Transcript Mountain areas

Workshop 1.3: From TeDi to GEOSPECS
Development potentials
in areas with geographic specificities
Internal Seminar
Evidence-based Cohesion policy: Territorial Dimensions
29-30 November 2011
Kraków, Poland
Erik Gloersen –University of Geneva
Michiel van Eupen - Alterra
Construction of policy relevant maps and figures
What are the criteria of policy relevance?
- Meaningful to policy makers and others?
- Easy to communicate?
- Reflecting actual development processes?
- Focusing on territorial units that are deemed relevant?
- Able to guide policy design and contribute to policy evaluation?
- Appropriate for benchmarking of administrative regions?
Erik Gløersen
ESPON TeDi project team: a targeted analysis
- Island Consulting Services, Malta
- University of Akureyri, Iceland
Erik Gløersen
Case study areas
Characterised in terms of
access to urban nodes
Overlay of case study
areas
and zones within 45
minutes
of Functional Urban Areas
with more than 50,000
inhabitants
Erik Gløersen
Demographic trends
Erik Gløersen
Age structure
Pronounced ageing in many
localities,
but also significant overrepresentations of young people
High age dependency ratios are
a shared feature of most areas
Erik Gløersen
Economic activities
Main deviations from average
profile of case study areas
 Diversity of situations
Erik Gløersen
Recurring issues
•
A number of recurring issues in the TeDi areas:
– Income
– Gender balance
– Focus on youth as a basis for economic development
– Branding, self-perception
– Symbolic role of knowledge-intensive activities
– Minimal requirements in terms of services
– Diversity of lifestyles as a European value
•
The main issues are however related to small and (relative) isolation of
settlements
Erik Gløersen
Ensuring a sustainable development based on
regional comparative advantages
-
Identification of situations where the market fails to take proper
advantage of an identified resource.
-
Insufficient regional returns on the exploitation of natural resources
 Acknowledging the existence of conflicting interests at different
territorial scales
-
Multiplicity of development models that needs to be recognised
 Challenging the monolitical character of the Lisbon agenda
 Challenge for GEOSPECS: How to approach
this at the pan-European level?
Erik Gløersen
ESPON GEOSPECS project team
Lead Partner: Department of Geography, University of Geneva
Mountain areas
Centre for Mountain Studies, Perth College UHI, UK
Islands
E-cubed consultants, MT
Sparsely populated
areas
Nordregio, SE
Coastal areas
Coastal and Marine Resources Centre,
University College Cork, IE
Inner periphery
Alterra, Wageningen University, NL
Outermost regions
Louis Lengrand & associés, FR
Border regions
Thomas Stumm, Eureconsult, LU
Metropolitan border
regions
New and old
external borders
CEPS/INSTEAD, LU
Leibniz-Institut für ökologische Raumentwicklung
Dresden (IÖR), DE
+ Umweltbundesamt/Federal Environment Agency, AT
Erik Gløersen
Mountain areas
Erik Gløersen
What is a mountain area
from a socio-economic point of view?
•Criteria of altitude,
slope, terrain and
relief
•LAU 2 area
defined as
mountainous if
more than 50% of
territory is classed
as mountainous
• Majority of people
live in valleys / at
lower altitudes
• Many economic
processes strongly
linked to nearby
urban centres
Mountain areas: a question of scale
Lowland
Mountain
Lake
0
50km
J. Michelet, E. Gloersen
0
>50 km
0
50 km
Sources: Nordregio 2004 (left)
OFS 2009 (centre & right)
Erik Gløersen
Mountain areas and mountainousness
Erik Gløersen
Mountain areas and mountainousness
Where are the Alps, the Jura,
the Balkan mountain areas?
Are the Pyrenees
discontinu ous?
Erik Gløersen
Islands and insularity
Is this an island?
Erik Gløersen
Islands and insularity
Insular regions
Erik Gløersen
Islands and insularity
Erik Gløersen
Challenges working at the LAU2 level
Only Macedonia
and Bosnia
and Herzegovina
not yet mapped
Only LAU1 units
available in Turkey
120 000 units
Erik Gløersen
Potential daily mobility areas as a basis for mapping European
territorial patterns
Erik Gløersen
Access to urban nodes
Built-up area
Commuting area
Potential daily
mobility
area
Erik Gløersen
Erik Gløersen
Erik Gløersen
Erik Gløersen
GEOSPECS Method: Inner peripheries
•
Population potential < 100.000
Erik Gløersen
Thank you!
© Wageningen UR
Improving the foundation of development
•
Overcoming the duality in local development strategies,
– Seeking to assert their uniqueness
– While also aspiring to mainstream development objectives-
•
Question of the institutional capacity to formulate strategies: The case
study regions have developed variable solutions to design a
development strategy based on their unique characteristics;
•
The relative isolation of many TeDi areas limits the capacity to see
opportunities and think out of the box.
•
The value of wide ranging, incremental approaches of innovation could
be further recognised;
•
Self-perception and identity need to be further highlighted as central
factors of local development.
Erik Gløersen
Inputs to European policy debates
Conceptual clarifications needed:
(1) Level of performance ≠ Structural obstacles to growth
 More than average scores ≠ good scores
 Geographically specific area ≠ Lagging area
(2) Economic importance ≠ Economic weight
(3) Balanced, harmonious and sustainable development requires
more than economic growth
 geographic specificities may help identifying
contradictions and mutually beneficial effects of different
types of policies
Erik Gløersen
Inputs to European policy debates
Dealing with geographic specificities is often about creating
new types of connections between areas
- Within regions
- Across regional and national boundaries



Compensating for imbalances in flows
Creating alliances through which actors can strengthen
the robustness and resilience of their local communities
Gaining greater weight in economic and political
systems dominated by main urban areas
At the European scale, a change of focus of territorial
policies, incorporating the sub-regional scale is
required to encourage and accompany these
processes.
The focus should be on potentials rather than on
relative performance
Erik Gløersen
GEOSPECS Method:
Islands
Scale of used data is
Very important
Erik Gløersen
Code
Name
Explanation
BDA
BDA2
COA
COA2
SPA
ISL
ISL2
OMR
MTN
URB
URB2
land border areas
Other contiguous to land border
Coastal areas
Other contiguous to coast
Sparsely populated areas
Islands
Connected islands
Outermost region
Mountain region
Urban areas
Metropolitan areas
LAU2 with more than 50% of their area within 45 minutes of a national land border
LAU2 that are contiguous to a land border, but with less than 50% of their area within 45 minutes of a national land border
LAU2 with more than 50% of their area within 45 minutes of a coast
LAU2 that are contiguous to a coast, but with less than 50% of their area within 45 minutes of a coast
Sum of sparsely populated and poorly connected areas
LAU2 that are part of an island, a single island or composed only of islands with no physical link to the mainland
LAU2 that are partly or entirely connected to the mainland by a physical link
LAU2 belonging to an outermost region
LAU2 belonging to a mountain area or to a non-montainous enclave surrounded by mountain areas (excluding exclaves)
LAU2 with more than 50% of their area within 45 minutes of a MUA which is the centre of a FUA whose population exceeds 100,000 inhabitants
LAU2 with more than 50% of their area within 45 minutes of a MUA which is the centre of a FUA whose population exceeds 750,000 inhabitants
Cross-delineation
ESPON_AREA
BDA
BDA2
COA
COA2
SPA
ISL
ISL2
OMR
MTN
URB
URB2
BDA
BDA2
11.3%
0.0%
6.1%
0.1%
3.2%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
7.6%
18.1%
20.2%
COA
0.0%
6.9%
1.1%
12.8%
26.2%
0.0%
0.0%
43.3%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
COA2
10.1%
2.9%
18.6%
0.0%
12.1%
57.3%
100.0%
13.6%
14.1%
26.6%
28.5%
SPA
0.0%
8.2%
0.0%
4.4%
13.5%
25.4%
0.0%
38.9%
7.2%
0.1%
0.0%
ISL
6.9%
91.8%
15.8%
74.3%
24.2%
42.3%
34.6%
83.8%
32.8%
0.1%
0.0%
ISL2
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
23.3%
7.0%
4.0%
0.0%
15.9%
7.0%
1.9%
1.1%
OMR
0.1%
0.0%
3.6%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.6%
0.4%
0.9%
MTN
0.0%
10.7%
1.2%
15.0%
5.9%
6.7%
0.0%
1.7%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
URB
27.9%
38.7%
31.2%
67.6%
55.9%
71.9%
39.9%
12.2%
41.3%
20.8%
14.1%
URB2
56.0%
0.2%
50.2%
0.7%
0.2%
16.7%
23.3%
0.6%
17.6%
35.1%
100.0%
19.0%
0.0%
16.3%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
15.0%
0.0%
3.6%
30.4%
10.7%
Erik Gløersen