Name

NAT

COTER

Rural proofing

– a foresight framework for

resilient rural communities

Commission for

Natural Resources

Commission for

Territorial Cohesion Policy

and EU Budget

Partial reproduction is permitted, provided that the source is explicitly mentioned.

More information on the European Union and the Committee of the Regions is available online at

http://www.europa.eu and http://www.cor.europa.eu respectively.

QG-05-22-139-EN-N; ISBN: 978-92-895-1233-6; doi:10.2863/542366

This report was written by

Roland Gaugitsch, Isabella Messinger, Wolfgang Neugebauer,

Bernd Schuh (ÖIR); Maria Toptsidou, Kai Böhme (Spatial Foresight).

Language review by Arndt Münch (ÖIR).

It does not represent the official views of the European Committee of the

Regions.

Table of contents 
 
Executive Summary  1 
Introduction  3 
 State of play of Rural proofing  7 
1  Rural proofing in the Better Regulation Agenda  7 
2  Rural proofing methodologies  8 
2.1  Rural proofing (Finland)  8 
2.2  Regional Impact Assessment Statement (Australia)  10 
2.3  Rural Lens (Canada)  11 
2.4  Rural proofing (New Zealand)  12 
2.5  Rural proofing (England)  13 
 Existing TIA tools  15 
1  TIA Quick Check  16 
2  RHOMOLO  17 
3  LUISA  18 
4  EATIA  19 
5  TARGET TIA  20 
6  Territorial Foresight  22 
 The specificities of rural areas  25 
1  Trends and challenges in rural areas  25 
2  Impacts on policy planning and assessment tools  31 
3  Types of rural areas  33 
 Application and improvement of existing methodologies  37 
1  Rural proofing through Territorial Impact Assessment – TIA Quick 
Check  37 
1.1  Defining the frame of the assessment  38 
1.2  Systemic picture of effects  40 
1.3  Assessment of potential impacts  42 
1.4  Suitability and improvements  43 

V 
2  Rural proofing with a territorial foresight touch – the hypothetical 
case of the REPowerEU plan  45 
2.1  Defining the foresight question  45 
2.2  Collecting relevant trends, wild cards & challenges  46 
2.3  Identifying possible future pathways in a participatory 
process  47 
2.4  Analysis and post-processing of possible pathways  49 
3  Rural proofing through Territorial Impact Assessment – ESPON 
EATIA  50 
3.1  Screening  50 
3.2  Scoping  51 
3.3  Assessment and evaluation  53 
3.4  Suitability and improvements  54 
 Guidance for better rural proofing  55 
1  Factors for implementing rural proofing  56 
1.1  Success factors  56 
1.2  Main challenges  58 
2  Selecting methodologies  59 
3  Recommendations  61 
3.1  Methodological developments  61 
3.2  Policy developments  63 
3.3  Supporting measures  64 
 Conclusion  67 
1  Recommendations for the EU policymaking process  69 
2  Recommendations for local, regional and national authorities  70 
List of interviews  73 
Bibliography  75 
 
 
 
 
   

VI 
Tables 
 
Table 1:  Additional indicators added to the TIA Quick Check  39 
Table 2:  Selection of relevant trends, wild cards and challenges 
(hypothetical examples)  46 
Table 3:  Possible relevant future pathways and their implications on 
rural areas (hypothetical examples)  48 
Table 4:  Future-wise rural proofing – Summary table   49 
 
 
Figures 
 
Figure 1:  Population by type of demographic change by urban-rural 
typology, 2010-2040  26 
Figure 2:  Shrinking and growing regions in the European Union  27 
Figure 3:  Percentage of households with access to Internet >30Mbit/s 
in 2019 or latest available year, at the rural and national 
levels  30 
Figure 4:  Typology of “complex shrinking” in rural and intermediate 
regions  35 
Figure 5:  Urban-Rural-Typology of Statistic Austria including 
Tourism  36 
Figure 6:  Systemic picture TIA Quick Check  41 
Figure 7:  Impact on all regions (left) vs. rural regions (right)  42 
Figure 8:  Impact classes for all regions (top) vs. rural regions 
(bottom)  43 
Figure 9:  EATIA logic chains  51 
Figure 10:  Regionalised impacts  52 
Figure 11:  Impact assessment matrix  53 
 
 

Executive Summary

The study Rural proofing – a foresight framework for resilient rural communities

is focussing on a term that has become in recent years a prominent concept within

rural development. Rural areas are considered as particularly at-risk regarding

disparities and unbalanced impacts of policies on EU level and other levels of

governance, therefore the idea of “rural proofing”, namely ensuring that “thinking

rural” becomes part of the policy design at all governance levels, potential

negative impacts are addressed and positive aspects of a policy are fostered. Rural

proofing is called for by the Cork Declaration 2.0, by the EU long-term-vision on

rural areas and is a declared approach of the 2022 Work Programme of the

European Commission.

Rural proofing is furthermore included in the Better Regulation Agenda at

multiple points. From a methodological point of view it is close to Territorial

Impact Assessment (TIA) as recognised by the Better Regulation Toolbox, tool

#34 in its approach of focussing on assessing impacts based on specific regional

traits and characteristics. Rural proofing however is not only an impact

assessment process, but rather part of the overall policy design. “Thinking rural”

needs to be relevant at all stages, from drafting the initial policy strategy all the

way to impact assessment after implementation.

Based on expert interviews and literature review, an assessment of existing rural

proofing approaches in (mainly) national circumstances was conducted in the

study, identifying main challenges and main success factors for implementing

rural proofing. Building on this knowledge, a grid assessment of existing TIA

approaches was conducted in order to identify potentials and shortcomings of

those methodologies for rural proofing. While some methodologies are not well

suited due to their methodological approach or geographic focus, three particular

methodologies were identified that can potentially contribute to rural proofing

exercises. The TIA Quick Check, territorial foresight as well as EATIA carry such

a potential, all of which apply different approaches regarding territorial

demarcation, use of quantitative data and expert involvement.

As none of those methodologies has yet been applied for rural proofing, three

cases demonstrating the practical application in hypothetical examples were

developed. The test runs do not only serve as practical examples, but also

contributed to identifying shortcomings in practical application. Based on those

test-runs a number of recommendations for further development of those tools

could be made. Inter alia, improvements are advised to specific tools, increasing

their geographical resolution and database flexibility as well as visualisations.

Furthermore particular guidance for application in rural proofing as well as

adapting templates provided to the specific application are recommended.

Apart from specific of methodologies, the wider implementation of rural proofing

in policymaking, including supporting measures has been assessed. The study has

shown, that rural proofing where it has been applied rarely succeeded if it

consisted only of a checklist approach or an individual methodology. Key factor

for successful implementation was the establishment of a responsible ministerial

department or other governmental body for rural proofing. Those bodies should

provide expert input to other departments on thematic and methodological issues,

act as a networking and exchange platform, and in general be involved in policy

drafting processes from early stages onward. A solid basis for rural proofing

within the legislative framework is also considered as a key success factor.

Therefore, a better link between the EU legislative process as laid down in the

Better Regulation Guidelines, the existing emphasis on Territorial Impact

Assessment and Rural Proofing will be necessary. For example, at EU level, tool

#34 should be expanded in order to address, how TIA can serve rural proofing

exercises, and how the methods currently included can be used in practice.

Another entry point for such an integration may be the preliminary impact

assessment stage, where the use of a territorial lens (including the rural one) may

serve as horizontal first assessment step to identify potential impacts of the

sectoral dimensions (economic, social, environmental etc.) in different types of

territories.

The study provides detailed recommendations on the above topics, aiming to

contribute to the development and mainstreaming of rural proofing and TIA at all

governance levels. Not only the EU level, but also national and regional levels are

addressed and specific guidance for them is provided. Ultimately, the study should

contribute to the debate on rural proofing raising awareness about the issue, but

also provides concrete recommendations for the successful implementation.

Introduction

This study is focussing on a term that has become in recent years a prominent

concept within rural development. Rural proofing has become a part of actions to

strengthening territorial impact assessments and is a declared approach of the

2022 Work Programme of the European Commission. Rural areas are considered

as particularly at-risk regarding disparities and unbalanced impacts of policies on

EU level and other levels of governance.

In 2016 the Cork Declaration first coined the term “rural proofing” in the context

of the CAP: “The rural potential to deliver innovative, inclusive and sustainable

solutions for current and future societal challenges such as economic prosperity,

food security, climate change, resource management, social inclusion, and

integration of migrants should be better recognised. A rural proofing mechanism

should ensure this is reflected in Union policies and strategies. Rural and

agricultural policies should build on the identity and dynamism of rural areas

through the implementation of integrated strategies and multi-sectorial

approaches.”

It has become obvious that since the CAP reform 1999 with the

introduction of Rural Development in the realm of Agricultural Policy that rural

areas are seen as specifically to be addressed regions in Europe. The assumption

was (and still is) that rural areas are differently affected by policies (as compared

to urban regions) due to the specific traits such as, for example, low population

density and net-population loss, lower income and economic potential, relatively

high dependence on single sectors (agriculture and related sectors) and low

connectivity and infrastructure endowments.

Rural proofing shall in this sense support to revitalise rural areas and close the

rural-urban gap by ensuring all relevant policies are aligned with rural needs and

realities. It is one of the transversal elements outlined in the Long-term Vision for

Rural Areas

. As the long-term vision, the rural proofing tool to be developed shall

contribute to implementing Art. 174 and 349 TFEU. As a part of the Better

Regulation Agenda, it should serve to assess the anticipated impact of major EU

legislative initiatives on rural areas. The vision also calls for Member States to

consider implementing the rural proofing principle at the national, regional and

local level.

Throughout the years there have been various definitions used and, in many cases,

there has been a mix of defining the term with policy changes to be captured by

the mechanism. In a most recent publication for the European Network for Rural

https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/cork-declaration_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/new-push-european-democracy/long-term-vision-

rural-areas_en

Development (ENRD) the following definition has been used: “rural proofing is

a systematic process to review the likely impacts of policies, programmes and

initiatives on rural areas because of their particular circumstances or needs (e.g.

dispersed populations and poorer infrastructure networks). In short, it requires

policy-makers to ‘think rural’ when designing policy interventions in order to

prevent negative outcomes for rural areas and communities.”

This definition implies that rural proofing is to be regarded as a tool to assess

territorial impacts caused by any policy/intervention specifically filtering between

these effects in rural vs. any other areas. In other words, this definition leads the

way to the following components of the term:

• Territorial impacts: to be understood as a consequence of an external trigger

(exposure to a policy, shock, intervention) for a specific type of territory (rural

area – to be specifically defined and demarcated from any other area – e.g.,

urban). This definition follows a set of certain territorial characteristics, which

determine the reaction of the territory on the external trigger.

• Overall effect/impact: to be identified in contrast to any other territories. This

means that without comparison this contrast or difference of effect may not be

seen.

• Territorial unit: following suit the issue of demarcation of rural areas is then

the granulation on which the impact has to be captured. This implies that any

territory too large in size may not be suited to effectively show the different

effects of the policies. The phenomena of levelling out effects in too large an

area may occur.

This brings rural proofing very close to the methodological approaches used for

Territorial Impact Assessment. The Better Regulation Guidelines Toolbox

(Tool

#34) uses the two concepts synonymously: “Impact assessments and evaluations

should systematically consider territorial impacts when they are relevant and

there are indications that they will be significant for different territories of the

EU. Thanks to territorial impact assessments (TIA) and rural proofing

, the needs

and specificities of different EU territories can be better taken into account (for

Atterton J. (2022): Analytical overview of rural proofing approaches and lessons learned; ENRD Thematic

Group Rural proofing – Draft background document; Rural Policy Centre, SRUC (Scotland’s Rural

College)

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/br_toolbox_-_nov_2021_-_chapter_3.pdf

Commission Communication, The Future of Food and Farming, COM(2017) 713 and Commission

Communication: A Long Term Vision for Rural Areas, COM(2021) 345

instance of urban

/rural areas, cross-border areas

and the EU outermost

regions

) to facilitate cohesion across the Union.” It furthermore defines TIA in

the following way: “Territorial impact assessments are looking into all thematic

aspects of impact assessments (economic, social, and environmental) by

translating them into the territorial setting (regions)”. This strong conceptual link

between TIA and rural proofing is explored in the study. TIA methodologies

provide an important input for the methodological development of rural proofing.

For many years rural proofing has been rather applied on the Member State level

with more or less success and stringency (see examples from the ENRD Working

Group on Rural proofing

). The Cork Declaration and the following policy

discussion the Directorate for Agriculture (DG AGRI) has lifted the mechanism

up to the EU level. Quite logically – as the regional/local focus is clearly

embedded the Committee of the Regions (CoR) has also been following the

debate with interest. The study “Rural proofing – a foresight framework for

resilient rural communities” for which the present document is written aims at

identifying the mainstreaming potentials of existing rural proofing methodologies

and territorial impact assessment methodologies in the EU policy process. It

should contribute to a better understanding of rural proofing, its links with TIA,

its potentials and its limitations.

The study is based on desk research, expert interviews and case studies of rural

proofing applications. It is split in 5 parts:

• State of play of rural proofing in which past and recent developments in

the EU policy process related to rural proofing are outlined. Existing

methodologies from inside and outside of the EU are assessed regarding

their methodological approach and its advantages and disadvantages.

Experience in implementation (if available) is also presented.

• Existing TIA tools which assess methods for territorial impact assessment

currently applied. Their suitability for rural proofing is assessed and, if

applicable, which modifications to the methodology would have to be

made.

• The specificities of rural areas where the crucial challenges for rural areas

which are oftentimes considered the reason for a need for rural proofing are

Pact of Amsterdam: Urban Agenda for the EU (2016) and Council Conclusions on an Urban Agenda for the

EU (24.6.2016)

Commission Communication: Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions, COM(2017) 534

defined in Article 349 TFEU, which provides for the adoption of specific legislative measures for the EU

nine outermost regions across EU policies, taking into account their permanent constraints.

https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-thematic-work/long-term-rural-vision/TG-rural-proofing_en_en

outlined. The implications for policy planning and in particular rural

proofing tools are addressed as well.

• Application and improvement of existing methodologies in which

(virtual) case studies of applications of rural proofing are conducted. For

example, policies, three different methodologies are showcased and

potential outputs are presented.

• Guidance for better rural proofing finally synthesizes the results of parts

1 to 4 and provides recommendations for rural proofing at EU, national,

regional and local level as well as general recommendations for enhancing

the EU legislative process to include rural proofing.

1. State of play of Rural proofing

Rural proofing has been implemented in various forms in a number of countries,

with implementations ranging from voluntary application to mandatory part of the

policymaking process and from development of specific methodologies to

inclusion in broader impact assessments for policies. The term “Rural proofing”

and methodologies explicitly connected with it is particularly known in some

(former) commonwealth countries as well as in Scandinavia.

In the European Union, no such methodology has been adopted as standard,

though the European Commission underlines the need for it in several documents.

Notably the Cork 2.0 Declaration calls for an implementation of a rural proofing

mechanism in EU policymaking. Furthermore, the EC in the Staff Working

Document “A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas – Towards stronger,

connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040” states that a rural

proofing mechanism will be put in place for the EU policymaking process as part

of the Better Regulation Agenda (Atterton 2022; Bryce 2022; Expert interviews

2022; European Commission 2016; European Commission 2021).

1.1 Rural proofing in the Better Regulation Agenda

Following the call of the Cork Declaration and the long-term vision for rural areas,

the European Commission included particular considerations for rural areas into

the Better Regulation Agenda. While urban-rural disparities, challenges for rural

regions etc. have been mentioned in the Better Regulation Guidelines and

Toolbox before as well, the discussions seem to have influenced the recent

revision of the Toolbox in 2021. Notably, explicit reference to rural areas is

currently made in 11 individual tools:

• #18 Identification of Impacts

• #24 Competition

• #28 Digital-ready policymaking

• #30 Employment, working conditions, income distribution, social

protection and inclusion

• #31 Education and training, culture and youth

• #34 Territorial impacts

• #35 Developing countries

• #36 Environmental impacts

• #49 Format of the evaluation report

• #55 Horizontal matters

• #59 Cost estimates and the “one in, one out” approach

Furthermore, the term “rural proofing” is explicitly included in Tool #34

Territorial impacts, and assessment of effects concerning particularly rural

regions is stressed multiple times in this tool. While the Commission recommends

several particular methodologies for Territorial Impact Assessments (which can

partly include assessments of impacts on rural regions), no such recommendation

is made for rural proofing. The European Commission has announced in the past

however that the development of a tool for assessing impacts on rural areas is

currently ongoing (European Commission 2021, ENRD 2017)

1.2 Rural proofing methodologies

A number of approaches for rural proofing have already been applied, with

different methodologies and approaches, on different geographical levels and

against different policy backgrounds. Based on academic literature and in

particular based on inputs gathered from the recent ENRD meeting of the

Thematic Group on rural proofing, some of the most relevant methodologies have

been selected and are described below. For each method, a brief outline of the

approach, a grid-assessment based on the paper of characteristics of rural proofing

methods (Atterton 2022) as well as an overview of advantages and disadvantages

is provided.

1.2.1 Rural proofing (Finland)

Development and implementation of rural proofing in Finland started in the mid-

2000s based on international examples. While the importance of such assessments

was recognised by policymakers, it still was seen as an additional burden to the

law-making process and thus introduced only as voluntary action (Nordberg 2020,

4; Atterton 2022, 3). The core of the method is formed by a checklist produced by

the rural policy council located in the ministry of agriculture, however

implementation rests with the authority concerned with a specific policy.

Depending on the policy and implementation level, the checklist is completed

either by individual public officials, or in cooperative workshops engaging NGOs

or even the wider public. The process is supported by geospatial data analysis and

a questionnaire in some cases (Husberg 2022; Atterton 2022, 3).

Rural proofing

Mandatory?

Suggested application

Application is suggested/encouraged. The Rural Policy Council acts within their networks

and actively pushes/supports the relevant policymakers where necessary or requested.

Method for assessing the impacts

Stakeholder consultation/single person

assessment/checklist/data-based assessment

Depending on the implementation level, different methods are usually used. The core is

formed by a checklist, however methods for completion of the checklist differ. On national

level, mainly one or a few civil servants assess the potential effects based on their knowledge

and experience. On regional and local level, the process is usually more participatory bringing

in stakeholder workshops, questionnaires etc.

Involved institutions

Agricultural or rural ministry or authority/Non-

Agricultural or rural ministry or authority

The responsibility for implementing the procedure for a specific policy rests with the

authority in charge of that policy. The overall responsibility for rural proofing methodologies,

guidance and support lies with the Agricultural Ministry.

Level of application

National/regional/local level

The method has mainly been applied at regional and local level, and occasionally at national

level.

When in the policy process is it applied?

Early policy design phase/late policy design phase

The method is used ex-ante. It is advised to be used in the early policy design phase, however

as it is a voluntary procedure, in practice the responsible authorities can decide when/where

to use it.

Thematic focus

Rural areas (general)

A broad range of thematic fields are addressed in the checklist and assessment. Those fields

are supposed to cover all relevant topics for rural areas, no specific thematic focus can be

identified.

Source: Atterton (2022, 3), Husberg (2022), Nordberg (2020, 4f)

Main advantages of the method are its broad thematic orientation and adaptability

to regional and local circumstances. It can be tailored for different circumstances

and as such be applied to all kinds of legislation. It raises awareness of rural issues

in policymaking, and if applied in a participatory manner, it can act as an

“incubator” for regional and local actions by bringing different stakeholders

together (Husberg 2022; Nordberg 2020, .4f)

The main disadvantages are the slow uptake due to its voluntary nature and the

large amount of time and resources needed for a participatory process. As rural

proofing is one out of multiple available impact assessments, this reduces the

likeliness of it being applied even more (Husberg 2022; Nordberg 2020, .4f).

Overall, the method is strongly tied to other “checklist” approaches that have been

developed by different countries, and picks up multiple elements from them. It is

by design “open” to various assessment methodologies, and best used in a

participatory manner at lower geographic levels. This allows finetuning the

assessment to a wide variety of circumstances and topics, which is particularly

important for rural areas.

1.2.2 Regional Impact Assessment Statement (Australia)

The Regional Impact Assessment Statement (RIAS) was implemented in July

2003 by the State Government of South Australia and comprises an extensive

analysis of regional impact. It is required any time a significant decision may

impact services in regions. As the RIAS policy was introduced as a new approach,

agencies got assistance in deciding how best to implement it in their particular

circumstances. After a feedback process in different training and information

sessions, the guideline has been revised and re-published (DTED 2005, 2).

Title of the method

Regional Impact Assessment Statement (RIAS)

Mandatory?

Legislation backed mandatory

The RIAS process must be applied to any major government decision that will affect regional

services. This includes new policies, legislation or funding proposals, new or amended

regulatory provision, new or altered service delivery models, and program design and

evaluation.

Method for assessing the impacts

Checklist

A RIAS shall follow the template available on the website of the Department of Primary

Industries and Regions of the Government of South Australia (PIRSA). The template can be

understood more as a general guidance than a checklist, indicating the required text parts

and matters to be covered in the document.

Involved institutions

Rural ministry or authority

The Government of South Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Regions (PIRSA)

is committed to ensuring effective consultation and communication with regional South

Australian communities prior to the implementation of decisions with a significant impact on

regional communities. The RIAS Policy is part of that commitment. Regional South Australian

communities can download the RIAS template from the PIRSA homepage.

Level of application

Regional

The RIAS applies to all South Australian Government departments, agencies and statutory

bodies.

When in the policy process is it applied?

Early policy design phase/late policy design phase

A RIAS must be prepared prior to implementation of any decision that result in a significant

impact to one or more regional communities. This includes changes to existing or introducing

new services or initiatives.

Thematic focus

Specific topics

During the preparation of a RIAS economic factors, social and community factors,

environmental factors as well as equity factors shall be considered.

Source: PIRSA (2018; 2019a; 2019b; s.a.)

The main advantages of the Regional Impact Assessment Statements are the legal

framework, the precise definition of when a RIAS is to be carried out, and the

standardised guideline in the form of a template.

The main disadvantage of this method is the purely descriptive approach, which

does not allow for the same degree of objectivity as could be achieved, for

example, through quantitative evaluations. Furthermore, the guidance is rather

broad and leads to significant variation in implementation.

To conclude, the Regional Impact Assessment Statements are a good tool to get a

first overview whether a major government decision might affect regional

services, but cannot supplement a more detailed analysis. Since RIAS is a purely

descriptive method and no precise statistical analysis is required, the individual

assessments vary significantly in terms of depth and content. As a result,

individual RIAS are not comparable with each other – especially if they were

written by different persons or agencies.

1.2.3 Rural Lens (Canada)

In 1996, the “Rural Secretariat” was founded within the Department of

Agriculture and Agri-Food to bring together governments departments

concerning rural issues and priorities and to promote dialogue between rural

Canadians and the federal government. The Rural Lens in this context was

developed as a policy tool to review federal policies and programs through the

eyes of people living in distant and rural areas. The “Rural Secretariat” however

was discontinued in 2013 (Atterton 2019, 34ff). Nowadays, a new approach to

highlighting rural issues in the policymaking process has been implemented in the

context of Gender-based-analysis plus.

Title of the method

Rural Lens

Mandatory?

Legislation backed suggested

Despite its mandate, the Rural Lens had no authority to enforce horizontal coordination. After the

completion of the draft review, the Rural Lens Unit submitted a report back to the respective

government department. Considering the implementation of the comments, sponsoring

departments had no responsibility to report back to the Rural Lens Unit or the Rural Secretariat.

There was no legislation that required government departments to apply the Rural Lens and no

sanctions if it was not applied.

Method for assessing the impacts

Checklist

The Rural Lens tool was divided in 10 stages which were: Concept; Environmental Scan and

Impact Assessment; People and Organisations Involved; Development and Design;

Communications; Validation and Consultations; Refine Initiative and Identify Resources;

Approval; Deliver Program; Monitor and Evaluate Program. The guide described the stages on

the left side and included a template to fill in, questions to answer or examples to follow on the

right side.

Involved institutions

Agricultural or rural authority

The Rural Secretary prepared a guide for using the Rural Lens, which was published by

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Level of application

National

The Rural Lens was designed to review federal programmes and policies from the perspectives of

remote and rural regions.

When in the policy process is it applied?

Early policy design phase/late policy design phase

Although, the Rural Lens was created as a policy tool to review federal programmes and policies

in the early development stages, it tended to be applied in the later policy development stages.

Thematic focus

Rural areas (general)/specific topic

In stage 2, environmental and general impacts on rural, remote and urban areas were

scanned and assessed. Further sub-columns for specific groups could be added.

Source: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2001), Atterton (2019, 34ff).

Advantages: An early impact assessment could have helped to identify positive

and negative effects on rural areas. The guidance provided is rather

comprehensive gives a good overview on important questions to be considered.

Disadvantages: Since the Rural Lens tended to be applied in the later policy

development stages, it was often too late for the adaptation of the policy or

programme. The role and importance of the Rural Secretariat was somewhat

hidden and the success of the Rural Secretariat and the Rural Lens was mostly

“behind the scenes”. Furthermore, the Rural Secretariat had limited financial

resources and a small number of employees, which complicated long-time

planning. (Atterton 2019, 34ff)

Following the Rural Lens model, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

developed a Rural Lens tool and has published a guide for public bodies with the

aim of assessing regional policy implications. The Rural Lens was created to help

Cabinet decision-makers evaluate both positive and negative direct/intended,

indirect/unintended, and disproportionate or divergent implications of proposed

Cabinet decisions on rural individuals, stakeholders, and communities (PEP

2019, 3). In the past years, considerable additional efforts were made to integrate

rural considerations in the policymaking process, including mandating the

considerations through “gender-based analysis plus” in some topics and creating

a centre of expertise for rural proofing. The assessments place an emphasis on

rural economic development, however include broader rural issues as well. This

approach is considered successful in encouraging the communities to contribute

to rural development and supporting development from the inside.

1.2.4 Rural proofing (New Zealand)

In 2018, New Zealand made a formal commitment to rural proofing,

acknowledging the importance of rural communities to the country, as well as the

different structures, challenges, and drivers that exist in these communities,

implying that the impact and outcomes of new policies and programs may differ

from those in urban areas. Linked to this process, the New Zealand government

presented policymakers with recommendations for rural proofing. Along with the

recommendations, policymakers are provided a checklist, a paper detailing typical

concerns to examine, and a case study example (Atterton 2022, 4).

Title of the method

Rural proofing

Mandatory?

Suggested application

Rural proofing is a guidance tool for agencies rather than a mandatory assessment process.

Method for assessing the impacts

Checklist

The Ministry for Primary Industries published a rural proofing Guide for policy development

and service delivery planning with 7 points that should to be considered early and throughout

policy development and implementation to make rural proofing effective. Furthermore, the

rural proofing Impact Assessment Checklist is designed to help to consider potential impacts

on rural communities while developing a policy.

Involved institutions

Ministry

The Ministry for Primary Industries published the rural proofing Guide and the rural

proofing Impact Assessment Checklist. The implementation lies with the authorities

responsible for a specific policy.

Level of application

National/regional/local level

Since the rural proofing Guide and the rural proofing Impact Assessment Checklist are not

mandatory yet, the level of application is not specified.

When in the policy process is it applied?

Early policy design phase/late policy design phase

It is recommended to consider rural proofing early and throughout policy development and

implementation to be most effective.

Thematic focus

Specific topic

The rural proofing Guide focusses on infrastructure, health, education and other services,

ease of doing business/cost of compliance and communication.

The rural proofing Impact Assessment Checklist foresees to identify benefits and implications

for rural communities in the following areas: infrastructure, social, business, equity, and

other.

Source: MPI (2018a; 2018b), SWC (2018, 2)

The rural proofing Guide and the rural proofing Impact Assessment Checklist

have the advantage of providing an easy way to identify benefits and implications

for the rural communities. The guidance for its application is rather

comprehensive. The rural proofing Guide also indicates relevant rural contacts

and organisations to seek advice from.

The main disadvantages of this methods are its non-mandatory nature, the purely

descriptive approach to an impact assessment, as well as the explicit distinction

between “urban” and “rural” areas and comparing these regions with each other.

Overall, the method offers a first introduction to rural proofing. Despite the purely

descriptive approach, the comprehensive guidance ensures some consistency in

application. The government has established a core group on rural proofing as a

supporting measure, which monitors specific policy areas. Where relevant and

needed they take part in consultations, provide advice on rural issues and also

provide methodological support. Furthermore, they are available to authorities for

ad-hoc consultation on specific questions, ensuring a quick and unbureaucratic

process. This has been identified as one of the main success factors for rural

proofing in New Zealands policymaking.

1.2.5 Rural proofing (England)

Rural proofing in general has a long tradition in England being introduced in the

year 2000, with a formal requirement to publish annual reports on the matter.

Implementation however was lacking commitment from the responsible

authorities, and if conducted was done at a late stage without the possibility to

influence the policy process. The government department for rural affairs

provides guidance on assessing impacts on rural regions in the form of a checklist,

decision trees and examples for possible assessments (DEFRA 2017; DEFRA

2021; Atterton 2022)

Rural proofing (England)

Mandatory?

Mandatory application

While in principle rural proofing for policies is mandatory and dedicated personnel is defined

at each department, practical implementation seems to be lacking

Method for assessing the impacts

Checklist

Based on guidance provided by the department of rural affairs, a department responsible for

a specific policy has to assess the potential impacts, their strength and required policy actions

to address them. The method involves guiding questions and decision trees, with a descriptive

assessment of impacts.

Involved institutions

Ministry

The department responsible for a policy conducts the assessment.

Level of application

National/regional/local level

The level of application in principle is open, however guidance tends to be oriented towards

the national level. Further guidance on applying the method on the local level is provided by

other institutions and considered informal.

When in the policy process is it applied?

Early policy design phase/late policy design phase

As per the guidance the rural proofing exercise should be conducted in the early policy

design phase. Practical implementation shows however it is usually done at a later stage with

little potential influence.

Thematic focus

Rural areas (general)/specific topic (e.g.

environment, farming … )/Sub-element of TIA

The thematic focus is broad, explicitly addressing infrastructure and services, working and

living conditions, environment and equality

Source: DEFRA 2017; DEFRA 2021; Atterton 2022

The main advantage of the method is the formal commitment by the government

and the annual monitoring reports for implementation. Furthermore,

comprehensive guidance on the government level is published and regularly

updated to account for changing circumstances.

Main disadvantage is not linked to the method itself but to the practical

application. As responsible personnel was defined, the resources were available,

however, it seems the willingness to take up the issue in the policy design phase

was not high. There were no consequences if the assessment was not carried out

in an adequate manner, and furthermore confusion about responsibilities

contributed to the lacking quality (DEFRA 2017; DEFRA 2021; Atterton 2022).

2. Existing TIA tools

Territorially differentiated impacts of policies have been a topic in academic

research as well as in policymaking for a long time. Territorial Impact Assessment

(TIA) as a way of analysing such territorially differentiated impacts in a structured

manner as well as formulate suggestions for adapting policies based on the

outcomes of such analyses. By design, such TIA methodologies should be neutral,

i.e. not judging on the success of a policy but simply answering the question

“which regions or types of regions are impacted in which way by the policy”. In

some cases, such an imbalance in impacts can be undesirable and requires action

by policymakers to reduce them, while in other cases it might be acceptable or

even a desired effect (Fischer et. al. 2014, ESPON 2018).

The European Commission in the Better Regulation Toolbox, Tool #34

“Territorial Impacts” included a reference to rural proofing, however does not

consider it a TIA in itself. Nevertheless, a number of existing TIA methodologies

are in principle suitable for assessing impacts on rural areas, either by themselves

or in comparison with other regions. No TIA method developed so far can be used

as-is for rural proofing (in the sense as elaborated above – i.e. with its strong

normative character of policy shaping instead of policy assessing) without

additional considerations, however several methodologies can be easily adapted

or integrated into a rural proofing exercise (EC 2021, 297-303).

The Better Regulation Toolbox explicitly references three TIA methodologies

(TIA Quick Check, RHOMOLO and LUISA), all of which are assessed on their

suitability for rural proofing below. Furthermore, additional methodologies which

are the most commonly referenced ones in academic literature and at the same

time potentially suitable for rural proofing were included in the assessment,

namely EATIA, TARGET TIA and Territorial Foresight methodologies. There

are numerous other methodologies available, however many of them are either

outdated or not promising for rural proofing. The CoR has conducted research on

this topic already and provided a comprehensive overview of available

methodologies (CoR 2019) for further reference.

For the selected methodologies, a grid assessment outlining the general approach

and characteristics has been conducted below. The limited space available

naturally only allows for a quick overview, however weblinks are included for

further in-depth information for each method.

2.1 TIA Quick Check

The ESPON TIA Quick Check is an ex-ante territorial impact assessment method

with a hybrid approach based on the vulnerability concept. The combination of

territorial sensitivity (in the form of quantitative data) and exposure (expert

assessments in a workshop setting) leads to maps of potential territorial impacts

(impact patterns) for each region. It allows for a comparison of regional impacts

in the fields of economy, environment, society and governance, however

indicators used are broad and can be tailored to different effects (OIR, AIDICO

2013; OIR 2021). Furthermore, the assessment can be focused on different types

of regions, i.e., allows to address rural regions in particular (OIR 2021).

ESPON TIA Quick Check

General method

Hybrid

The method applies a combination of quantitative data (“sensitivity”) from statistical sources

and qualitative data in the form of expert judgement on the strength of effects (“exposure”)

collected in a workshop setting.

Processes/methods used

Territorial data analysis, Workshops, reporting

The core of the method is formed by an expert workshop, during which effects are identified

and maps on potential territorial impacts are generated with the webtool. The interpretation

of the maps takes place in the same workshop setting.

Territorial level

NUTS3

While the method in principle is capable to work on any territorial level, as long as

granulated statistical data is available, the Webtool available at the moment works on NUTS3

level. On this level, the balance between data availability on the European level and a

granulation fine enough to capture a regions characteristics is hit. The method is however

transferrable, e.g., to the national context, where different statistical data might be available.

Timing in the policy process

Ex-ante

The method is designed for an ex-ante assessment and should ideally be placed in the

inception impact assessment phase for EU policies.

Suitability for rural proofing

Could be used without modifications

While assessment of impacts on rural regions has been part of some TIA exercises, it has not

yet been used in a dedicated rural proofing setting. Comparative assessments are possible

without modification to the webtool at the moment. Some modifications could however

increase the suitability for rural proofing, e.g., improving the visibility of specific types of

regions on produced maps.

Source: OIR, AIDICO 2013; OIR 2021

The method allows for focusing the assessment on rural regions, thus in principle

is capable of contributing to rural proofing exercises. Within past assessments,

rural regions have been addressed in several instances, however, it has not yet

been used for a specific rule proofing application (CoR 2022). Based on the

underlying methodology, all assessments are comparative, i.e. either comparing

impacts on rural regions with urban regions, or comparing impacts on rural

regions amongst each other.

Main advantage is that the methodology is already recognised by the better

regulation toolbox as one of the territorial impact assessment methodologies for

the EU policy process. This ensures that knowledge about the method is already

available and would allow for easy adoption in rural proofing applications.

The method and tool are developed in projects commissioned by ESPON EGTC,

which provide trainings, webinars and application support

2.2 RHOMOLO

RHOMOLO

is a “Spatial Computable General Equilibrium Model” originally

developed by the JRC and DG REGIO for the assessment of cohesion policy on

regional level. It can be used for broader policy assessments in several fields, with

multiple modules expanding its capabilities beyond the assessment of purely

economic impacts. It is a well-tested and established methodology and recognised

by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, making it well suited for impact assessments

of EU policies in the ordinary legislative procedure (COR 2019, 5f; Mercenier et.

al. 2016).

RHOMOLO

General method

Quantitative

The method relies on a tailored computable general equilibrium model for calculating regional

impacts on NUTS 2 level.

Processes/methods used

Quantitative assessment

The core of the method is built by the CGE which models interlinkages between regional

economies. A baseline scenario is produced, to which a policy is introduced as a “shock”

allowing for calculating impacts to regional economies. The method is highly specialised and

requires expert inputs.

Territorial level

NUTS2

The model includes all EU NUTS2 regions and one region which represents the rest of the world.

Timing in the policy process

Ex-ante and ex-post

The method allows for both ex-ante as well as ex-post assessments.

Suitability for rural proofing

Could be used with modifications

Main issue related to rural proofing is the territorial level, i.e. NUTS2 level. This does not allow

for sufficient distinction between rural and other regions. The method thus in principle is

transferrable and can be used, however relies on the collection and calculation of background

data on lower regional level.

Source: CoR 2019, 5f; Mercenier et. al. 2016

Since the results of RHOMOLO are calculated of NUTS2 level, the direct

application to rural proofing is limited. NUTS 2 does not allow for clear

distinction between rural- and other areas, as almost all NUTS 2 regions contain

https://www.espon.eu/tia-tool-2022

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/rhomolo

a multitude of different types of sub-regions, including both densely populated

urban areas as well as rural areas. The methodological approach would be

transferrable to lower geographical levels, however would require considerable

effort to calculate and construct the underlying matrices. Another approach

proposed by the developers is the combination of RHOMOLO and LUISA model

assessments as outlined below (Lavalle et. al. s.a.).

The model has been applied with success on higher geographical levels. Access

to the Rhomolo Webtool is possible for interested persons with registration.

However, application to concrete policies requires expert knowledge. The JRC

runs a dedicated webpage for the model

2.3 LUISA

LUISA

refers actually not to one single model, but is considered a “Territorial

Modelling Platform”. At its core, it is a cross-sectoral model for projecting “land

functions” in a grid-based approach modelling the change in land function for

each grid cell over time based on inputs form several external models/sources.

Based on those land function projections, a number of different modules can

provide results for a range of aspects (e.g. accessibility, employment…). LUISA

can also be applied in combination with RHOMOLO with outputs from one model

feeding into the other one (Lavalle s.a. 3ff; CoR 2019, 6f).

LUISA

General method

Quantitative

Core element is a grid-based land-function projection model. Results are obtained by

comparison of a calculated baseline scenario with calculated “policy scenarios”

Processes/methods used

Quantitative assessment

The assessment of the primary land-function projection calculates projections types of land

use in a 100x100m grid. Further modules are linked to those primary results, allowing to

calculate e.g. impacts on accessibility or employment

Territorial level

Free or flexible

The primary model is grid-based producing results on a 100x100m grid. Outputs regarding

further results can vary in territorial level, partially linked to the level of input data.

Timing in the policy process

Ex-ante

The model is primarily used on ex-ante assessments. It has been applied at several stages and

is not linked to a specific phase of the policy process.

Suitability for rural proofing

Could be used with modifications

The grid-based results allow for a clear differentiation and calculation of results for rural

areas. The modelling platform is in principle open and allows to tailor functionalities for

rural proofing, e.g. allowing to single out rural regions in the assessment, or aggregating

results for rural regions only.

Source: Lavalle s.a. 3ff; CoR 2019

https://rhomolo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/luisa

The modelling platform is flexible and allows for the integration of modules,

tailoring to specific rural proofing application. The grid-based nature of land-use

projections is well suited for singling out impacts on rural regions in a policy

assessment. In particular in combination with RHOMOLO outputs (i.e. based on

the proposed RHOMOLO-LUISA linkage by the JRC) a sophisticated projection

of potential impacts on rural regions can be produced on a sufficiently detailed

regional level. Application to concrete policies requires expert knowledge, i.e. not

easy to integrate in a simple inception impact assessment or similar procedures

(Lavalle s.a., 5f).

LUISA has been applied with success and is one of the methodologies recognised

by the Better Regulation Toolbox. Access to the modelling platform is possible

for interested persons. The JRC runs a dedicated webpage for the platform

2.4 EATIA

EATIA (ESPON and Territorial Impact Assessment) is a methodology developed

in the framework of the ESPON programme. It is set up in a participatory manner,

aiming to involve relevant stakeholders and decision makers alongside of experts

in the assessment. At its core it consists of an “impact assessment matrix” which

is filled step-by-step by the assessors streamlining the expert knowledge gathered

through workshops and other consultation formats. The regions and types of

regions for which the assessment is made are defined in the process and are in

principle not bound to any administrative or statistical regions. The matrix finally

provides impact scores and directions of impacts for visualisation in maps and

other graphics (ESPON 2012).

EATIA

General method

Qualitative

The method is mainly based on expert consultation in different formats. Qualitative

assessments are made building on a structured process guided by an assessment grid. Results

are visualised and verbalised.

Processes/methods used

Stakeholder involvement/workshops

The methodology is highly participatory and involves stakeholders and external experts

through direct consultation as well as through structured workshops.

Territorial level

Free or flexible

The regions or types of regions which are affected in a specific manner as well as their

distinction is defined in the process. Due to the qualitative nature of the methodology it is not

limited to administrative boundaries or statistical regions.

Timing in the policy process

Ex-ante/ex-post

The method can be used for both ex-ante as well as ex-post assessments. The broader and

flexible nature of the qualitative assessments is suited particularly well for ex-ante

https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/luisa_en

assessments where little data is available.

Suitability for rural proofing

Could be used without modifications

Defining the assessed types of regions and distinguishing effects on different types of regions

form each other is at the core of the methodology. While principally it should be left open to

the involved experts to define the types of regions in one of the preparatory steps, it would be

possible to predefine “rural regions” for the assessment.

Source: ESPON 2012

Rural proofing methodologies in the UK were among the several methodologies

inspiring the EATIA method. In the cases where EATIA was trialled so far,

impacts on rural regions were assessed as one of different typologies, but were

not at the centre of assessments (ESPON 2012). As the method includes as one of

the first steps to define the types of regions for which the assessment is made, it

is however suited for rural proofing without further modifications.

The flexible nature of EATIA allows to tailor it to many different circumstances,

i.e. it can be used from the European level down to on sub-national level.

Furthermore, the assessment can address a broad range of topics or it can be

focused on a few topics of particular interest. Due to the qualitative nature, it is

particularly suited for thematic areas where other methodologies are limited due

to the lack of quantitative data available.

The original methodology however is somewhat limited in capturing smaller

differentiations as it only defines 2 positive and 2 negative impact classes.

Furthermore, if a broad range of topics are to be addressed, numerous

consultations are necessary in order to avoid basing assessments only on single-

expert-opinions.

The methodology is thus particularly valuable for broader assessments and for

cases were little or no quantitative data is available.

The method itself has not been applied outside of the ESPON project it was

developed for and trialled in. ESPON runs a website section for the project

2.5 TARGET TIA

TARGET TIA is not recognised by the Better Regulation Guidelines (BRG) as

one of the standard TIA methodologies, however it has been applied both as test-

run in an academic setting as well as in practice assessing impacts on cross-border

programmes. The method allows to assess the impacts along predefined

https://www.espon.eu/programme/projects/espon-2013/targeted-analyses/eatia-espon-and-territorial-impact-

assessment

dimensions (socioeconomic, environmental, sustainability,

governance/cooperation and polycentricity) and is based on the vulnerability

concept (for hybrid assessments) or purely on qualitative expert judgement (for

ex-ante assessments). Essentially, the method consists in the calculation of an

impact matrix (on a -4 to +4 scale) consisting of arithmetic average of impacts for

indicators under each dimension and finally calculating of an overall impact

(Medeiros 2014).

TARGET TIA

General method

Hybrid

Depending on the timing of the assessment, a purely qualitative approach (ex-ante) or a

combined qualitative and quantitative approach (ex-post) is used. In a multi-vector approach,

numerical impact values are calculated for four predefined territorial cohesion dimensions

Processes/methods used

Interviews/quantitative assessment

Depending on the timing and thus approach, either solely qualitative assessments based on

methodological knowledge and expert interviews are conducted, or a combined quantitative-

qualitative approach combining statistical data with expert interviews is followed.

Territorial level

Free or flexible

In principle the territorial level is free as for qualitative assessments the territorial units can

be defined in the process. However, when using quantitative data, the availability of data

determines the possible territorial level for the assessments.

Timing in the policy process

Ex-ante/ex-post

Both ex-ante as well as ex-post assessments are possible

Suitability for rural proofing

Could be used with modifications

For assessing impacts on individual regions as compared to others, the tool is suited well.

For larger-scale comparisons, the effort necessary for an assessment is considerably larger

than for other methodologies.

Source: Medeiros 2014

The TARGET TIA methodology can be used for assessing impacts on specific

regions, thus it can be used for rural regions in comparison with other regions.

However, assessments on a broader scale, i.e., multiple regions, can require a lot

of resources and might not be feasible. Furthermore, the fixed dimensions of the

original methodology are geared towards cohesion policy and might be too strict

and not the most relevant ones for a specific rural proofing exercise.

The flexibility of the method regarding data availability and territorial level is

valuable when targeting certain thematic fields which are not well-backed with

data. Furthermore, the broader scale of impacts as compared to other

methodologies is useful for distinguishing in more detailed ways between regions

and effect strength.

2.6 Territorial Foresight

The method of territorial foresight brings together qualitative and quantitative

analysis, combining foresight with elements of territorial impact assessment. The

method builds largely along participatory and co-creative approaches, in

combination with thorough desk research and mapping, for locating the territorial

implications. There are four key steps that guide territorial foresight (Böhme,

Lüer, & Holstein, 2020).

• Step 1: Defining the research “what if” question. At this stage is where the

link to the policy and the territory is made. The question should include the

future element, the territory in focus, the policy to be assessed for rural

proofing and the time horizon. In the case of rural proofing, the following

question could serve as example “What future outlooks would rural regions

have if policy A, is put into place by 2030?” Therefore, in the case of rural

proofing, the territory will be the rural areas, while the question will ask

how the respective policy to be assessed will impact rural areas in future.

• Step 2: Going through a thorough desk study and background research by

reviewing existing literature, material and resources to identify relevant

trends, factors, wild cards, challenges and their impacts, time span and

possible impacts on the territories, e.g., following the STEEP approach

(Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, Political).

• Step 3: Running the participatory process, i.e., involving engaged experts

and stakeholders in a well-structured participatory processes, to spark

lateral, out-of-the-box thinking. Different approaches can be used, ranging

from workshops and focus groups, to surveys and interviews. The

participatory approach is also used for identifying and sketching

preliminary scenarios and territorial implications e.g., for rural areas in the

case of rural proofing. A key step in this process is to make a first

stakeholder mapping.

• Step 4: Post-processing of the material, i.e., developing a combined picture

of Steps 1-3 and bringing them together into a coherent story. At this stage,

the mapping of the identified territorial implications can be finalised.

Territorial foresight

General method

Hybrid

The method combines qualitative and quantitative approaches, drawing from literature, as

well as available data through desk research.

Processes/methods used

Desk research and participatory processes

The key starting point of the method is a thorough desk research of different sources, to run a

first trend collection, i.e., a collection of drivers, trends, challenges, wild cards that may

influence different territories to a different extend. The next core element of the process is the

participatory process, which benefits from the lateral thinking and expert knowledge of

different stakeholders. At this stage the impacts of the policy at hand on rural areas will be

discussed.

Territorial level

Free/flexible

The method for identifying and locating the territorial implications can work at different

levels. Depending on the availability of data, insofar that qualitative material can be used for

the development of maps. In the case of absence of quantitative material, the experts’

knowledge and qualitative sources are used instead. In the case of rural proofing, the rural

areas are in focus. The future impacts that a respective policy may have on rural areas will be

shown in the maps and scenario story.

Timing in the policy process

Ex-ante

The territorial foresight method is not used to predict the future. Instead it offers a flexible

tool for developing different possible futures and can be used for assessing what impacts a

policy may be used on different territories. Therefore it is designed for ex-ante practice.

Suitability for rural proofing

Could be used without modifications

The territorial foresight method has not been used so far for rural proofing. However, it could

potentially be a good method for exploring the impacts different policies may have in the

future, on rural areas. A focus on rural areas may be reflected in the mapping process of the

method.

Source: Böhme, Lüer, & Holstein, 2020

The territorial foresight method can be a possible method for rural proofing

exercises, although it has not been that specifically used before. An advantage of

the method is that in can deal with the high complexity and uncertainty of the

future and future trends by using lateral thinking and co-creation approaches.

Territorial foresight is a credible method for exploring futures and dealing with

this uncertainty for such a normative concept as the “future”. For rural proofing,

it can be used to check what impacts a policy may have on rural areas in future.

Furthermore, the territorial implications further add an interesting element of

“how” the different futures look like “where”.

The added value of foresight can be summarised to better anticipation, i.e. to

prepare better and sooner, better policy innovation, i.e. bringing new thinking in

policy making and running a future-proofing, i.e. a stress test of existing or prosed

strategies against different futures (OECD, 2019). To ensure a trustworthy

analysis, specific elements need to be considered during the process, such as

covering a variety of topics (e.g. by following the STEEP, Social, Technological,

Economic, Environmental and Political approach and specific topics within),

analysing possible cross-policy impacts and exploring possible biases, e.g. by

asking specific questions or exploring the matters from different angles (European

Parliament. EPRS. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology, 2021). This

helps in designing better and more sound policies for all types of territories.

The method has so far been used in a number of projects from ESPON for the

development of territorial scenarios, such as the ESPON Territorial Futures

(ESPON, 2018), the ESPON Territorial Scenarios for the Baltic Sea Region

(ESPON, 2019) and the ESPON Territorial Scenarios for the Danube and the

Adriatic Ionian macro-regions (ESPON EGTC, 2020).

Other methods may include a stronger focus on qualitative approaches, such as

modelling or trend extrapolation, horizon scanning methods, Delphi methods,

impact analyses and others. A more detailed description of these methods can be

found in the following indicative and non-exhaustive list of sources:

• European Commission. (2021). 2021 Strategic Foresight Report. The EU’s

capacity and freedom to act. Brussels: Secretariat General, European

Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/strategic-

planning/strategic-foresight/2021-strategic-foresight-

report_en#documents

• European Parliament. EPRS. Panel for the Future of Science and

Technology. (2021). Guidelines for foresight-based policy analysis.

• European Commission. (2020). Communication from the Commission to

the European Parliament and the Council – 2020 Strategic Foresight

Report. Charting the course towards a more resilient Europe. https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0493&from=EN

• OECD. (2019). Strategic Foresight for Better Policies. Building Effective

Governance in the Face of Uncertain Futures.

• Rosling, H., Rosling, O. & Rönnlund, A. R. (2018). Factfulness: ten reasons

we’re wrong about the world – and why things are better than you think.

First edition. New York: Flatiron Books.

• European Commission DG Environment. (2017). Methodological

Framework for the systemic identification of emerging issues for the

environment.

• UNDP. (2014). Foresight: the Manual.

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-

building/global-centre-for-public-service-excellence/foresightmanual.html

• Randers, J. (2012). 2052: a global forecast for the next forty years. White

River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Pub.

• Loveridge, D. (2009). Foresight: The Art and Science of Anticipating the

Future. New York and London: Routledge.

• UNIDO. (2005). Technology Foresight Manual (Vol. 2).

3. The specificities of rural areas

The EU’s rural areas are home to 137 million people representing almost 30% of

its population and over 80% of its territory, considering all communes and

municipalities of Europe with low population size or density. While they have

always faced particular challenges, social and economic changes of the last

decades, including globalisation and urbanisation, are changing the role and

nature of rural areas (European Commission, 2021a). While potentially giving the

impression of a “gloomy future” for rural areas, the following section will focus

mainly on the challenges and topics relevant for such areas. These must not be

understood though as a purely negative outlook, as oftentimes challenges are also

linked to opportunities. E.g. remote regions might suffer from low accessibility or

broadband infrastructure, however at the same time the remoteness secures natural

capital which could not be maintained in other places. Rural proofing should not

only try to address the negative aspects (i.e. also contribute to fostering

development potentials and advantages of regions), nevertheless oftentimes the

challenges as compared to other regions are oftentimes the crucial aspect in policy

design (Shortall, Sherry 2019; ENRD 2017).

3.1 Trends and challenges in rural areas

Challenging trends in rural areas can be identified in numerous thematic fields.

Some of the main issues are population decline and ageing, erosion of rural

infrastructure and service provision, including access to healthcare, social

services and education as well as to postal and banking services. Rural areas are

also affected by shrinking employment opportunities, reduction in income or

limited transport services and lower digital connectivity (European Commission,

2021a).

Rural shrinkage and demographic change

The demographic change in rural areas is characterised by two trends: the overall

loss of population (“shrinking”) and the increase of the share of older people and

the decrease of younger people (“aging”).

In 2020, already 34% of the EU population lived in a shrinking region. Rapid

reductions in population are more likely to occur in rural regions than in urban

ones (11% as against 1%). Projections show that in the future, more regions will

be shrinking. In 2040, already 51% of the EU population will live in shrinking

regions. (European Commission, 2022)

Figure 1: Population by type of demographic change by urban-rural typology, 2010-

2040

Source: European Commission (2022)

Across Europe almost 60% of Predominantly Rural or Intermediate NUTS 3

regions meet criteria of sustained (past or projected future) demographic decline.

These regions cover almost 40% of the area of the EU and contain almost one

third of its population. These regions are mostly in the East and South of Europe,

with scattered regions in the North and West, in particular in Germany and

Sweden (ESPON ESCAPE, 2020).

The EU’s population in general is ageing, however the population in rural areas

is already older, on average, than the population in towns and suburbs and cities.

Rural regions have, on average, seen a reduction in population in recent years

mainly due to negative natural population change, not compensated by sufficient

positive net migration. Certain eastern and southern Member States are even

confronted with both challenges, as natural population change and net movement

in their rural regions have been negative. Moreover, young women are more likely

to leave rural regions than young men. These demographic trends, when coupled

with a lack of connectivity, infrastructure and productivity challenges and low

access to public services including education and care, can contribute to the lower

attractiveness of rural areas as places to live and work in particular for younger

people (European Commission, 2021a).

Figure 2: Shrinking and growing regions in the European Union

Source: ESPON ESCAPE

Especially rural regions will have to adjust to a growing population aged 65 and

over, and a shrinking working age and younger population with severe

consequences (European Commission, 2022):

• The shrinking of the working-age population (aged 20-64) weakens growth

potential and skills development, while favouring the concentration of

economic activities in fewer locations. This could lead to labour market

shortages.

• The increase in the population aged 65 and over is likely to lead to an

increase in the demand for healthcare, which will have to adapt their

infrastructure and services to make them more accessible to people with

limited mobility, and increase the capacity of healthcare services.

• Large reductions in the number of young people are likely to lead to a

reduction in the number of schools, which may lead to longer distances to

the closest school.

As a result of demographic change, there will be more older patients suffering

from chronic diseases. Almost half of persons 65 years or older are perceived as

having a disability or long-standing activity limitation. In addition, the effects of

climate change, natural disasters and environmental degradation and pollution

tend to disproportionately increase pressure on older people’s health. This will

increase the need for healthcare and other care or support services.

Economic parameters

While higher growth has enabled the gap to narrow since 2000, gross domestic

product (GDP) per capita in rural regions was still considerably lower (at 75%)

than the EU average in 2018. The economic catching-up did furthermore not reach

remote rural regions (which remain at around 70% of EU GDP per capita).

The average employment rate in the EU’s rural areas increased between 2012 and

2020 (from 67.5% to 73.1%, i.e. higher than in cities), while the average

unemployment rate dropped (from 10.4% to 5.9%, i.e. lower than in cities).

Young people have a higher unemployment rate compared to the general working

age population, also in rural areas.

In terms of share of population that is at risk of poverty or social exclusion, the

figures in 2019 are higher in rural areas (22.4%), compared to cities (21.3%) and

towns and suburbs (19.2%), and in ten Member States the percentage of the

population at-risk-of-poverty in rural areas has increased since 2012 (European

Commission, 2021a).

There is a gap between male and female employment in rural areas of 13

percentage points (versus 10 percentage points in cities), rising to over 20 in

certain Member States. This gap has remained fairly stable at EU level since 2012.

In over half of the Member States, this gender employment gap is wider in rural

areas than cities. Many women have precarious contracts (e.g. seasonal workers)

or play an “invisible role” in rural societies (e.g. assisting spouses), which may

leave them exposed to vulnerable situations (such as no access to social protection

or maternity benefits) (European Commission, 2021a).

Education opportunities

The share of population with higher education in rural areas remains low despite

an increase from 18% in 2012 to 22% in 2019. The difference between rural areas

and cities also increased from 17 percentage points in 2012 to 19 in 2019. As

regards basic skills (reading, mathematics and science), the performance gap

between urban and rural areas is also wide in many countries, as indicated by the

results of PISA 2018. In terms of at least basic digital skills the gap amounted to

Green paper on ageing (COM(2021) 50 final)

14 percentage points (48% for rural areas vs 62% for cities) in 2019 and is stable

since 2015. At EU level the rate of early leavers from education and training is

higher in rural areas and towns than in cities (European Commission, 2021a).

Access to high-quality education and training cannot be taken for granted,

especially in thinly populated regions, where people may have to travel long

distances to the relevant facilities. The combination of low birth rates and out-

migration of young people can reduce the demand for schooling in rural and

remote regions. This can lead to a vicious circle: the number of children can fall

to such a low level that it is difficult to justify maintaining a school. This in turn

makes it less attractive for families with children to move to or remain in such a

region (European Commission, 2021b).

Schools in some rural areas often struggle to provide quality education due to their

geographical isolation and small size. They are faced with insufficient

infrastructure and educational support services, a limited educational offer and a

lack of experienced teachers. This can limit the uptake of e-services and the

potential to study and work remotely, which influences the availability of quality

jobs in rural areas (European Commission, 2021a).

Access to public services and infrastructure

A core need of modern life is access to quality public services and

infrastructure. In particular, essential services and related infrastructure – such

as water, sanitation, energy, transport, financial services and digital

communications – are key to guaranteeing social and economic inclusion. They

complement and facilitate access to other services that fulfil an enabling function,

such as childcare, education, long-term care, housing, labour market and social

services and they can also be an important source of job creation.

Longer distances, lower population density and larger catchment areas make both

delivery and access to services in rural areas more difficult and oftentimes

economically challenging for providers. Delivering services of general interest

in rural areas with comparable quality to those in urban areas is key to maintaining

equitable living standards for all citizens and across all territories, including in the

most remote rural areas and in the outermost regions (European Commission,

2021a).

Green paper on ageing (COM(2021) 50 final)

Availability of digital infrastructure

The digital transition is moving forward at different speeds across Europe. Basic

broadband access is almost universal in the EU, but very-high-speed connections

are only available to 2 out of 3 city residents and 1 out of 6 rural residents. A

digital coverage gap exists between metropolitan areas and peripheral regions

(European Commission, 2022).

Many peripheral regions are currently disadvantaged in their competitiveness due

to a lack of or insufficiently powerful internet connection. This results in a lack

of an important prerequisite for exploiting development potential and for securing

or creating new jobs and thus reducing migration. In particular during the COVID-

19 pandemic and the widespread remote-work coming with it this factor has

become even more important (ÖROK 2021).

A closer look at the access to high-speed broadband reveals a clear urban-rural

divide.

Figure 3: Percentage of households with access to Internet >30Mbit/s in 2019 or latest

available year, at the rural and national levels

Source: OECD, 2020

Business models and approaches such as e-services, mobile service solutions,

private-public partnerships, social enterprises, cultural and creative industries as

well as cooperatives are generally a key factor for rural socio-economic

development. They crucially depend on the level of digital skills and the

availability and affordability of adequate digital infrastructure, and the

capacities to effectively deploy digital technologies, such as digital service

platforms. The key prerequisite for the digital transformation is internet

connectivity. Despite recent improvements in high-speed broadband connectivity,

only 59% of households in rural regions have access to next generation access

(NGA) broadband (>30Mbps), compared to 87% of the households in the EU.

(European Commission, 2021a)

The EU Rural Action Plan articulated flagship initiatives and projects. European

funding from the EAFRD, the ERDF, the ESF + and the Connecting Europe

Facility (CEF), the RRF as well as national and private funding, should work

together to invest in infrastructure, technology and people. These investments will

contribute to reaching the goal of 100% fast broadband coverage in rural areas by

2025. A minimum of 20% from the Recovery and Resilience Facility should

support the digital transition. The goal for 2030 set out by the European

Commission is that all European households should be covered by a Gigabit

network and all populated areas covered by 5G by 2030 (European Commission,

2021a).

Challenges related to climate change

Rural areas face specific challenges related to climate change and environmental

degradation. Farming and forestry are more vulnerable than urban economic

activities to more frequent adverse climate events such as storms, floods and

droughts. These sectors are among the first to feel the consequences when

biodiversity is lost posing a threat for the long-term economic perspectives of the

rural communities that depend on them. Furthermore, tourism related to natural

capital is an important income factor in many rural regions, thus threatened by

such developments as well (European Commission, 2021a)

3.2 Impacts on policy planning and assessment tools

The above trends and challenges are not universal to all rural regions across

Europe, but can be considered somewhat common for many of them. Ultimately

those topics are more likely to be of importance or more likely to pose a challenge

for a rural area than they are for an urban area. They are thus of particular

relevance when designing policies for rural areas, and subsequently of particular

relevance when assessing potential impacts of a policy in a rural proofing

exercise. As the broadness of approaches outlined in sections 1 and 2 (different

methodological approach, different territorial level, range of topics that can be

covered) and the broadness of topics addressed in section 3 suggests that no “one

size fits all approach” is feasible here, the implications for policy planning and

assessment need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Rural regions, while facing many challenges that other regions are not facing,

should also not be looked upon as disadvantaged from the outset. Firstly, what is

a challenge from one perspective can be an advantage from a different

perspective, e.g. a peripheral location which hampers accessibility, but supports

the conservation of natural or cultural heritage. Fostering the potentials while

overcoming or reducing the challenges in this case is a delicate balancing act.

Furthermore, some challenges are inherent to a region due to e.g. geographical

characteristics, or its location and not a result of policy choices and design.

Finally, the notion of rural regions being inherently disadvantaged and in need for

support by non-rural regions in policy design, economic support etc. can steer the

public perception in that direction and accelerate existing negative trends (e.g.

out-migration) (Shortall, Sherry 2019; ENRD 2017).

Academic research against this background argues, that rural proofing is thus not

simply the assessment of impacts on predefined rural areas, but is an assessment

of policy impacts against rural needs. These needs cannot be defined on a general

level, but will depend on the legislative, geographical and socio-economic

background of regions affected by a specific policy. Ideally, this means an

inclusive process with stakeholder participation, the scope of which naturally is

dependent on the geographical level as well as the policy concerned. This will

safeguard, that the particular issues of the affected regions are adequately taken

into account, and a targeted assessment can be conducted. Involving responsible

stakeholders from both the “rural sphere” as well as the “policy sphere” will

contribute to a joint idea and a sense of “ownership”. Ultimately such a notion

will contribute to the uptake of rural proofing results into policy design. In the

long run it might even contribute to broader knowledge about rural issues in

general, improving future policies from the outset (Expert interviews 2022;

Shortall, Sherry 2019; ENRD 2017)

Success factors related to the characteristics of rural areas for any tool or

methodology used for rural proofing in a specific case thus are:

• Appropriate choice of classification (if any) for rural areas depending on

geographical level, policy assessed, thematic areas covered, data needs etc.

• Comprehensive needs assessment of the rural areas affected by the policy

• Consideration of general trends in similar regions as examples, but not

generalising trends across all rural regions.

• “Positive approach” towards rural areas, aiming at fostering their potentials

(incl. their potential contribution to a policy's success) and improving

positive impacts without a notion of “looking down” on them

• Inclusion of stakeholders from the “policy sphere” as well as the “rural

sphere” in the assessment process

3.3 Types of rural areas

Europe’s rural areas are very diverse. Variations in natural and climatic

conditions, geographic features, historic and cultural developments, demographic

and social changes, national and regional specificities and economic prosperity

mean that no two rural areas are alike (European Commission, 2021a).

Nevertheless, there are approaches to classifying rural areas, either to distinguish

them from urban and peri-urban areas or to distinguish among the different types

of rural areas. A lot of indicators can be considered in such a classification:

population density, presence of infrastructural facilities, commuter traffic,

proximity and accessibility of urban areas, or the importance of sectors such as

the agricultural sector or the tourism sector. Below three examples of such

classifications are shown – one general approach used by the European

Commission for all regions, one specified approach developed in an ESPON

project for rural regions only, and one national approach covering all regions of a

country with a finer differentiation and numerous classes.

The Urban-rural typology (European Commission) covers all regions of the

EU on a NUTS 3 level and is defined based on a three-step approach. The first

step is to identify populations in rural areas: “rural areas” are all areas outside

urban clusters. “Urban clusters” are clusters of contiguous grid cells of 1 km² with

a density of at least 300 inhabitants per km² and a minimum population of 5,000.

In the second step, NUTS 3 regions are classified on the basis of the share of their

population in rural areas:

• “Predominantly rural regions” if the share of the population living in rural

areas is higher than 50%

• “Intermediate regions” if the share of the population living in rural areas is

between 20% and 50%

• “Predominantly urban regions” if the share of the population living in rural

areas is below 20%

In a third step, the size of the urban centres in the region is considered: A

predominantly rural region which contains an urban centre of more than 200,000

inhabitants making up at least 25% of the regional population becomes

intermediate. An intermediate region which contains an urban centre of more than

500,000 inhabitants making up at least 25% of the regional population becomes

predominantly urban (European Commission 2020).

ESPON ESCAPE is an example of a typology differentiating only within rural

regions. It distinguishes between rural populations which are currently being

depleted by out-migration (active shrinking) and those which contract (often

despite in-migration) due to their age structure and “natural decrease” (legacy

shrinking). It also distinguishes between active shrinking driven by regional or

national rural-urban processes, and those implicated in European-wide, or

intercontinental (globalised) flows.

The typology of “complex shrinking” defined in the project consists of the five

clusters:

1. Agricultural, very low-income regions with severe legacy and active

shrinking: These regions are declining due to their disadvantage relative to

national centres, which fuels outmigration, and they generally do not have a

strong sector to rely on to reverse this trend.

2. Industrial, mid-low-income regions with severe legacy and active

shrinking: This cluster is catching up through economic restructuring, which

is reducing low-productivity jobs, but also damaging an already weak

population structure. Thus, these regions are ranked worse than other, diverging

but demographically healthier, ones.

3. Agro-industrial, low-income regions with moderate, mostly legacy

shrinking: Being comparatively weak at national level, these regions are losing

population through some outmigration besides natural decrease; however, they

are more central, and with a relatively stronger economy than the first cluster.

4. Servitised, mid-low-income regions with moderate legacy shrinking: These

regions have grown in the past despite a “difficult” territory and a weak

secondary sector; although their economy is healthy enough to prevent massive

outmigration, its state has been worsening, and the “distorted” population

structures have resulted in “legacy shrinking”.

5. Servitised, mid-income regions with moderate, mostly legacy shrinking:

These are regions with weaker-than-national-average, but still robust

economies, which are shrinking due to distorted population structures and low

fertility rates.

Figure 4: Typology of “complex shrinking” in rural and intermediate regions

Source: ESPON ESCAPE

The map above shows their geographical distribution.

As a national example, a more differentiated approach from Statistics Austria’s

urban-rural typology is presented here as well. It is based on the classification

of the European Commission: highly densified areas are delineated based on

500m grid cells and urban and regional centres are defined on municipality level.

For the definition of regional centres, the existence of infrastructure facilities is

taken into consideration. In a next step, municipalities outside of centres are

classified according to commuter interrelations and accessibility of centres. The

results are 4 major classes: urban centres (urban regions), regional centres, rural

area surrounding centres (urban regions outer zone), rural area. These classes are

subdivided into a total number of 11 classes according to the accessibility of urban

and regional centres (central, intermediate, peripheral). Additionally, the

importance of tourism is evaluated for each municipality (additional layer of

information). (Statistics Austria, 2022)

Figure 5: Urban-Rural-Typology of Statistic Austria including Tourism

Source: Statistics Austria

As is evident, there is no “ultimate classification” for rural areas which is

generally applicable across Member States and for all levels. While approaches

on a supranational level usually have to operate on a more generalised level and

a “rural region” defined on NUTS3 level still can include considerable urbanised

or at least densely populated sub-regions, approaches on national or sub-national

level can naturally differentiate on a higher spatial resolution. Furthermore,

specific typologies can be needed for specific circumstances – e.g. for assessing

impacts of some policies classifying based on population density can be the right

approach, while for others further specific characteristics of a region (e.g. tourism

sector predominance) have to be taken into account for adequate assessments.

4. Application and improvement of

existing methodologies

A number of more or less sophisticated approaches and tools suitable for rural

proofing (with little modifications) have been developed. The reviewed

methodologies and practical application cases illustrated that, in practice, rural

proofing exercises are oftentimes relatively simplistic. The analysis of rural

specificities and corresponding implications for assessment instruments,

however, revealed that the nature of rural needs is complex. Simple checklists and

descriptive assessments conducted by small numbers of actors who not

necessarily have the desired expertise to fully take stock of this complexity, will

not suffice. Consequently, rural proofing exercises can be often perceived as “tick

box” exercises by policymakers.

The analysis, however, also discovered a number of success factors for rural

proofing based on stakeholder experience. Building on these success factors, the

following cases shows how existing methodologies can be slightly modified and

applied in a rural proofing exercise, taking into account the experience gathered

from literature and expert interviews. The three cases are:

• ESPON TIA Quick Check;

• Territorial Foresight; and

• EATIA.

4.1 Rural proofing through Territorial Impact Assessment

– TIA Quick Check

As outlined in section 2, TIA methodologies are, by nature, well-suited to capture

potential impacts on specific types of regions. In many cases, this allows for

addressing rural regions in particular and identifying specific effects compared to

effects on other regions. Those differences in potential impacts can be used for

assessing if a policy creates unbalanced or unwanted effects in rural areas, what

the nature of this effects is, and if the policy has to be adapted to address them.

The following case illustrates how the TIA Quick Check in its current form can

contribute to rural proofing a specific policy. This is done by building on an

application case of an actual territorial impact assessment on the topic of the EU

climate targets for 2030 and the various policies contributing to achieving these

targets

https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/TIA%20ClimateTargets%20final.pdf

4.1.1 Defining the frame of the assessment

First step in the assessment is to define the frame and scope.

• Which policies are actually taken into account?

• Which geographical level is the assessment taking place on?

• What is the knowledge need of the responsible institution?

• In which form will the exercise be conducted?

The policies taken into account should be linked to concrete actions. A broad

high-level strategy without concrete measures linked to it will be more difficult

to assess. In the example case, the assessment addressed the EU 2030 climate

targets and the corresponding actions in EU policies.

The geographical level of the assessment depends on several factors. The extent

of the assessment usually includes the area the policy is taking concrete actions

in. In some cases, this scope is extended to the adjacent areas where territorial

spill-over effects are expected. The resolution of the assessment depends on the

level on which actions can be defined, on the data availability, on the need to

single out specific types of regions etc. In the example case, the extent of the

assessment is set at the EU-27, as the policies are put in place for the whole of the

EU. The geographical depth is set at NUTS 3 level, because the tool available for

the quick-check by design allows for this level. It offers a balance between data

availability (higher resolution usually means less comprehensive and comparable

indicators) and concreteness of assessments. Furthermore, it crucially allows to

differentiate between rural regions and other regions based on the urban/rural

typology provided by DG REGIO.

The knowledge need defines how the assessment is approached, e.g.,

• which types of experts are invited to the expert workshop,

• which/if a thematic focus is put on the assessment,

• if several or only one scenario has to be addressed etc.

In the example case, the knowledge need is the potential effects of the EU 2030

climate targets on rural areas. The geographical focus put on those areas thus

requires a targeted selection of experts. No thematic focus is set, therefore no

restrictions or implications on expert selection are made in that regard. The policy

in question includes only one scenario with specific targets set out, thus a single

expert workshop addressing this one scenario is sufficient for the assessment.

The form in which the exercise will be conducted defines the implementation

modalities, i.e. if it is done in an on-site workshop, in hybrid or online format.

Different tools are required for preparing an online workshop than an on-site

workshop. In the example case, the workshop is done online via

videoconference, making use of digital tools only.

Based on those initial definitions, the facilitators of the assessment can start with

technical and content preparation. This involves screening of the policy in

question on potential effects based on expert experience, and, subsequently,

screening sources for statistical indicators capable of capturing those effects.

While EU-wide sources such as Eurostat or ESPON Database are already included

for the most part in the TIA Quick Check tool, a particular policy or assessment

will usually require specific datasets, e.g., from scientific studies.

For the example case, several additional indicators were researched and developed

linked to the topic of climate targets. Those are prepared for upload into the tool,

and prepared for the expert workshop making available the definition and further

metadata.

Table 1: Additional indicators added to the TIA Quick Check

Thematic

field

Indicator

Description

NUTS

level

Year

Source

Land use and

conversion

Artificial

areas

Share of artificial areas (e.g.

urban fabrics, industrial and

commercial units) on total

regional area

2018

Corine Land

Cover, OIR

calculation

Accessibility

Composite

indicator:

Accessibility

by air and

road

This composite indicator consists

of summing the normalised

indicators “accessibility by air”

(weighted with the factor 2/3) and

“accessibility by road” (weighted

with the factor 1/3).

2014

S&W Spieker-

mann & Wege-

ner, Urban and

Regional

Research, OIR

calculation

Employment

in energy

intensive

sectors

Share of employment in energy

intensive sectors (e.g.

manufacture of coke and refined

petroleum products, chemicals

and chemical products, basic

metals)

Ref.

2018

Eurostat, OIR

calculation

Source: ÖIR 2021

The need for comprehensive statistical data can be challenging when researching

such indicators. In some cases, proxy indicators or application of gap mitigation

techniques are required to produce a complete dataset at NUTS 3 level.

Potential effects and respective indicators are identified for the fields of

“Economy”, “Society”, “Environment” and “Governance”.

In parallel with the technical and conceptual preparation, the experts of the

participatory workshop can be selected and invited. Selection of the participants

should be guided by the initial frame definitions. In general, a balanced group

representing various perspectives, from diverse backgrounds regarding gender,

geographical backgrounds, or thematic expertise are preferred. In some cases, it

can be necessary to tilt the selection a particular way, e.g., in case impacts to be

assessed concern mainly rural regions in the context of a rural proofing exercise.

Generally, participants should fall into at least four different groups:

• Participants with in-depth knowledge of the policy assessed, e.g., someone

involved in drafting of the policy who can provide relevant input during the

workshop.

• Stakeholders whose interests will be affected by the policy, e.g.

representatives of EU level institutions, Member States, regions, cities,

specific types of regions (islands, rural regions ….).

• Experts representing fields relevant to the topic of the policy proposal to be

analysed.

• In case of a dedicated rural proofing exercise: Experts on rural issues and

challenges which do not necessarily fall into one of the groups above.

4.1.2 Systemic picture of effects

The systemic picture is the core element of the impact assessment, translating the

content of the policy into cause-effect relations. It is drawn up in a workshop in a

moderated discussion setting. Participants are asked to outline potential effects of

the policy on the fields of economy, environment, society, and governance. All

effects are discussed in the group and can be amended by the experts if necessary.

An example of such a systemic picture can be seen below. In an online workshop,

it is drawn up making use of an online whiteboard software, in an in-person

workshop it can be drawn on a flipchart or regular whiteboard.

Figure 6: Systemic picture TIA Quick Check

Source: Consortium based on CoR workshop on climate targets

Marked in red are aspects which are identified to be particularly relevant for rural

areas. In the example case these refer to:

• Pull-factors of cities increasing out-migration for rural areas

• Mobility and energy costs

• Financing and support for energy efficiency in buildings and decentralised

renewable energy production

• Governance burden implementing climate actions put on local

administration potentially lacking expertise

• Land use changes

• Agricultural issues linked to biomass production and other renewable

energy

• Afforestation

It needs to be determined, if the effects are following a similar trajectory in rural

regions, or if the impact direction is different. For example, while mobility costs

due to rising energy prices might be more important for rural areas, they will in

general follow an upward trend for all regions. On the other hand, looking at

migration effects, the different relevance of mobility costs per type of region can

create a negative trend in some regions (commonly rural areas), while creating a

positive trend in other regions (commonly urban areas).

For each effect, where this is possible, an indicator from the TIA Tool is selected

by the participants which is deemed suitable to depict the respective effect.

Participants vote on the expected direction and strength of effects due to the policy

implemented (if necessary, differentiating between types of regions). The

indicators are used to create maps of potential impacts which steer the subsequent

policy discussion.

4.1.3 Assessment of potential impacts

The impact maps created in their current form allow for an assessment of all

regions in parallel, or selecting a specific typology (e.g., rural regions) and

visualising impacts only on them.

Figure 7: Impact on all regions (left) vs. rural regions (right)

Source: Consortium 2022

Based on the patterns emerging from the maps, participants are encouraged to

discuss the policy implications. Regions which are particularly affected along

their type of territory, their geographic location or their Member State are

identified. Furthermore, for the defined typologies (e.g. urban-rural typology), a

comparison of overall impacts can be visualised (i.e., how many regions would

see a strong positive impacts for a given indicator, how many regions would see

only minor positive impacts, etc.). Based on these patterns and visualisations,

participating experts can determine if particular effects are problematic for rural

areas and potentially detrimental to their development. Particular focus is put on

those effects which were already identified as having particular relevance for rural

areas in the systemic picture exercise.

Figure 8: Impact classes for all regions (top) vs. rural regions (bottom)

Source: Consortium 2022

The example above indicates that rural regions experience in general more minor

impacts than other types of regions. However, they are not experiencing

detrimental effects or lagging considerably behind their counterparts. This

information likely will lead to the assessment that no particular actions are

required for policy design.

Depending on the effects identified, the experts can draft suggestions to adapt the

policy, e.g., including additional provisions, shifting the focus of proposed

measures etc. The results of such a workshop can be taken up in the policy design.

It is important to stress however, that such an assessment consists of external

expert input– it is not to be considered a political exercise. As any other impact

assessment, it should only lay down the potential impacts and related evidence

alongside of recommendations on how to take those impacts into account.

4.1.4 Suitability and improvements

The particular advantage of this approach is its combination of qualitative and

quantitative aspects. The assessments are not solely based on expert judgement,

but embedded in a methodology including impact calculations leading to concrete

maps. Due to the participatory element of the expert workshop and the systemic

picture exercise framing the quantitative calculations, it is, however, flexible

enough to accommodate all types of policies and policy topics. Furthermore, the

methodological approach can be transferred to lower geographical levels, as long

as quantitative data on regional level is available and a sufficient number of

regions are included in the assessment.

While the tool is developed for TIA, it can be easily used to contribute to rural

proofing exercises. The nature of the process, in particular quick assessments and

quick feedback to the policy drafting, allows it to be used early in policy

development. It is suited to work with multiple scenarios, which is another

characteristic of early policy stages. Finally, it already incorporates the possibility

to use typologies of various nature, including the option to define typologies

individually. Against the background of ongoing discussions on how to demarcate

rural areas, this allows for flexibility in the assessment.

Potential improvements to the methodology and tool to make it more versatile for

rural proofing could be easily implemented. The suggestions based on the above

assessments are:

• Include a functionality to highlight rural regions (or any type of regions) in

the produced maps. This would allow an assessment for all regions in

parallel, focusing on the rural regions but not limiting the assessment to

rural regions only.

• Include a functionality to visualise impacts side-by-side in the tool.

Specifically the following would simplify the visualisation of impacts on

rural areas: allowing side-by-side visualisation of the maps, allowing for

the visualisation of two scenarios at the same time, and including an option

to put graphs on impact values side-by-side. This would be particularly

relevant where different impact directions are identified on a particular

indicator

• Amend the guidance on the TIA tool in order to outline the steps necessary

for rural proofing exercises

• In particular for assessments on a lower geographical level, improving the

flexibility of databases and shapefiles in the tool to handle data from

different nomenclatures. An example is LAU

regions with the

functionality to group regions into one overarching entity would allow for

maximum flexibility and application of the tool on national and regional

level without constraints.

local administrative units (LAUs) are used to divide up the territory of the EU for the purpose of providing

statistics at a local level. (EUROSTAT 2018)

4.2 Rural proofing with a territorial foresight touch – the

hypothetical case of the REPowerEU plan

Policy making is about shaping the future – rural proofing is about ensuring the

future of rural areas. The future, however, is not in the numbers and data available.

A territorial foresight approach helps to incorporate the uncertainty and various

future perspectives and arrive at more future-wise rural proofing. This will help

to make sound policies for desirable futures for all places and people, incl. rural

areas. Looking at a hypothetical territorial foresight based rural proofing of the

REPowerEU plan illustrates how important future thinking is.

REPowerEU is a Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and

sustainable energy and less dependence on foreign gas and fossil fuels, earlier

than 2030. The main objective lies in two key elements:

• Diversifying gas supplies, via higher LNG imports and pipeline imports

from non-Russian suppliers, and higher levels of biomethane and hydrogen.

• Reducing faster our dependence on fossil fuels at the level of homes,

buildings and the industry, and at the level of the power system by boosting

energy efficiency gains, increasing the share of renewable and addressing

infrastructure bottlenecks.

4.2.1 Defining the foresight question

The clear definition of the foresight question is the key starting point of the

territorial foresight method. The foresight question, or “What if” question needs

to be comprised of a number of elements so that is future oriented and specific

enough. To start with, the question should entail the future or forward-looking

element, e.g., in the sense of future outlook or future pathways. That should be

followed by the territorial element, i.e., which territory is concerned. In the case

of rural proofing, the relevant territories are the rural regions. The next element in

the question is the policy that needs to be examined. For the purpose of this case

study, the policy in focus is the REPowerEU policy. Last but not least, it is

important to add a time element, indicating the time horizon of the future outlook

of the rural regions with the implementation of that policy.

The text box below gives an example of such a foresight question for rural

proofing.

Foresight question

What future outlooks would rural regions have, if that REPowerEU is put into place, by 2030?

4.2.2 Collecting relevant trends, wild cards & challenges

Based on desktop research relevant development trends, wild cards and challenges

will be identified to understand the evolution of the future context in which

REPowerEU will be implemented. This means, the desk research – at this stage –

does not concern the expected impacts of the policy, but developments that are

contextual to the policy. A particular focus in the example case is put on rural

areas.

This needs to concern all five STEEP categories, i.e., Societal, Technological,

Economic, Ecological and Political. The table below presents a possible example

of how such an assessment could look like.

Table 2: Selection of relevant trends, wild cards and challenges (hypothetical

examples)

Trends

Wild cards

Challenges

Societal

– Ageing population

– Population shrinkage

in rural areas

– Changes in energy

consumption

– Collapse of

digitalisation and

robotisation

– Water scarcity in

Europe

– Wave of climate

refugees

– Provision of services

of general interest in

rural and sparsely

populated areas

– Funding of pension

and healthcare systems

Technological

– Increased e-mobility

– Higher energy self-

sufficiency of

buildings

– Increased renewable

energy

– Increased nuclear

energy

– Cold fusion

– Free energy access

– Storage of renewable

energy

– Prosumer-energy

network infrastructure

– Global fragmentation

of the Worldwide Web

Economic

– Circular economy

– Energy price

increases

– Breakdown of global

value chains

– Shortage of raw-

materials for

constructing new energy

networks and

powerplants

– Rural regions lagging

behind

Environmental

– Climate change

effects and more

natural disasters

– Urban farming

– No-Net-Land-Take

policy

– Solar storm disrupting

energy networks

– Public objection to

new wind farms

Political

– Increasing energy

independency of EU

member states

– Russia joining the EU

– The end of OPEC

– Lack of political

commitment to change

4.2.3 Identifying possible future pathways in a participatory

process

The next important step is to run the participatory approach. The participatory

approach starts with a first stakeholder mapping, i.e., with identifying relevant

players to take part. Examples of possible players, who are relevant in the case of

REPowerEU assessed at European or transnational level, are provided in the

following indicative list:

• Local authorities’ representatives from rural areas;

• Local authorities’ representatives from neighbouring urban areas;

• Representatives from the LEADER programme;

• European Commission relevant DG officials;

• Representatives from the Rural Development programmes;

• Representatives from the National Rural Networks;

• Representatives of Local Action Groups;

• Energy producer companies;

• Ministry of Energy representatives;

• Energy associations;

• Non-governmental organisations;

• Energy transmission and distribution companies.

Examples of possible players, who are relevant in the case of REPowerEU

assessed at local or regional level, are provided in the following indicative list:

• Local authorities’ representatives from rural areas;

• Local authorities’ representatives from neighbouring urban and rural areas;

• Representatives of Local Action Groups;

• Civil society organisations;

• Local energy providers/initiatives;

• Relevant national representatives;

• Local/regional academia;

• LEADER beneficiaries;

• Local/regional business associations.

Based in the desktop analysis the participatory process will develop a series of

possible development pathways. For each of these possible implications of the

REPowerEU proposal on rural areas will be discussed with the stakeholders.

Discussion formats depend on the number and types of participants and can be

e.g., a workshop setting with a full group moderated discussion, thematic working

groups etc. The pathways will be developed by selecting relevant trends and

drivers and connecting them into different systemic pictures showing how they

affect each other. Once this is done implications for different types of rural areas

will be discussed, e.g., for rural areas with high potential to produce renewable

energy, rural areas with high energy dependency for their local economies,

peripheral rural areas with high need of long-distance transport, shrinking rural

areas with difficulties to invest in transition processes etc.

Table 3: Possible relevant future pathways and their implications on rural areas

(hypothetical examples)

Rural areas with

high potential to

produce renewable

energy

Rural areas with

high energy

dependency for their

local economies

Peripheral rural

areas with high need

of long-distance

transport

Fast-forward

transition to a

carbon-neutral

society

– Fast increase of

renewable energy

production in rural

areas 

– Risk of competition

of land for food and

energy production 

– Start of green

transition process of

rural enterprises 

– Increasing energy

costs especially in

the transition period

reducing

competitiveness of

rural business 

– Increasing transport

costs especially in

the transition period



– Increasing

infrastructure and

use of sustainable

transport means 

Temporary

energy shortage

and energy

poverty

– Increase in

renewable energy

production and

distribution in and

from rural areas 

– Risk of competition

of land for food and

energy production 

– Risk of bankruptcies

of energy intensive

business in rural

areas 

– Increasing energy

poverty especially in

less well-off rural

areas 

– Isolation of rural

areas due to reduced

connectivity. 

– Speeding up digital

transition to bridge

the physical

connectivity gap. 

Return of the

nuclear age

– Loss of economic

potential of rural

areas as renewable

energy exporters 

– Small scale

renewable energies

production in rural

areas, making them

more energy

sufficient 

– No major disruption

for energy intensive

rural industries 

– Industrial decline &

aging in rural areas

no push for

transitions 

– Nuclear energy does

not fully solve the

issue of long-

distance transport 

– Speeding up digital

transition to bridge

the physical

connectivity gap. 

The above pathways can be use as first steppingstones towards possible future

scenarios and policy impact discussions.

4.2.4 Analysis and post-processing of possible pathways

In the analysis phase, the trend analysis and the inputs coming from the

participatory approach are put together and cross-checked with the key objectives

of the policy in focus. This post-processing results in possible final future

pathways.

The synthesis of the future-wise rural proofing could be presented in a form of a

table (see below). For each priority area of a policy possible negative and positive

implications for different types of rural areas and different possible future

developments could be summarised.

Table 4: Future-wise rural proofing – Summary table

Diversifying gas supplies,

via higher LNG imports

and pipeline imports from

non-Russian suppliers, and

higher levels of biomethane

and hydrogen.

Depending on the future

development scenario

this object might play

out differently for

different types rural

areas.

Rural areas

type xyz

Positive impacts

– ..

– …

Negative impacts

– ..

– …

Rural areas

type xyz

Positive impacts

– ..

– …

Negative impacts

– ..

– …

Rural areas

type xyz

Positive impacts

– ..

– …

Negative impacts

– ..

– …

The method of territorial foresight helps to see the wider picture of different

possible future pathways and their implications for the policy discussed (e.g.

REPowerEU in this case).

An advantage of the method is that it can deal with high complexity and

uncertainty, by exploring different possibilities. This helps in avoiding big

surprises in the future and rather think and consider them from the very beginning

to be not only rural, but also future proof. The territorial foresight approach to

rural proofing can help to overcome the bias of the present (right now/right here).

By considering different possible future developments it helps to see how a policy

may affect rural areas in different possible futures. Sticking to the example of

REPowerEU, a discussion based on a non-foresight oriented rural proofing would

have looked differently in January 2022 than it does today.

On the other hand, the approach is a time-consuming approach, requiring efforts

and resources to collect trends and inputs, run the participatory approaches and

then thoroughly post-processing all material. It also requires participants to think

out of the box. Future thinking is particularly relevant and necessary for sound

policies. Policy makers often need to take decisions with mid- to long-term

implications, without having sufficient evidence. Territorial foresight is a method

that engages policy makers in a more focused thinking about the future and an

improved understanding about the present, by providing different possible

pathways for the future to avoid future dystopias. This way, policy makers have

the tools to develop future-oriented and relevant policies, asking what-ifs rather

than later confronting ‘what now-s’, to build better for the next generations to

come.

4.3 Rural proofing through Territorial Impact Assessment

– ESPON EATIA

The following case illustrates how the ESPON EATIA methodology can

contribute to rural proofing a specific policy. It builds on an exercise done in the

context of the original ESPON EATIA project

, however it should be noted that

the original exercise was not conducted as dedicated “rural proofing” and any

matrices or visualisations are only used for illustrative purposes. The

methodological approach has also been modified to account for the different

requirements of a local/regional case as compared to the original national

approach of the EATIA project. The case itself as presented here is hypothetical

and developed by the project team. The EATIA methodology is very flexible

regarding territorial levels to be applied as well as for the determination and

visualisation of impacts. The case presents a hypothetical exercise on the Habitats

Directive (92/43/EEC) conducted with regional authorities in Portugal and

applying purely qualitative approaches

4.3.1 Screening

In the screening stage it is usually determined whether a TIA/rural proofing

exercise is necessary. The methodology offers a structured approach to determine

if and where (in which fields) impacts are likely based on a logic chain linked to

the policy actions. Thus, even if it is decided that a rural proofing exercise should

be done in any case, the screening stage allows to get a first overview of the

potential impacts. It is usually done at the authority level and does not involve

local or regional experts in order not to overburden them. An example of such a

logic chain is presented below:

https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/EATIAFinalGuidance.pdf

https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/FinalReportEATIA28June2012Afinal.pdf

Figure 9: EATIA logic chains

Source: ESPON 2012

The identified logic chain in relevant impact fields should be further refined in the

later stages. The impact fields are grouped along the known assessment categories

environment and territory, economy, society and territorial governance. For each

of those categories it is assessed, if impacts based on the impact fields are likely

to materialise, if they are negative or positive and if they are direct or indirect.

Based on this assessment, the relevant authority determines the necessity of a rural

proofing exercise (i.e., if multiple direct effects are likely, conducting a full

assessment is advised). In the example case it was determined, that impacts were

indeed likely, with the most affected category being environment and territory. It

is thus decided to proceed with the assessment.

4.3.2 Scoping

In the scoping phase the potential impacts are further detailed and, crucially, are

linked with types of territories where they are likely to materialise. This step can

be conducted either by the respective authority in charge or can be conducted with

stakeholder participation. In case of a regional exercise, it is suggested to tap onto

the regional knowledge regarding sensitivity of regions and locations of potential

impacts. This can entail inviting regional experts in a workshop setting. Based on

a moderated group discussion, the scoping matrix can be filled and a map of

potential impact locations can be drawn together with the participants. In a

qualitative assessment process, a map localising relevant regional traits (e.g.,

extent of protective areas, type of land use etc.) can be used as a basis for

participants to regionalise their assessments. An example is presented below

visualising areas of particular concern (i.e., high negative impacts) and areas of

moderate or low concern (i.e., reduced impact). Such a map is prepared with the

respective regional traits visualised from the outset, and participants asked to

mark locations/areas and strength of impacts in the workshop setting.

Figure 10: Regionalised impacts

Source: ESPON 2012

As can be seen in the example, this approach treats the concept of “rural areas”

very flexibly. It does not depend on administrative boundaries and defined “rural

areas”, but it visualises specific traits, e.g., population density on a grid basis,

predominance of agricultural areas etc., against which the assessments can be

made. This is particularly relevant in case of low geographic levels of assessment

where no administrative typologies are defined.

Such impact visualisations are drawn up for all effects where this is possible,

accompanied by a scoping matrix detailing and describing those effects and

rationale behind judgements on impacted locations.

4.3.3 Assessment and evaluation

Based on the results of the scoping workshop, the scoping matrix, and the

developed maps, the next step consists in the detailed description and grading of

potential impacts per assessment criterion and policy element. This step is ideally

undertaken in a moderated expert workshop setting, bringing together an

interdisciplinary group. For each assessment criterion identified, the “Impact

Assessment Matrix” is filled per policy element. The policy elements can be

flexibly defined in the process, allowing for an easier assessment in case of larger

policies with multiple impact mechanisms. The impact assessment matrix

contains information about the orientation and magnitude of impacts (on a – 2 to

+ 2 scale), temporal relevance (short/medium/long term) and a justification of

impacts. For a rural proofing exercise, the focus should be put in particular on

rural areas, either by committing the full assessment to rural impacts, or by adding

a field outlining rural impacts. The example below shows an impact matrix by

assessment criterion and policy element as an overview.

Figure 11: Impact assessment matrix

Source: ESPON 2012

Based on this matrix, the judgements and justifications, it can be determined if

rural areas in general are particularly affected. Furthermore, the visualisation

maps from the scoping exercise allow to identify those rural areas, where impacts

are particularly likely to materialise. All material developed is then used to draft

recommendations from the expert group. In the example case, regional authorities

are conducting an assessment of a policy outside of their direct sphere of

influence. As such the result of an assessment can be twofold:

• A report outlining to the relevant bodies the observations and

recommendations, e.g., modifications to the policy, specific provisions to

be included etc. Through institutions on the EU level or the national level,

those recommendations can be communicated to the responsible bodies for

implementation. Furthermore, they can be used in the public consultation

phase of the policy design for issuing statements on behalf of a region.

• Recommendations for local and regional authorities to act within the given

frame of the policy to mitigate negative effects or foster positive effects.

4.3.4 Suitability and improvements

The EATIA method is very flexible to adapt to a number of circumstances, thus

does not require formal modifications (e.g., as for the TIA Quick Check webtool).

The approach described in this case study is already modified for a purely regional

assessment and includes a particular focus on rural regions.

The materials developed in the context of the EATIA project can be readily used

and modified for use in a rural proofing exercise, as it is the focus of the outcome

and final reports rather than the assessment steps and materials that define such

an exercise.

Main advantages for applying EATIA are the flexibility regarding geographical

levels and non-dependence on administrative regions. Based on expert knowledge

and regional data (e.g., grid data on land use and population density), in principle

any geographic level can be the extent of the assessment. Furthermore, the method

is not dependent on significant volumes of regional data, therefore, can overcome

respective gaps.

On the other hand, the process relies significant expert involvement and several

regional workshops, thus, can be quite resource intensive. This can be challenging

for assessments at an early policy stage, where quick inputs on potential impacts

are needed in order to shape the policy.

5. Guidance for better rural proofing

Rural proofing can take many different forms as has been shown in the study.

There are numerous approaches implemented by the national level which are

specifically labelled “rural proofing”. However, there are also a lot of activities

ongoing which are contributing to better policies for rural regions which are not

explicitly put into this category. Several explicit methodologies have been

developed, which take the form of toolboxes, checklists or more sophisticated

assessment tools. While checklists in general seem to be the most frequent

approach to rural proofing methodologies, they are sometimes dismissed as

“checkbox exercises” reducing an important aspect of policymaking to a merely

administrative task.

The range of interviews conducted revealed that, while the question of

methodology used is important, rural proofing in general is much more than

application of a pre-specified methodology. Rural proofing has to be embedded

in the policy process and it has to be recognised as an important task by

policymakers and not as a burdensome exercise. It requires both awareness and

knowledge about rural issues, and it requires active engagement by bodies

developing a certain policy. At the same time, it requires scrutiny and verification

of its application, as cases have revealed that otherwise there is the risk of it

“getting lost” over time.

The following sections address the main success factors and challenges for

implementing rural proofing in policy development, provide guidance on

selecting methodologies for rural proofing exercises and finally give

recommendations for the different governance levels on how to implement rural

proofing. All assessments and recommendations were synthesised by the project

team from desk research, the developed cases and particularly from the

interviews. The interviewed experts represented various governmental bodies

with experience in implementing rural proofing approaches in their respective

countries. They highlighted good experiences and challenges alike, and provided

important input to the report. As almost all of the interviewees asked not to be

cited in the report, and some, due to government policies, asked also not to be

named, no direct references to the interviews are made. A list of interviewees who

were at liberty to be named is included in the annex.

5.1 Factors for implementing rural proofing

5.1.1 Success factors

Several factors were identified which were contributing to success of rural

proofing approaches in multiple countries covered by the study. They can be split

in two categories, one related to the methodology itself, and one related to the

wider implementation in policy development. Crucially, many interviewees stated

that the concrete methodology for assessing impacts is not the most important

aspect when developing policies for rural areas – it is the fact that rural areas are

considered at all in the development. At the same time criticism about “checkbox

exercises” is frequent, thus the methodology applied seems not to be trivial after

all.

Methodology

A range of factors have to be taken into account by the authority responsible for

implementing a rural proofing exercise to select an appropriate methodology

for rural proofing a specific policy. These include inter alia:

• geographical level,

• policy stage,

• policy content, and

• data availability.

Concrete guidance on which methodology is suited for specific circumstances is

provided in the following section. Apart from the scientific soundness of

assessments, a methodology also profits from being easy to understand and

producing policy relevant outcomes. In case of non-mandatory rural proofing,

policymakers are more likely to conduct such an exercise if they understand the

approach and the value of outcomes right from the outset. This is particularly

relevant for local and regional exercises with stakeholder participation.

For each methodology and setting, there needs to be an appropriate

classification of rural areas. There are numerous approaches for defining rural

areas, taking into account e.g., population density, remoteness, population

distribution, sectoral split etc. None of those approaches represents a universally

agreed definition, as depending on the geographical level, the methodological

approach, and partly even the policy in question, such a definition varies. It is,

however, important to define for the purpose of each rural proofing exercise, what

is to be understood as a rural area in that specific frame.

Finally, a “positive approach” towards rural areas is considered one of the key

success factors. Such areas are not to be seen as inherently disadvantaged in all

circumstances, but are areas with specific and individual challenges, however,

also with potentials others do not possess. Any rural proofing approach must

therefore not only look at mitigating the disadvantages, but also consider the

advantages and ultimately the potentials to contribute to a given policies goals.

Wider implementation

Rural proofing can be a voluntary or mandatory element of policy development.

In case of it being voluntary, it is necessary to convince policymakers of the

positive aspects while also making sure it is not seen as “overburdening” the

process. In case of mandatory rural proofing, experience has shown it is still

important to make policymakers see the advantages and create the capacity to

conduct effective assessments, to avoid the exercise becoming merely an

administrative task. Targeted application is therefore considered an important

factor, e.g., by including a screening process for rural issues in early policy

development. In case such a screening identifies relevant issues, a more in-depth

approach is warranted. Otherwise, it can consist of a reduced approach.

While targeted approaches which are seen as valuable exercise by policymakers

are a factor, at the same time sufficient resources have to be reserved for the

implementation. Both personnel to conduct and facilitate the exercise as well as

budget for potential actions (e.g., resources for regional events, participants fees,

external methodological experts, moderation etc.) are important. Ensuring the

availability of time and budget will usually be the responsibility of the authority

or body implementing the exercise.

Experience has shown that rural proofing is not an external process (e.g., an

external impact assessment), but has to be embedded in policy design. It is

therefore crucial that a body responsible for development of a particular policy is

also the one responsible for rural proofing their policy. Nevertheless, targeted

support for these bodies is very important, as it reduces barriers and encourages

conducting such exercises. Several countries consider the establishment of a “core

group”, “centre of expertise” or similar entities with methodological knowledge,

acting as a coordinator in the process as a key success factor.

Finally, as with all similar exercises timing is important for achieving results.

While at an early stage of policy development there might be a lot of uncertainties,

it is also the stage where the most influence can be exerted. The inclusion of rural

considerations when shaping the general direction of a policy is crucial, as in most

cases later considerations are only able to influence smaller details. The respective

assessments, therefore, should be able to cover the main impacts and subsequent

recommendations in a quick manner, allowing for early input to the policy

process.

5.1.2 Main challenges

In implementing the various rural proofing approaches, interviewees stated a

number of challenges. Some were linked to the specific circumstances of the

country, e.g., specific properties of the policymaking process. Others can be

considered more general and could also apply in other countries or at the EU level.

The main challenge identified lies in the voluntary nature of most approaches.

In most cases, rural proofing was implemented as an optional part of

policymaking, oftentimes leading to it being disregarded by authorities

responsible for implementing policies. Furthermore, even in cases where rural

proofing was implemented as a mandatory part of policymaking, however not

enforced by the scrutinizing authorities, the overall exercise was disregarded in

many cases. This challenge was even greater where a lack of funding for non-

mandatory assessments and actions in the policy drafting process could be

identified. While it was comparably easy for authorities to justify expenses for

mandatory procedures, it could be a challenge to set aside resources for a

voluntary process.

Lack of understanding of the need also led do slow uptake of rural proofing,

with authorities either being convinced that there were no relevant impacts on

rural areas created by their policy, or certain that already enough was being done.

Combined with a non-mandatory approach and a lack of funding, the incentive

for authorities to conduct rural proofing activities was low. In some cases, this

was also linked to a lack of methodological knowledge, with authorities stating

that they would be in favour of taking up rural proofing but simply lacking the

methodological knowledge as well as lacking the capacity for acquiring it.

Finally, especially in countries where rural proofing was implemented as

mandatory part of policymaking, challenges were linked to the scrutiny of the

activities. The already mentioned “check-box exercise” meant that as long as any

form of rural proofing was conducted, the scrutinizing authorities were satisfied

without verifying the quality of the process. Authorities in charge of the policy on

the other hand oftentimes tried not to “gold plate” and did not overfulfil the

requirements.

5.2 Selecting methodologies

As outlined above, rural proofing does not consist of simply applying a

methodology assessing impacts, but is a philosophy of policy drafting and

requires a holistic approach implemented throughout policy design. Nevertheless,

assessment methodologies can shed a light on how particular aspects of a given

policy influence rural areas, improve the understanding and thus enable

policymakers to address challenges in a more targeted manner. The following

section provides an overview of important factors when selecting a suitable

methodology and outlines the advantages and disadvantages of individual

methodologies for each one.

Geographical level

The geographical level determines if a specific tool can be used or not. An

assessment covering the local level only will rarely support a data-driven

assessment thus has to lean on qualitative methods. On the other hand, a rural

proofing exercise conducted for an EU-wide policy could be difficult to apply

when a large number of stakeholders for regional input have to be involved.

Methodology

Suitability

TIA Quick Check

The webtool available is particularly suited for assessments covering

larger individual countries, multiple smaller countries, or the EU level.

The methodology is transferable to the regional level, however, the

webtool has to be adapted.

Foresight methods

The methodologies are in principle independent of the geographical

level. The approach involving broader trends is better suited for larger

geographical areas, however the methodologies are transferable to lower

levels as well.

EATIA

EATIA is flexible regarding the geographical level and can cover

everything from the EU level down to the local level. Assessments at a

higher geographical level require more efforts in terms of regional

consultations. Thus, the method is particularly suited for national and

sub-national approaches.

Data availability

An important role in all evidence-based assessments is data. Depending on the

methodological approach, however, the completeness, resolution, administrative

boundaries etc., play a different role. Regardless of the approach – qualitative or

quantitative – all assessments can profit from better data quality.

Methodology

Suitability

TIA Quick Check

The webtool requires NUTS3 level data to work, thus is highly

dependent on datasets being available in this resolution. In case such

datasets can be provided or created, the methodology is well suited. In

case of assessments on lower geographic levels, the methodology is still

well suited. However, the tool neds to be adapted to accommodate for the

different nomenclatures. In cases where assessments cannot be made

based on predefined regions or where no data is available, the

methodology is not advised.

Foresight methods

The methodologies are independent from detailed datasets on the

regional level, however, require some information on general trends and

directions in order to conduct a proper assessment.

EATIA

EATIA is independent from detailed data. Expert judgements can be

made even in the complete absence of regional data. Still, all assessments

benefit from more detailed data being available as evidence base.

Timing in the policy process

While rural proofing in general should always start as early as possible in policy

development, assessment methodologies lend themselves to different points in

time. Main determining factor is both what needs to be available as basis for the

assessments and what is the desired output.

Methodology

Suitability

TIA Quick Check

The TIA Quick Check requires a certain amount of clarity on how a

policy is going to be implemented in order to draw up proper logic

chains. The webtool is well equipped to deal with different scenarios, i.e.,

it can be applied early in policy development.

Foresight methods

Foresight methods are well equipped to deal with vagueness and

“fuzziness”, thus are particularly suited for application in early policy

development stages in order to shape the general approach and strategy.

EATIA

The application of EATIA in the way it was done for the purpose of this

study requires more detailed information of the policies, as e.g., detailed

geographical assessments of impacts require fundamental knowledge of

the impact mechanisms.

Those considerations can give some orientation when selecting a methodology for

assessing rural impacts in the context of rural proofing. However, all methods

require considerable expertise in their implementation, which is an important

factor for their success. A method for which expertise is available can outdo a

method for which no expertise in implementation can be accessed, regardless of

other factors.

5.3 Recommendations

The recommendations developed based on the study results can be grouped into

those for methodological developments, those for policy development, and

further, those for supporting measures. Considerable input was gathered from the

expert interviews which provided insights into their own national or cross-cutting

perspectives. While the individual national backgrounds can be different, the

recommendations also do not address solely the EU level, but rather aim at

improving rural proofing on all governance levels. The recommendations are

drafted in a general manner, thus making them suitable for the broad range of

legislative systems and different distribution of competences across the EU.

Nevertheless, some of the recommendations will address different levels in

different countries, as e.g., federal states or autonomous regions might have the

power to re-shape policy processes in some countries, while in other countries

only the national level can implement some of the measures.

5.3.1 Methodological developments

Some recommendations for methodological improvements are based on the

project team’s knowledge and experience in applying assessment methodologies,

others are based on the expert interviews. The aim of the following section is not

to provide one universal methodology, nor is it to develop completely new

methodologies for rural proofing. It is rather aiming at improving existing

approaches and including some adaptions and tweaks to make them more suitable

for rural proofing.

5.3.1.1 Improvements to the ESPON TIA Quick Check

The ESPON TIA Quick Check is already mentioned in the better regulation

toolbox tool #34 where TIA and rural proofing are covered. It provides a solid

basis for assessing impacts on rural areas. However, some improvements could

be made to allow for better visualisation and results regarding rural proofing:

• Include a functionality to highlight rural regions in the maps produced.

This would enable assessments for all regions in parallel, focusing on the

rural regions but not limiting the assessment to rural regions only.

• Include a functionality to visualise impacts (maps/graphs) side-by-side

for different types of regions in the tool. This would simplify the

visualisation of impacts on rural areas.

• Amend the guidance on the TIA tool in order to outline the steps necessary

for rural proofing exercises.

• Improve the flexibility of databases and shapefiles in the tool to handle

data from different nomenclatures, such as LAU

regions, with the

functionality to group regions into one entity. This would allow for

maximum flexibility and application of the tool on national and regional

level without constraints.

5.3.1.2 Improvements to qualitative methodologies

Qualitative methodologies profit from their generally higher flexibility regarding

data availability, scenarios where impacted regions do not necessarily correspond

to administrative regions etc. Nevertheless, there is a need for better guidance and

modification of approaches to improve rural proofing exercises.

• Improve the targeted guidance for use in rural proofing scenarios, in

particular for the different governance levels. While methodologies

oftentimes are transferrable to different geographical levels, they are

showcased only on particular levels. Furthermore, the higher flexibility can

lead to stakeholders being overwhelmed or not sure, if such an approach is

suitable for their circumstances.

• Add approaches for specific typologies and comparisons to qualitative

methodologies, i.e., outlining steps necessary to include comparative

elements between rural- and other areas.

• Adapting templates to explicitly address rural areas and comparison

elements. In many cases, templates provided for qualitative methodologies

are more flexible and open. Thus, it can be unclear to people looking to

apply a certain methodology on how to do this. Templates guiding the

process are common and can be adapted to improve guidance in those cases.

5.3.1.3 Improvements to checklist approaches

“Checklist” approaches are the most common among the countries already

applying rural proofing. They include varying degrees of details, and usually

consist of a brief questionnaire on potential impacts of the policy on rural areas.

The general issues with checklist approaches have been addressed already,

however, when applying them some recommendations can still be made:

• It is important to be bold when including checklists in policymaking

processes. Several approaches have failed to achieve the intended results,

local administrative units (LAUs) are used to divide up the territory of the EU for the purpose of providing

statistics at a local level (EUROSTAT 2018)

as they were implemented without ensuring proper scrutiny, or by reducing

the effort necessary when assessing impacts to a minimum.

• Provide clear guidance to all questions, in order to enable the people

conducting the assessment to properly do so. In particular, specifying

exactly what is expected under a specific question, providing example

answers or specify categories of answers.

• Provide examples of how this has been conducted, e.g., a complete

assessment process (fictional or real) including comments and

explanations.

• Provide targeted training to public servants expected to conduct such

assessments with the use of a checklist.

5.3.2 Policy developments

Rural proofing is not simply a “method” to be applied, but a way of designing

policies. Assessing impacts of a given legislation or policy on rural regions is an

important part of it, end methodological guidance on how to do this has been

provided by the study. Nonetheless rural proofing requires actions at different

stages of policy development, and does not consist of a single feedback loop.

Without addressing a specific governance level, the following recommendations

can be made for including rural proofing in policy development in general:

• Rural proofing has to be required in the policy process in a formal or

explicit manner. Formal requirements not only create awareness, but

oftentimes the availability of funding of an exercise is linked to its

requirement. Voluntary exercises can be a first step, however are likely to

be overlooked, left out in order to reduce the administrative burden, or even

impossible to implement due to a lack of resources available.

• Selecting the right timing is crucial, as steering policies towards better

impacts on rural areas is possible mainly early in the process. Respective

assessments of potential impacts should be done at such an early stage, that

the policy is already outlined regarding general direction and activities,

however not yet inflexible towards changes.

• Involvement of persons feeling responsible for rural proofing in policy

development is crucial. Linked to recommendations about the

establishment of a responsible body in the following section, which could

provide the staff and resources for this.

• Rural issues are not the only issues requiring attention in policymaking. In

order not to overburden the policy process and, thus, reduce the time and

resources available for specific issues, rural proofing should be

conducted in a targeted manner. This can be done, e.g., by including a

necessity check similar to the one already applied for TIA at the EU level

for each initiative, or by a responsible governmental by following policy

developments and identifying initiatives which would require a more in-

depth involvement, and others where no or only little activities and scrutiny

is needed.

• In a multi-level governance structure, framework policies are oftentimes

developed on higher levels, while impacts materialise on low geographic

levels. Governing bodies on lower levels should therefore have the

possibility to “monitor” developments on higher levels, and feedback

information on potential impacts from their point of view early on. A

mechanism that ensures such feedback loops before the formal public

consultation on policies would be beneficial to establish.

5.3.3 Supporting measures

Supporting measures are not policy or methodological measures per se, however,

can be important for the successful inclusion of rural proofing in policymaking.

• A group/department/agency (depending on the respective

governmental organisation) with the methodological and thematic

knowledge necessary for including a rural perspective in policy

processes should be established. Their staff should be able to follow

policy developments from other departments, agencies, ministries etc., and

should be able to request inclusion into working groups responsible for a

specific policy. They are able to provide targeted support, raise awareness

of the issues, however, their inputs should not be considered as external but

rather part of the overall policy drafting process. Countries which

established such groups reported it to be one of the key success factors.

• Raising awareness and creating a feeling of responsibility within policy

drafting bodies is crucial. Rural proofing cannot be seen as an external

process or assessment, but rather part of policy development. To that end,

capacity building for people involved in policy development is important.

• Even though bodies responsible drafting a specific policy should be

responsible to ensure the consideration of rural issues, they should be

supported in doing so. A core group with the thematic and methodological

knowledge about rural proofing policies can also provide targeted support

to individual bodies responsible for a policy. “Quick and easy access” to

such resources has been reported as another crucial success factor.

• For actual application of specific methodologies, clear methodological

guidance should be made available. For example, at EU level, tool #34

should be expanded in order to address, how TIA can serve rural proofing

exercises, and how the methods currently included can be used in practice.

6. Conclusion

Over the course of the research conducted it has become clear that not one

universal methodology is likely to fit the requirements of rural proofing. Rather,

similar to TIA there are different approaches suited best for different application

cases. It is evident that methodologies suitable for rural proofing at local and

regional level differ from rural proofing at EU level. However, even on the same

territorial level there are differences in methodological requirements.

Furthermore, it has become clear that rural proofing is not simply an assessment

and the application of a methodology providing concrete results, but it is a process

for better policymaking. “Rural thinking” in policymaking cannot be done

only at the impact assessment stage, but has to become part of the policy

spirit, being relevant from early strategy design over detailed provisions to impact

measurement and assessment.

• Part 1 of the study, state of play of rural proofing has shown, that while

rural proofing as an idea is already included in a number of toolboxes at EU

level, the actual inclusion in policymaking has yet to picked up.

Furthermore, it became evident in the review of existing approaches, that

in most countries where rural proofing was seen as the application of an

assessment only, the overall goals could not be reached. Particular success

could be identified in those countries, where rural proofing included

assessment aspects and guidance on them was included as a wider strategy

and approach in policy design. Considerable importance was identified in

“rural proofing agencies” being able to support with methodological

questions as well as acting as an exchange platform, for awareness raising

and for providing training to public officials.

• Part 2 of the study, existing TIA tools concluded, that TIA methods are in

most cases well suited to support with rural proofing exercises. Both

qualitative and quantitative tools which were able to work on NUTS3 level

and below are able to produce meaningful assessments. Some

methodologies, due to their geographical scope, cannot be used for rural

proofing, and due to their method are also unlikely to be transferred to lower

levels. In most cases modifications either to existing tools, templates or at

least methodological guidance has to be updated in order to support rural

proofing.

• Part 3 of the study, the specificities of rural areas present the crucial

challenges for rural areas which are oftentimes considered the reason for a

need for rural proofing. The implications for policy planning and in

particular rural proofing tools are addressed as well. While some general

trends relevant for many rural regions could be identified, specificities and

challenges are not universal and differ between different types of regions.

• Part 4 of the study, application and improvement of existing

methodologies implemented three rural proofing exercises in the form of

case studies to showcase how those methodologies can be used. The rural

proofing application of ESPON TIA Quick Check, Foresight methods as

well as EATIA were presented based on three example policies. The cases

may provide examples for stakeholders looking to implement rural proofing

approaches. They also helped in identifying some shortcomings and

potential methodological improvements in those methodologies in order to

support better rural proofing.

• Part 5 of the study, guidance for better rural proofing synthesized the

preceding parts and provides recommendations for various aspects:

o Success factors and challenges for implementing rural proofing

o Selecting proper methodologies for rural proofing exercises

o Methodological recommendations for further developing existing

methodologies

o Recommendations for broader integration of rural proofing in the

overall policy cycle

The study concludes that there is no need for a completely new rural proofing

tool, but rather identified a number of key improvements to existing

methodologies. Furthermore, it is to be stressed that those methodologies only

form a part of the overall rural proofing process. The following recommendations

were developed:

• Existing tools provide great value for rural proofing and territorial

impacts in general. They are able to accommodate a wide range of

circumstances, deal with issues in data availability, work on all geographic

levels and can cover all types of policies. The focus should be laid on

further refining such tools instead of developing new ones from scratch.

• Territorial Impact Assessment in general provides a good basis for

rural proofing, addressing inter alia rural regions. TIA, however follows a

slightly different approach than what is needed for rural proofing, lacking

the explicit focus on rural areas but rather trying to address all regions

similarly. Improvements regarding the overall visibility of rural regions and

respective impacts when applying TIA methodologies can be made and are

outlined in detail in the study.

• There are a number of tools and templates which are used in the application

of those existing methods. As is, they are developed with TIA in a broader

sense in mind, however they need upgrading to cater to rural proofing

needs.

• Rural proofing is part of the policy design, not a "checkbox" after

everything is already finalised. It is a philosophy of how to draft policies

and how to take into consideration issues of specific regions at all stages

and on all levels of policy drafting. Implementing it is not simply applying

a methodology for external verification, but has to be mainstreamed into

policy drafting processes.

6.1 Recommendations for the EU policymaking process

To conclude this study the following overall recommendations for the EU level

policymaking process may be stated:

• It has to be acknowledged that the legislative process of EU legal procedures is

already scrutinising quite a lot of effects of legislative proposals

(environmental, economic, social, SME etc.). Still, what seems to be lacking

at the very beginning of any legislative process is the territorial angle of

the proposals. This should – however not be misunderstood as yet another

layer of checks, but as horizontal pre-check embracing all sectoral effects at the

same time and “translating them into EU territories" (preferably regions). Such

a horizontal “necessity check” may then also include the differentiation of

potential effects on different territorial typologies (including explicitly rural

areas).

• In this respect the status of rural proofing has to better clarified – i.e. the

“necessity check” (as foreseen in the legislative process in the preliminary

impact assessment) will have to include rural proofing elements.

• Like this a screening for territorial and rural impacts will become a mandatory

element of the policymaking processes.

• Within the European Commission, territorial impact assessment and rural

proofing should be established within every interservice consultation of new

proposals. DG Regio and DG Agri with their respective expertise on TIA and

rural proofing/rural issues can act as “custodians” of potential methodological

applications (e.g., suggestions for specific methods to be applied). By such an

approach the overburdening of the process with yet another “expert-body”

acting as methodological pool may be avoided. The prerequisite will be –

however – that the Commission's personnel will have enough overview on

existing methods.

• By such an integration of territorial impact assessment and rural proofing the

scrutiny for both elements in the decision-making process including the two co-

legislators shall be ensured.

6.2 Recommendations for local, regional and national

authorities

Local, regional and national authorities are working in heterogenous legislative

systems and policymaking traditions. Against their respective backgrounds, local

regional or national authorities looking to implement rural proofing for a specific

policy or on a general level will have to consider their legislative powers, their

position in drafting the policy and their potential influence and possibilities. The

following general recommendations can be given to them:

• Rural issues should be considered early in policy drafting and already in

first policy design. Methodologies to assess potential impacts at an early

policy stage are described in the report and allow to shape measures to take

into account rural needs.

• In order to be effective and efficient in implementing rural proofing

exercises, it is helpful to decide where rural proofing is necessary and

relevant as early as possible. This will allow to concentrate the efforts on

those policies where impacts on rural communities are relevant and should

be addressed.

• As rural proofing should be a recurring element of policy design, it is

important to develop capacities and methodological knowledge for

respective exercises and application of methodologies within authorities.

While external support, e.g., from specialised departments or from external

experts is oftentimes necessary, internal knowledge and capacities are

highly valuable for good results.

• On a national or regional level, a centre of expertise with the purpose of

supporting authorities in implementing rural proofing in their policy

drafting should be established and funded. Monitoring upcoming

legislation and actively encouraging rural considerations, as well as

providing a contact point for questions and ad-hoc support for authorities

has been reported as key success factor for rural proofing.

• The availability of sufficient resources should be ensured both in terms

of personnel and time as well as funding for specific actions (e.g., external

support, conducting events etc.).

• When deciding on the approach and methodology for rural proofing for a

specific policy, an authority should check which support mechanisms

from national level or other authorities within the government are

available. Guidance, past experiences or ideally direct support by

experienced departments and colleagues will positively contribute to the

results. Permanent links for exchange and cooperation between the levels

of government can support the early detection of rural impacts of national

or regional legislation.

• For application of specific methodologies of assessments, oftentimes

external support is valuable or needed. The report indicates for the

assessed methodologies references and contact points which can contribute

to the successful implementation with their knowledge.

• In case an interactive approach including stakeholder participation is

selected, it is important to make sure sufficient time for stakeholder

consultation is reserved. Such processes, especially in cases where

stakeholders are not familiar with a particular methodology take time, and

involved persons should be granted enough time for preparation and

contributing.

• Apart from activities directly related to specific policies, authorities,

regions, local governments etc. should also strive to engage in networking

efforts related to policy design for rural areas. The study has discovered

several similarities and complementary approaches to overcoming joint

challenges, which can be a starting point for engaging in exchange

activities. This can further rural proofing methodologies and approaches,

but can also contribute to specific policy assessments and policy design

efforts.

List of interviews

The following interviewees agreed to be mentioned in the study:

Alexia Rouby (DG AGRI)

Evelina Selander (Swedish agency for Economic and Regional growth)

Betty-Ann Bryce (OECD)

Olivia Silverwood (Ministry for primary industries New Zealand)

Three further interviewees asked to remain unnamed due to their government

policies on comments that could potentially be traced back to their respective

country, government or agency and thus are not mentioned in the study.

Bibliography

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2001): What do you see when you look

through the Rural Lens? – Guide to Using the Rural Lens

https://archive.org/details/whatdoyouseewhen00cana/page/6/mode/2up

Atterton, J. (2008) Rural proofing in England: a formal commitment in need of

review. Discussion Paper Series, No. 20, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne:

Centre for Rural Economy

Atterton, J. (2019): Learning Lessons from early Island Communities Impact

Assessments.

https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/files/36752839/Learning_Lessons_from_early_ICIAs_Fi

nal_Report_SJ_17.02.20.pdf

Atterton, J. (2022): Analytical overview of rural proofing approaches and

lessons learned. Background document ENRD thematic group on rural proofing.

Bryce, B.-A. (2022): Rural proofing: OECD lessons learned. Presentation at the

ENRD thematic group on rural proofing.

Cabinet Social Wellbeing Committee (SWC) (2018): Rural proofing

Government Policies. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/30741-Rural-

Proofing-Government-Policies-Cabinet-paper

Committee of the Regions (CoR) (2019): State of the art and challenges ahead

for Territorial Impact Assessments. File note – unpublished.

Committee of the Regions (CoR) (2019): State of the art and challenges ahead

for Territorial Impact Assessments. File note – unpublished.

Committee of the Regions (CoR) (2022): Territorial Impact Assessment.

https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/Territorial-Impact-Assessment.aspx

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2017): Rural

proofing. Practical guidance to assess impacts of policies on rural areas.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2021): Rural

proofing in England 2020. Delivering policy in a rural context.

European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) (2017): A focus on rural

proofing. In: Rural Connections Magazine, Autumn Edition.

ESPON (2012) EATIA ESPON and Territorial Impact Assessment, Report,

European Union.

ESPON (2018) Territorial Impact Assessment for Cross-Border cooperation.

Final Report.

ESPON ESCAPE – Copus A., Kahila P., Fritsch M., Dax T., Kovács K., Tagai

G., Weber R., Grunfelder J., Löfving L., Moodie J., Ortega-Reig M., Ferrandis

A., Piras S., Meredith D. (2020): European Shrinking Rural Areas: Challenges,

Actions and Perspectives for Territorial Governance (ESCAPE). Final Report,

Luxembourg.

European Commission (2013): Commission Staff Working Document.

Assessing territorial impacts: Operational guidance on how to assess regional

and local impacts within the Commission Impact Assessment System.

European Commission (2021): Better regulation “Toolbox”

European Commission (2021a): A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas –

Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040.

(COM(2021) 345 final, 30.6.2021). Brussels.

European Commission (2021b): Green paper on ageing (COM(2021) 50 final,

27.1.2021). Brussels.

European Commission (2022): Cohesion in Europe towards 2050 – Eighth

report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Brussels.

European Commission/Eurostat (2020): Methodologial manual on territorial

typologies – 2018 edition. Luxembourg.

Fischer, T. B., Sykes, O.; Gore, T.; Marot, N.; Golobic, M.; Pinho, P.;

Waterhout, B. & Perdicoulis, A. (2014) Territorial Impact Assessment of

European Draft Directives – The Emergence of a New Policy Assessment

Instrument, European Planning Studies.

Government of South Australia – Department of Trade and Economic

Development (DTED) (2005): Regional Impact Assessment.

https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/240246/RIAS_review-

12.pdf

 
77 
Government of South Australia – Primary Industries and Regions South 
Australia (PIRSA) (2018): Regional Impact Assessment Statement – Policy and 
Guidelines. 
https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/339033/Regional_Impact
_Assessment_Statement_Policy_and_Guidelines.pdf  
 
Government of South Australia – Primary Industries and Regions South 
Australia (PIRSA) (2019a): List of Regional Impact Assessment Statements. 
https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/regions/regional_impact_assessment_statements/rias_
list 
 
Government of South Australia – Primary Industries and Regions South 
Australia (PIRSA) (2019b): Regional Impact Assessment Statements. 
https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/regions/regional_impact_assessment_statements 
 
Government of South Australia – Primary Industries and Regions South 
Australia (PIRSA) (s.a.): Regional Impact Assessment Statement template. 
https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/339034/Regional_Impa
ct_Assessment_Statement_Template.docx 
 
Government of South Australia – Primary Industries and Regions South 
Australia (PIRSA) (2018): Regional Impact Assessment Statement – Policy and 
Guidelines. 
https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/339033/Regional_Impact
_Assessment_Statement_Policy_and_Guidelines.pdf  
 
Husberg, A. (2022): Finish experiences on rural proofing. Presentation at the 
ENRD thematic group on rural proofing. 
 
Lavalle, C., Di Comite, F., Batista E Silva, F., Diukanova, O., Vizcaino, M., 
Baranzelli, C., Pinto Nunes Nogueira Diogo, V. and Kompil, M. (s.a.): The 
LUISA-RHOMOLO combination for the evaluation of territorial impact of 
European policies, 2017, JRC107133. 
 
Medeiros E. (2014) Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA): The Process, Methods 
and Techniques. Lisbon: University of Lisbon. 
 
Mercenier, J. et. al. (2016): RHOMOLO-v2 Model Description. A spatial 
computable general equilibrium model for EU regions and sectors. In: JRC 
Technical reports. 
 

 
78 
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2018a): Rural proofing Impact 
Assessment Checklist. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/42207-Rural-
Proofing-Impact-Assessment-Checklist-Template  
 
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (2018b): Rural proofing Guide for policy 
development and service delivery planning. 
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/29294-Rural-proofing-Guide-for-
policy-development-and-service-delivery-planning  
 
Nordberg, K. (2020): Distributed Rural proofing – an essential tool for the future 
of rural development? Sociologia Ruralis, 60(4), –. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12316 
 
OECD (2020): OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020, OECD Publishing, 
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/959d5ba0-en 
 
OIR (2021): ESPON TIA Tool Moderators Guide. 
 
OIR, AIDICO (2013): ESPON TIA Quick Check – Moderator’s Guide and 
Methodological Background. 
 
ÖROK (2021): 16
th
 Austrian Spatial Planning Report (“16. Österreichischer 
Raumordnungsbericht“). Vienna. 
 
Pazos-Vidal, S. (2022): Rural proofing in Spain: Presentation at the ENRD 
thematic group on rural proofing. 
 
Public Engagement and Planning Division (PEP) (2019): Rural Lens – 
Assessing Regional Policy Implications – A Guide for Public Bodies. 
https://www.gov.nl.ca/pep/files/Rural-Lens.pdf  
 
Shortall, S.; Sherry, E. (2019): Methodological fallacies and perceptions of rural 
disparity: How rural proofing addresses real versus abstract needs. In: Journal of 
Rural Studies, Volume 68. 
 
Statistics Austria (2022): Classifications of urban and rural areas. Vienna. [URL: 
https://www.statistik.at/web_en/classifications/regional_breakdown/urban_rural/
index.html] 
 
 
 

Created in 1994, the European Committee of the Regions is the EU's political assembly

of 329 regional and local representatives such as regional presidents or city-mayors

from all 27 Member States, representing over 446 million Europeans.

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101 | 1040Bruxelles/Brussel | BELGIQUE/BELGIË | Tel. +3222822211

www.cor.europa.eu | @EU_CoR | /european.committee.of.the.regions

/european-committee-of-the-regions

QG-05-22-139-EN-N

ISBN 978-92-895-1233-6

doi:10.2863/542366