et2050 european territorial scenarios modelled by sasi klaus spiekermann and michael wegener espon...

ET2050

European Territorial Scenariosmodelled by SASI

Klaus Spiekermann and Michael Wegener

ESPON 2013 Programme WorkshopTerritorial Vision for Europe towards 2050

Brussels, 11 October 2013

2

The SASI Model

3

The SASI model

The SASI model is a recursive -dynamic simulationmodel of socio economic development of regions inEurope under assumptions about • European economic development and

external net migration,• European transport policies (TEN-T), • regional subsidies (ERDF, EAFRD, ESF, CF).

The SASI model differs from other regional economicmodels by modelling not only production (thedemand side of regional labour markets) but alsopopulation (the supply side of labour markets) and travel and freight transport flows.

4

GDP

AccessibilityProductionfunction

Employment

Migrationfunction

PopulationIncome

Labourforce

Unemploy­ment

SASImodel Transfer

policiesTransportpolicies

5

Questions answered in ET2050

How will different spatial orientations of European

• infrastructure investments (TEN -T)• regional subsidies (ERDF, EAFRD, ESF, CF)

affect

• regional economic development, • regional population/migration,• interregional travel and freight flows,• territorial cohesion and polycentricity, • energy consumption/CO2 emissions?

6

Baseline and Exploratory Scenarios

7

Baseline Scenario

The Baseline Scenario for 2030 and 2050 is basedon BAU assumptions about • European economic development,• European net migration,• European regional subsidies,• European transport policies.

and produces forecasts of:• regional economic development, • regional population/migration,• interregional travel and goods flows,• energy consumption/CO2 emissions, • territorial cohesion and polycentricity.

8

Exploratory Scenarios

The definition of the SASI exploratory scenarios is based on the same region typology as used by the MASST and MULTIPOLES models but translated into NUTS-3 regions:•In the MEGAs Scenario A large European metro-politan areas are promoted in the interest of com-petitiveness and economic growth.•In the Cities Scenario B major European cities are promoted in order to strengthen the balanced poly-centric spatial structure of the European territory.•In the Regions Scenario C rural and peripheral regions are promoted to advance territorial cohesion between affluent and economically lagging regions.

9

Exploratory Scenarios

In the SASI exploratory scenarios A, B and C the assumptions about total European development and European net migration remain the same as in the Baseline Scenario.

However, the exploratory scenarios differ in their assumptions about •the allocation of EU Structural Funds subsidies (see next slide),•European transport policies (see three following slides).

10

Baseline Scenario

The

A (MEGAs)

B (Cities)

C (Regions)

1.0 %

0.5

0.25%

of total EUStructuralFunds

Exploratoryscenarios:Structural Funds

11

Scenario A:Networkimprovements(if necessary)

MEGA

Connections between MEGAs not more than 500 km apart.

Minimum speed:

Road: 90 km/hRail: 200 km/h

12

Baseline Scenario

City

Connections between cities not more than 300 km apart.

Minimum speed:

Road: 80 km/hRail: 160 km/h

Scenario B:Networkimprovements(if necessary)

13

Baseline Scenario

Region

Connections between regions and MEGAs/Cities not more than 200 km apart.

Minimum speed:

Road: 65 km/hRail: 80 km/h

Scenario C:Networkimprovements(if necessary)

14

Scenario results

15

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail1981

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail1986

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail1991

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail1996

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2001

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2006

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2011

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2016

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2021

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2026

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2031

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2036

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2041

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2046

Baseline Scenario:Accessibility travel road/rail2051

16

GDP per capita(1000 € of 2010)

BaselineScenario:GDP percapita2051

17

Difference toBaseline Scenario(%) 2051

Scenario A:GDP per capitaDifferenceto BaselineScenario2051

18

Difference toBaseline Scenario(%) 2051

Scenario B:GDP per capitaDifferenceto BaselineScenario2051

19

Difference toBaseline Scenario(%) 2051

Scenario C:GDP per capitaDifferenceto BaselineScenario2051

20

Scenario variants

21

Scenario variants

In addition, the Baseline Scenario and the exploratory scenarios A, B and C are combined with alternative framework conditions:

1.Economic decline. Globalisation will lead to stagnation and almost decline of the European economy (only +0.62 % GDP growth p.a.)

2.Technology advance. Innovations will result in sig-nificant growth in labour productivity (+1.94 % p.a.) and energy efficiency of transport (+0.75 % p.a.).

3.Energy/climate. Rising energy costs and/or green-house gas emission taxes will lead to strong growth of production and transport costs (+5 % p.a.).

22

Scenario variants

The combination of the exploratoy scenarios and the variants leads to nine additional scenarios:

23

Scenario comparison

RemainingEast-Westgap: GDPper capita EU15/EU12(1,000 Euroof 2010)1981-2051

24

Scenario comparison

Decliningoverallregionaldisparities: Ginicoefficientof GDP percapita1981-2051

25

Scenario comparison

Dynamic urban structures in EU12:Nationalpolycentricityindex1981-2051

26

Scenario comparison

Increase in energyefficiency& share ofrenewableenergy:CO2 emissionby transportper capita p.a. (t)1981-2051

27

Conclusions

28

Summary comparison

29

Conclusions

The comparison of scenarios with respect to the three major EU goals gives a straightforward result:•Competitiveness: The A scenarios (MEGAs) produce the largest growth in GDP. The C scenarios (Regions) perform worst in terms of overall economic growth. The B scenarios (Cities) lie in between.•Cohesion: The C scenarios perform best in terms of cohesion and polycentricity. The A scenarios slow the convergence down. The B scenarios lie in between.•Sustainability: The B scenarios are most successful environmentally. The A and C scenarios use more energy and emit more CO2 for transport.

30

Conclusions

The results of the scenario simulations with the SASI model can be summarised as follows:•Promotion of metropolitan areas will maximise economic growth but increase spatial disparities and environmental damage.•Promotion of rural and peripheral regions will increase spatial cohesion but reduce economic growth and sustainability.•Promotion of large and medium-sized cities is a rational trade-off between competitiveness and cohesion and will be best for the environment.

31

Conclusions

These results validate the balanced polycentric spatial organisation of Europe as suggested by the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and the Territorial Agenda (TA).

The B scenarios (Cities) should therefore be taken as the point of departure for the territorial vision.

32

Wegener, M., Bökemann, D. (1998): SASI Model: Model Structure. Berichte aus dem Institut für Raumplanung 40. Dortmund: Institute of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund. http://www.raumplanung.uni dortmund.de/irpud/ fileadmin/irpud/content/documents/publications/ber40.pdf.

Wegener, M. (2008): SASI Model Description. Working Paper 08/01. Dortmund: Spiekermann & Wegener Stadt und Regionalforschung. http://www.spiekermann- wegener. de/mod/pdf/AP_0801.pdf.

Spiekermann, K. Wegener, M. (2013): The SASI Sce-narios until 2050. Project Report for the ESPON-Projekt ET2050 (Territorial Scenarios and Visions for Europe).

More information