VGTU studentų požiūrio į miesto ir kaimo bendradarbiavimą tyrimas

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama kaimo ir miesto partnerystės teoriniai aspektai, pateikiamas jaunimo požiūris į kaimo ir miesto partnerystę. Tyrimo rezultatai parodė, kad miesto ir kaimo bendruomenės skiriasi įvaizdžiu, ištekliais, gebėjimais ir verslumu, socialinės infrastruktūros išplėtojimo lygiu, atliekamomis funkcijomis, gyvenimo kokybe, migracijos kryptimis ir apimtimi. Šiandieninį miestietį tapatiname ir su gyvenančiu užmiestyje ir nematome didelių skirtumų. Kaimo vietovės pasižymi tuo, kad yra dominuojanti natūrali gamtinė aplinka, nedidelė gyventojų koncentracija, pagrindinė teritorijos dalis yra naudojama žemės ir miškų ūkiui, žuvininkystei ir netradicinėms kultūroms, ekonominei ir kultūrinei kaimo gyventojų veiklai. Vis dėlto, vertinant kaimą, akcentuojama tik pagrindinė kaimo žmonių ūkinė veikla - žemės ūkis, ganėtinai apleistos vietovės, išlikęs sovietmečio „kvapas", mažai kultūrinės veiklos ir pan. Pasak respondentų, šiuolaikinis kaimietis pasižymi teigiamu požiūriu į naujoves, darbštumu, deja, ir alkoholizmu. Kai kurie respondentai pabrėžia, kad šiuolaikinis kaimietis pranašesnis už miestietį, nes nėra sugadintas urbanizacijos. Kaimo vietovių vaidmuo poindustrinėje visuomenėje labiausiai priklauso nuo naujų plėtros galimybių, daugiafunkcinio žemės ūkio, naujų kaimiškų vertybių, jaunimo integracijos stiprinimo. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Kaimo gyventojai; Miesto gyventojai; Miesto ir kaimo partnerystė; Partnerystė; Partnerships; Rural residents; Urban residents; Urban-rural relationship.

ENArticle analyses urban-rural partnership. The partnership between rural and urban residents can involve them in joint activities and take responsibility and commitment. A strong partnership is based on good faith. Rural and urban development has driving forces: partnership and collaboration, continuous learning, strategic thinking. The European Commission notes that if the EU countries want access to the best development, urban and rural areas should complement each other. Urban and rural areas of interaction must be promoted in every region of the recipient of EU structural funds, and shall be given preference to a more balanced territorial development. Rural areas must have access to specialist services that are offered just in the urban centers. Urban dwellers must be provided with food and be able to take advantage of the natūrai, tourism and recreation services, which are offered only in rural areas. The results showed that urban and rural communities are different concerning image, resources, skills and entrepreneurship, sočiai infrastructure, the upgrade level of the functions, ąuality of life, migration trends and scope. EU Structural Funds contribution to integrated territorial development must be based on support networks between urban and rural development and improved transportation between cities and rural areas in order to avoid repetition of the same work and to encourage land use patterns, which are prone to more efficient and sustainable development. Urban centers, particularly medium-sized, role development is a key in less populated areas. They are the only contact point that is economically viable.Rural areas are characterized by the fact that it is the dominant natūrai environment, a small concentration in the population, the main part of the territory is used for agriculture and forestry, fishing and non-traditional crops, economic and cultural activities of the rural population, the main emphasis on rural people's economic activities -agriculture, other (relatively neglected areas, remnant of Soviet "smell" a lot of beer bars, low culture, isolation, freedom). Modern villager has a positive approach to innovation, hard-working people. Forerunners of the modern villager have difference comparing with urban community because there is no damage to urbanization. The role of rural areas in most of postindustrial community, according to respondents are the new development, multifunctional agriculture, new rural values, youth integration. The smallest influence - rural migration. The results showed that the students' attitudes to the urban - rural co-operation is ąuite subjective. Respondents do not have enough understanding of what the European model of rural development is as rural gets new role. The study clearly proved that the students have no idea how modern suburbs and urban areas should look likę in the knowledge society in the developed countries. They mixed suburban and rural-urban terms. The university students perceived a village as "a hopeless place". It is therefore necessary to improve VGTU programs: to include the information about the new settlements and family homesteads as well as suburban vision. Therefore, it is not surprising that suburban construction is absolute chaos, when the homestead is marked by 6 are, and the new suburban residents build 2-3 meter high fences to keep a little privacy. The students do not know what can be further developed for the suburbs. However, they propose that the curriculum should be changed that the graduates would receive full information about the non-urban areas. [abstr

• Sociologija / Sociology
• Etnologija / Ethnology