Picture: KRiemer/ Pixabay

The demand for sustainable development in both urban and rural areas is steadily rising, and we are witnessing a shift from traditional top-down approaches to more community-driven, bottom-up initiatives. In the Nordic countries, more and more residents are questioning conventional development projects, promoting diverse interpretations of sustainability, and, perhaps most importantly, encouraging policymakers and local authorities to “think differently” when planning or evaluating new initiatives.

A vital part of this transformation is the collaboration between municipalities and research institutions and universities. These partnerships can provide valuable expertise, new perspectives, and innovation. However, such cooperation depends heavily on the willingness and initiative of municipal managers since without their proactive involvement, the potential benefits of these collaborations may never be realized.

Raseborg: a municipality with a complex Structure

The municipality of Raseborg (Raasepori) was formed in 2009 through the merger of several areas, including the main populated centres of Ekenäs, Karis, and Pojo, along with numerous smaller villages including Svartå. This merger created a complex municipal structure aimed at offering equal development opportunities across the region.

Unfortunately, like many rural areas in Finland, Raseborg faces financial constraints and political challenges. These difficulties often lead to cuts in services, and the situation here reflects a broader trend in Finland toward centralization as a supposed solution. Yet, this approach rarely addresses the real needs of smaller communities.

Testing new waters in Lindnäs, Svartå

In this difficult context, Raseborg is exploring alternative development models. One such case is the Lindnäs area in Svartå, where a former school building due to its age and various other factors was recently demolished. The new school, located closer to the centre of the village, now accommodates both Finnish- and Swedish-speaking students under one roof. However, this has left a significant plot of land unused — an "unreasonable luxury" in a populated area.

The area of the potential project in Svartå (Map: Aurélie Noel, 2025)

In 2024, city planner Anne-May Sundström and sustainable coordinator Miina Rautiainen together with the Research, development and Innovation team at Novia University of Applied Sciences, including Marianne Fred, Aurélie Noel, Jorge Gomez-Paredes, and Ruslan Gunko, initiated a collaboration to explore possibilities for developing the site. The city proposed a concept involving mini-houses, where residents have private living areas with co-sharing features, aimed at offering a flexible, community-oriented living option. The idea of it is to design mini-houses keeping in mind energy-efficient designs and low-emission materials, where shared spaces would help reduce costs, waste and energy use, making everyday life of residents greener and more sustainable.

Understanding the People: a public survey

Like any new idea, this one needed thorough exploration. It required independent perspectives, creative brainstorming, and, most importantly, feedback from people who might one day live there (or those who wouldn’t), due to the unique features of co-sharing. It would allow people to use efficiently common spaces by sharing them with other residents while keeping privacy in their private areas.  Our collaborative team developed a survey aimed at understanding what people think about the co-sharing approach. What are the pros and cons in the eyes of potential residents? What scenarios appeal to them and which don't? Who might be the target audience for this type of housing?

This survey was designed as a pre-investigation, a way to test the waters and see how the concept of co-sharing resonates with people. It shouldn't be interpreted as a full-scale marketing or research survey, especially considering that it was distributed primarily through the social media channels of the university and the city. As such, the results won’t be formally published, however they provided “food for thought” and valuable input for planning future steps.

There were 65 respondents, including residents of the municipality and from outside, such as the capital region. The range of opinions they shared reflected the entire spectrum - from strong skepticism to enthusiastic support - giving us a broad sense of how this idea might land with different audiences.

As somewhat anticipated, co-sharing isn't for everyone. For some, the concept triggered sharply negative reactions, especially when it came to concerns about taxation, personal responsibilities, and the rules for shared living. On the other hand, there was a clear segment of the respondents actively looking for co-sharing opportunities. They viewed this model as a viable housing option whether for the long or short term.

Interestingly, this more positive group seemed to have a recognizable profile: single individuals or couples without children were more likely to support the concept (though it’s worth noting that not all respondents with kids were against co-sharing). They seemed to tend to value resource and cost efficiency, shared responsibility, and a greater sense of security. Social aspects also played a key role as many appreciated the idea of living in a community where neighbors help each other and socialize, rather than remaining isolated.

This raised other important questions about the time scale and legal structure of co-sharing: Should it be based on ownership, shared equity, or renting? As it follows logic of higher level of uncertainties about the future life changes, single respondents showed little interest in long-term property commitments and leaned toward renting. In contrast, couples without kids appeared more open to both renting and owning, possibly seeing mini-houses as a form of investment.

Another central topic was the level of co-sharing. People familiar with Finnish housing norms are already used to a degree of shared services in apartment buildings: bike rooms, saunas, laundry facilities, and children’s playgrounds are often communal. In our survey, we offered respondents a chance to define how much they would be willing to share. Only about 20% were open to complete co-sharing (with privacy preserved in areas like sleeping quarters and bathrooms in private mini-houses). A slightly larger group preferred minimal sharing, aligning with the more traditional Finnish co-housing model. About a third of respondents wanted to customize their co-sharing experience choosing what they would and wouldn’t share. Yet even among this group, the most popular shared services remained the ones already familiar in current Finnish housing. This is a clear signal that any potential adjustments to the co-sharing model should be tailored to specific target audiences, as the broader public seems to still hold fairly traditional views on shared living arrangements.

Respondents’ preferences in co-sharing scenarios

Finally, it would not be right to exclude the voices of potential residents regarding the area itself, as, like any rural region in Finland, it comes with both objective and subjective challenges. It is clear that, despite the various co-sharing features, factors like mobility and access to essential services remained key for choosing a place to live. In this context, over a third of respondents raised concerns about transportation, and a quarter pointed to the limited availability of services in Svartå as a potential issue. These concerns are not surprising and closely align with the reflections shared in the introduction of this article. In fact, this feedback reinforces the reliability and seriousness of the survey: respondents clearly took the time to imagine themselves living in the Lindnäs mini-houses and considered the broader implications of such a move. At the same time, it sends a clear message to the municipality — any future project must address these foundational challenges. No matter how innovative or attractive the features of a housing concept may be, people still approach their living arrangements with a long-term, strategic mindset.

Overall, this preliminary exploration of the potential co-sharing project in Lindnäs highlights that the concept of mini-houses with shared features holds promise, but also requires careful, evidence-based planning. Implementing such a model demands a comprehensive approach that takes into account social, economic, and infrastructural realities. The involvement of researchers adds value by identifying possible challenges early on and offering tools to address them effectively.

The project is still in its early development phase, and the city now needs to deepen its understanding of the potential target audience and local context. While the initial survey provided useful insights, it is only a starting point. The next phase should include interviews with potential residents, workshops with local communities, and involve further concerned parties to test assumptions, explore needs, and shape viable development paths. With continued research and stakeholder engagement, the initiative could serve as a model for small-scale, sustainable development in rural contexts. Because sustainable development isn’t only about building differently — it’s about thinking differently.

The blogpost has been reviewed by Novia's editorial board and accepted for publication on 24.11.2025