In the process of urbanization, local residents have been found to withdraw more and more from their everyday landscape (Buchecker, 2002). This withdrawal is particularly prominent in periurban communities. Due to a separation of home and work place, new residents of these towns lose their accustomed opportunities for recreation and social contacts. Moreover, based on a general shift of values (e.g., individualization), new needs arise even with long-time residents of these areas, which cannot be met by the existing spatial, social and political structures. As a result, inhabitants of periurban towns spend more and more of their leisure time outside their everyday landscape, increasing the prevalence of dormitory towns and also increasing leisure time mobility. Previous qualitative results suggest that the reason behind this withdrawal is a lack of opportunities to identify with the everyday landscape (Buchecker, 2000). Although there exists a strong identification with the town as a collective, identification on a personal level is missing. If residents cannot identify individually with their everyday landscape, they compensate for it in the private sphere and in nature-near areas. On the other hand, residents are not able to express their needs in the public, because of strong collective norms that are relicts of a traditional rural social system. Thus, their strong need for integration (i.e., collective identification) and fear of social sanctions counteracts participation and innovation. As a consequence, the satisfaction of basic needs and along with it, opportunities for personal identification are constrained. Moreover, conflicting needs and expectations of recent settlers and long-time residents can not be resolved. New planning instruments have to find ways to break this vicious circle and address the basic needs of local residents in order to provide opportunities for personal identification with the everyday landscape. However, basic needs toward everyday landscape have as yet not been systematically investigated. Similarly, the proposed relationship between identification, need satisfaction, participation and mobility behavior (Buchecker, Hunziker & Kienast, 2003) has to be confirmed. This study aims at systematically assess the needs of residents of periurban towns toward their home environment and landscape development. Needs are expected to differ between certain groups within the community (e.g., farmers, new residents). A second main goal of the study is to clear the processes within the aforementioned vicious circle and find ways to interrupt these dynamics. For this purpose, a questionnaire was constructed to assesses the status quo of the existing needs toward everyday landscape and landscape development, with a special focus on place identity (both on the individual and social level), perceived quality of life, willingness to participate, actual self-reported participation, and leisure time mobility. The results of a representative survey conducted in three periurban communities in Switzerland (N = 1500) will be presented. The three communities were chosen according to differences in degree of urbanization, differences in attitudes toward public participation, commitment to landscape development and extent of actual participation (i.e., conservative vs. innovative towns, “dormitory” towns). In the long run, the aim behind assessing landscape needs of residents is to promote new tools for participatory planning. For sustainable landscape development, new methods are needed, especially non-directive, process-oriented instruments which focus on quality of life instead of superficial spatial matters (e.g., Buchecker, Heller & Berz, 1999). Inhabitants must have the opportunity to express their needs at an early stage of the planning process. Instruments that incorporate local residents’ needs will allow tailoring participatory processes.