers and local transformations through expert interviews, providing important diagnostics to help with the future co-creation of policy to harness the benefits of mobility. Despite challenges with issues like discontent, population retention, brain drain and limited services, several places show potential for positive change, reflected in a typology of three left-behind area trajectories:(1) Critical juncture - Hope for change; (2) Legacy locks - Seeds of change; (3) Regenerative currents - Winds of change. This typology provides insights into the potential for our case studies to transition from their current local development status, as measured by our LHDI.