This work‑in‑progress paper presents preliminary results from a qualitative research project that investigates how rural municipalities incorporate the potentials, resources, and needs of the local area when using higher education as a tool in rural and local development in Denmark. The difficulties of creating well-functioning rural higher education are not unique to Denmark but seen across countries in the Global North. We see increasing political focus on higher education as a tool for rural and regional development, while students predominantly seek out the large educational cities when choosing higher education. This means that educational institutions outside the large cities have difficulty attracting students, as there are many vacant study places, resulting in poor education economics. It is therefore not enough to relocate higher education institutions, if young people are not following suit.

The project consists of two parts: the institutional level and the student level. This paper focuses on the latter, examining why students have chosen a particular decentralised higher education programme, and how both place and educational institution shape their local identity, everyday practices, and sense of belonging. The study is guided by these research questions:

1. What motivates students to choose the education in question?
2. What is their relationship to the educational institution and the local area?
3. How are education and mobility included in their ideas about the good life?

Spatial and mobility theories inspire the theoretical framework. Spatial theories (Tuan, 2001; Warf & Arias, 2009) provide insight into the importance of places and the diversity of places. This is important in relation to rural research, because these areas are distinguished by their diversity (Høst & Larsen, 2016). Spatial theories can also help to identify place-specific resources and qualities, as well as the importance these have for people who have grown up in a place – the so-called “location-specific insider-advantages” (Mærsk et al., 2021b).

With the concept of relational space, Massey (1994; 2005) explains that places are not static and not just one thing for all people, but places are a dynamic phenomenon created through social relations and interactions. This is a useful approach to understanding higher education institutions’ significance for a locality and student’s consideration for (not) choosing to study somewhere.

“Geographical imaginaries” refer to the mental images and perceptions that individuals have of different places, which shape their understanding and choice of higher education institutions (Beech, 2014). These imaginaries influence young people’s decision-making by creating certain perceptions of places that either attract or repel them in terms of educational choices (Holdsworth, 2009). For example, geographical imaginaries of rural areas can often be associated with lower prestige or less exciting opportunities (Gilmartin & Berg, 2007).

The starting point for mobility theories (Salazar, 2010; Sheller & Urry, 2006) is to understand humans as fundamentally mobile, but in different ways and especially on different scales throughout life, from micromobility in everyday life to the large-scale relocations associated with life transformations (Cresswell, 2011). Mobility theories also challenge what it means to be (im)mobile and give us a perspective on what can be understood as (im)mobility (Mærsk et al., 2021). For example, it is often seen as an expression of lack of mobility if young people in rural areas only move 20-30 km when they move from home, while young people in large cities are not seen as immobile by moving the same distance. Mobility theories not only examine physical/geographical mobility, but also social mobility and the connection between these. This is particularly important in the context of education, because physical mobility (to the big cities) is often associated with social mobility (through the education system) (Holloway & Jöns, 2012).

The research project uses ethnographic fieldwork and in particular qualitative interviews as its research method. The fieldwork is carried out in two Danish study towns, Holbæk and Svendborg, where the munic-ipalities in different ways have worked with place-based potentials to create higher education institutions that can support local and regional development. They are both coastal towns. Holbæk has app. 30.900 in-habitants and is located on Zealand some 60 kilometres from Copenhagen. Svendborg with app. 27.600 in-habitants is located on the island of Funen about 170 kilometres from Copenhagen. The two cases, Holbæk and Svendborg, have been selected as examples of different approaches to integrat-ing higher education into rural development, they can be seen as paradigmatic cases in Flyvbjerg's (2006) terminology. A paradigmatic case is a case that can shed light on broader phenomena or theories. The para-digmatic case has the potential to change or shape the way a problem or situation is understood and can thus have a major impact on the research field. Paradigmatic case selection does not aim to be representa-tive, but to illuminate central conditions, in our case the use of place-bound resources, potentials or needs. Semi-structured interviews were the primary method for this part of the study. We made 18 interviews with students from the three higher education institutions present in Svendborg and Holbæk. In addition, we draw on eight interviews made with staff from these three institutions. The staff interviews were all made on location, the student interviews should also have been made on location, but this turned out to be impossible. The students were very difficult to get hold of and only agreed to be interviewed when it could be online. The interviews with students focused on everyday practices, motivations for choosing a small town versus a city, life trajectories, and experiences of studying in a small town. The interviews with staff concerned the educational strategies, connections between the higher education institution and the local area, the students they had and those they wanted to attract. Observations of the educational institutions and mapping of their location in relation to other institutions and activities in the municipality are used both as inspiration for interviews and to “understand the land-scape” as expressed by Philips and Johns (2012). The interviews were coded thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to explore student motivations, perceptions of place, belonging, local identity formation, and the in-terplay between institutional strategies and lived experiences.

Preliminary findings indicate that students who choose study towns do so as an active, positive choice—not as a fallback option. Across programmes and locations, students emphasise the combination of “enough opportunities” and “manageable scale”, describing towns as places where everyday life is coherent, accessi-ble, and socially meaningful. These students value close relations with teaching staff, small cohorts, and the sense of being seen, which fosters engagement, academic confidence, and persistence. For many, decentral-ised higher education is essential for enabling them to pursue higher education due to family responsibili-ties, limited geographical mobility, or preferences for quieter environments. Students’ narratives reveal a strong connection between personal identity, local belonging, and their experi-ence of studying in Holbæk or Svendborg. While they appreciate initiatives such as new, larger campuses, they also express concerns: expansion risks undermining the very qualities that attract them. Another find-ing is the widespread lack of awareness among young people about local higher education opportunities in their area. This points to the importance of making branch campuses ‘local’ e.g. by giving them a name and a brand, and to make sure they are visible in the town through road signs. This may sound quite banal, but there are under-exploited opportunities in trying to reach youth from non-academic families and thus for widening participation through decentralised higher education. Overall, the project indicates that higher education institutions can be used as a tool for tackling uneven ru-ral and regional development by engaging with place-based potentials, local identities, and needs. For stu-dents, decentralised higher education can play a crucial role in providing opportunities to a different group of youth, in fostering social mobility, and in creating meaningful educational experiences. Thus, decentral-ised higher education institutions may succeed by becoming place sensitive and considering the lived expe-riences and preferences of the students who choose them.

Beech, S. E. (2014). Why place matters: Imaginative geography and international student mobility. Area, 46(2), 170-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12096 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cresswell, T. (2011). Mobilities I: Catching up. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), 550-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510383348 Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 Gilmartin, M., & Berg, N. (2007). Locating geographies of higher education: Scale, space and place. Irish Geography, 40(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00750770709555863 Holdsworth, C. (2009). Between two worlds: Local students in higher education and ‘scouse’/student iden-tities. Population, Space and Place, 15(3), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.507 Holloway, S. L., & Jöns, H. (2012). Geographies of education and learning. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(4), 482-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00542.x Høst, J., & Larsen, S. R. (2016). Ansvar for egen egn? Kulturhistoriske perspektiver på regionalt udviklings-arbejde. Kulturstudier, 7(1), 116-142. Massey, D. (1994). Space, place and gender. Polity Press. Massey, D. (2005). For space. SAGE Publications. Mærsk, E., Thuesen, A. A., & Haartsen, T. (2021a). Symbolic mobility capital to fight the social stigma of staying: How young adults re-imagine narratives of ‘leaving’ during higher education. Journal of Youth Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2021.1948984 Mærsk, E., Sørensen, J. F. L., Thuesen, A. A., & Haartsen, T. (2021b). Staying for the benefits: Location-specific insider advantages for geographically immobile students in higher education. Population, Space and Place, 27(4), e2442. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2442 Philips, R., & Johns, J. (2012). Fieldwork for human geography. Sage. Salazar, N. B. (2010). Towards an anthropology of cultural mobilities. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture, 1(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjmc.1.1.53/1 Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(2), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268 Tuan, Y. F. (2001). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press. Warf, B., & Arias, S. (2009). The spatial turn: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge.