Improving policy development processes and Decentralised Rural Proofing in Living Labs

This report provides a comparative analysis of lessons learned during the RUSTIK project regarding policy development processes and the implementation of Decentralised Rural Proofing (DRP) in 14 Pilot Regions. It investigates how data-driven experiments and place-based evidence can make rural diversity and needs visible and actionable in real policy settings. The analysis follows a four-step process—developing transition narratives, co-creating Theory of Change models, identifying policy impact pathways, and pilot-testing a DRP model—to understand how evidence supports rural transition and policy adaptation.

The first step examined the institutional and policy contexts through Transition Narratives, identifying facilitators and bottlenecks for collaboration. Findings revealed that while decentralized systems grant greater autonomy to subnational actors, centralized systems often limit the scope for tailoring interventions to local needs. The overall policy environment’s conduciveness to transition varied significantly across the regions, with constraints often linked to fragmented policy silos and limited coordination capacity.

In the second step, Pilot Regions co-created Theory of Change (ToC) models, which served as structured intervention logics for their experiments. These models were categorized into five thematic groups: Demographic Retention and Social Inclusion, Sustainable Food and Forestry Systems, Strengthening Rural Businesses, Land Use and Natural Resource Management, and Data Tools for Future Planning. The ToC models demonstrated that the primary contribution of Living Labs is generating "enabling conditions" for change, such as building relationships, fostering learning, and producing usable evidence.

The third step identified three Policy Impact Pathways through which experimental evidence can inform policy adaptation:

1. Cross-sectoral integration: Reveals sectoral silos and the strategic value of under-recognised assets (e.g., local food), pointing to the need for integrated territorial solutions that recognize multi-dimensional value.
2. Territorialisation and resource allocation: Highlights spatial disparities and the need for funding formulas that account for structurally higher service costs in low-density rural areas.
3. Inclusive governance and collaboration: Emphasizes the need for mandated intermediaries to sustain coordination across functional scales and incorporate under-represented actors into decision-making.

The final step involved piloting Decentralised Rural Proofing (DRP) in five regions. Unlike centralized, top-down proofing, DRP operates as a bottom-up "governance translator," using local micro-assessments to "stress-test" policies from a place-based perspective. These pilots demonstrated that DRP is most effective when integrated into "live" policy cycles—such as strategy consultations or legislative rollouts—allowing adjustments while windows of opportunity are open.

Ultimately, the report concludes that place-based policy learning requires clear institutional entry points, strategic intermediary organizations, and flexible funding instruments to successfully translate rural evidence into action. By combining quantitative and qualitative data, DRP and Living Lab experiments help move rural policy toward more responsive and context-sensitive development.