Task 1.3 of RUSTIK envisages the discussion of three main points:1) Rural proofing: scope, methodological approaches and pros and cons2) Concrete experiences in Europe and non-European countries. Differences and similarities. Impacts on policy change and revision processes in the real world3) Rural proofing needs in terms of basic information and monitoring systems. Provision of a methodology of rural proofing to be discussed and tested within rural stakeholders in each Pilot RegionThe methodology to be used:- Review of the existing literature- Three significant case study (two European and one non-European), but with concrete experiences and lessons to be drawn.- Three interviews (one for each case study) with relevant people involved in rural proofing government and management.- Interviews based on a common list of questions.- Case studies discussed according to a similar framework (including evolution of rural proofing, institutional responsibilities, and type of delivery) Three case studies have been chosen as examples of Rural Proofing implementation. Criteria for the choice of case studies have been the following: England has a long-standing and well-established tradition of application at the national level; Finland has tried to apply this approach at the local (municipal) level and, indeed, is the EU country that has experimented more in this field; the USA case appears helpful for fostering local communities to consider key challenges and viable policy solutions to face a specific health crisis but with a holistic approach.