Transcript Jatkauskas Territorial Monitoring of the Baltic

Territorial Monitoring of the Baltic Sea Region:
Some Insights into Territorial Patterns of Economic Crisis
Transnational conference
Territorial development and cohesion evidence, dynamics
and prospects in North-Baltic region
11 November 2014, Vilnius, Lithuania
ESPON BSR-TeMo
Jonas Jatkauskas, BGI Consulting, Lithuania
Structure
1.
Context and set-up of the monitoring system
2.
Application of the monitoring system:
selected empirical findings
Objective of BSR-TeMo
To develop a specific BSR monitoring system which:
• generates information on general territorial dynamics and trends;
• addresses specific and strategically important BSR related themes;
• provides a picture of the ongoing process of territorial cohesion; and
• offers stakeholders the possibility to carry out dynamic analysis
providing a framework for defining objectives, specifying priorities
and conducting policy evaluation.
Foundations of BSR-TeMo
- Should build on a territorial policy context
-
System development preceded by sound policy analysis
- Should address policy questions important to the region;
-
A strong regional and stakeholder context
- Should primarily use existing data
-
For ease of upholding
- Should be made accessible to stakeholders
-
Strong focus on different forms of dissemination
Coverage and scale
NUTS2
Country
NUTS3
Belarus
Oblasts
7
Rayons (or SNUTS4)
118 (130)
Denmark
Regioner
5
Landsdeler
11
Estonia
Country
1
Groups of Maakond
5
Finland
Suuralueet
5
Maakunnat
20
Germany
Regierungsbezirke
8
Kreise / kreisfreie Städte
66
Latvia
Country
1
Regioni
6
Lithuania
Country
1
Apskritys
10
Norway
Regions
7
Fylker
19
Poland
Województwa
16
Podregiony
66
Russia
Oblasts
7
Rayons (sNUTS4)
123
Sweden
Riksområden
8
Län
21
Territorial entities in practice:
238 NUTS 3 regions or 66 NUTS 2 regions
Supporting data at LAU-2 (local level)
The monitoring system - beyond a mere database
Dissemination products: handbook
Some Insights into Territorial Patterns of Economic Crisis
Economic performance and
competiveness: GDP change 2005 -2010
- Red / light red areas represent regions most
affected by economic crisis;
- The blue ones grew during the period of
2005-2010;
- Baltic states and some areas of Germany
seems to be most affected by the crisis.
- Interesting observation in case of Poland
where despite the economic crisis most of
its regions sustained moderate and high
growth from 2005 to 2010.
Some Insights into Territorial Patterns of Economic Crisis
Unemployment rate for the Baltic States
Economic performance and
competiveness: persons employed 20052009 (annual average change %)
20.0
18.0
16.0
- Red / light red areas represent regions
most affected by economic crisis i.e. where
employment dramatically decreased;
14.0
12.0
10.0
- The blue regions sustained employment
levels during the period of 2005-2009;
8.0
6.0
- Baltics states, peripheral regions of
Sweden demonstrated substantial
decrease of employment levels.
4.0
2.0
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
EE ZUTN
- Again, interesting observation in case of
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Poland.
LV ZUTN
LT ZUTN
Jobs gained and lost in the BSR – territorially specific spatial patterns
Development of employment in the BSR according to the typology on metropolitan
regions 2005-2009, index 2005=100, NUTS 3
109
Capital city region
108
Index 2005=100
Second-tier m etro region
107
Sm aller m etro region
106
105
104
Other region
103
102
101
100
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Example: jobs gained and lost in the BSR– macroregional spatial patterns
When the nr of jobs in
the BSR increased, that
increase was beneficial
to most regions
48.0
Total em ploym ent in the BSR
(in m illion persons, left scale)
1.330
47.0
1.310
46.0
Coefficient of variation
in NUTS 3 em ploym ent
(right scale)
1.290
Coefficient of variation
.
BSR total employment (in million persons)
Development of total BSR employment and the coefficient of variation of
employment between NUTS 3 regions in the BSR 2005-2009
(Coefficient of variation = Standard deviation / Mean )
49.0
1.350
45.0
44.0
2005
1.270
2006
2007
2008
1.250
2009
When the nr of jobs
declined (following the
credit crunch), the
decline hit mostly
weaker regions,
resulting in increased
concentration
Some Insights into Territorial Patterns of Economic Crisis
Economic performance and
competiveness: Migration 2005-2010,
Balance 2010
- Red / light red areas demonstrate
negative migration during the period;
- Positive migrations trends (blue) are
evident in case of capital regions;
- Difficult to state if the migration fluctuations
are caused by financial crisis or other
factors.
- The case of Lithuania deviates from all the
rest BSR countries.
Migration 2005-2010
Average annual net migration rate 2005 - 2010
according to various territorial typologies in the BSR, NUTS level 3
0.6 %
Net migration rate, annual average in %
Capital city
region
Predominantly
urban region
Coast
0.3 %
Intermediate
region
Second-tier
metro region
Non-border
Non-sparse
Smaller
metro region
0.0 %
Inland
Other region
Border
Sparse
Predominantly
rural region
-0.3 %
Typology on
urban-rural
regions
Typology on
metropolitan
regions
External
border
regions
Sparsely
populated
regions
Coastal
regions
Only ten urban regions swallow 47 % of
all migration surplus in the BSR
GDP per capita in PPS, index: EU27=100
ca. 2005
ca. 2009
Development
ca. 2005-2009:
points change to
EU27 average
75
81
+6
124
50
122
60
-2
+10
Predominantly urban regions
98
109
+11
Intermediate regions
of w hich:
- close to a city
- remote
66
71
+5
66
71
71
74
+5
+2
62
65
+3
53
86
57
85
+4
-1
101
84
58
61
112
89
64
65
+11
+5
+5
+4
The Baltic Sea Region (BSR)
of w hich:
- w estern BSR
- eastern BSR
Typology on urban-rural regions
Predominantly rural regions
of w hich
- close to a city
- remote
Cohesion trends during the period of
2005-2009 (GDP per inhabitant in the BSR
subdivided by various territorial typologies)
- Specific types of BSR territories are
generally lagging behind
Typology on m etropolitan regions
Capital city regions
Second-tier metro regions
Smaller metro regions
Other regions
- Most development trends are not cohesive
Typology on regions in external border program m es
Border regions
Non-border regions
46
82
53
88
+8
+6
90
74
91
80
+1
+7
95
62
101
68
+6
+6
Typology on sparsely populated regions
Sparsely populated regions
Not sparsely populated regions
Typology on coastal regions
Coastal regions
Non-coastal regions
- Eastern BSR demonstrated cohesive
trends despite the economic crisis
Further information: BSR-TeMo team & VASAB CSDP/BSR
Project partners
Nordregio
Lisbeth Greve Harbo,
Ole Damsgaard, Linus Rispling,
Gunnar Lindberg
University of Gdańsk
Jacek Zaucha
Stanislaw Leszczycki Institute of Geography
and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of
Sciences
Piotr Rosik
Rafał Wiśniewski
Tomasz Komornicki
Aalto University, YTK
Tomas Hanell
Jukka Hirvonen
BGI Consulting Ltd.
Inga Bartkeviciute
Jonas Jatkauskas
RRG Spatial Planning
and Geoinformation
Carsten Schürmann
Geomedia LLC
Rivo Noorkõiv
VASAB Committee on Spatial Planning and
Development of the Baltic Sea Region