espon 2013 programme - internal seminar “evidence-based cohesion policy: territorial dimensions...
TRANSCRIPT
ESPON 2013 Programme - Internal Seminar“Evidence-based Cohesion Policy: Territorial Dimensions ”
29-30 November 2011 - Kraków, Poland
A.P. Russo (URV, LP) and L. Servillo (KUL)
ATTREG Project (ESPON 2013/1/7)“The Attractiveness of Regions and Cities for Residents and Visitors” (2010-2012)
Presentation of quasi-final results
LEAD PARTNERUniversity Rovira i Virgili (ES)
PROJECT PARTNERSKU Leuven (BE)Univ. of Venice Ca’ Foscari (IT)EURICUR Rotterdam (NL)Univ. of Coimbra (PT)
Centre for Tourism Research (DK) IGSO (PL)Univ. of Ljubljana (SI)Univ. of West England (UK)
RESEARCH SUBCONTRACTORIstanbul Technological University (TR)
Project background• Objectives of the project
– Understanding the attractiveness of territorial assets to different “audiences”, looking into the 2001-08 period
– Explaining mains spatial trends, classifying regions accordingly– Investigate these relations at different spatial scales, and focusing on
idiosyncrasies and “immeasurable” facts– Developing an analytic framework to asses different policy options
• Policy questions– How are regions endowed with territorial capital assets? What is their
potential attractiveness for different “audiences”?– How can this potential be liberated? How does governance intervene in
this process?– What is to be expected in the future, given the current EU policy
scenarios?
Project structureDEFINING AND INTERPRETING
ATTRACTIVENESS
CONSTRUCTING A DATABASE OF INDICATORS OF TERRITORIAL
ASSET ENDOWMENTS
DEVELOPING ATTRACTIVENESS TYPOLOGIES AND ESTIMATING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
ASSETS AND FLOWS
VALIDATING / DEEPENING THE ANALYSIS THROUGH CASE STUDY
RESEARCH
MODELLING SCENARIOS TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF
POLICY DECISIONS
Main results achieved/envisaged• New evidence related to the territorial dimensions of the
projectA. Indicators and regional typologies by flows attracted
(discriminating by migrations attracted and by “wavelengths” of mobility): REALISED ATTRACTION
B. Indicators and regional typologies by endowments of classes of territorial capital: POTENTIAL ATTRACTIVENESS
C. Model estimates relating A. to B. and identification and classification of outliers: PROCESS INTERPRETATION
Unretentive for young and mid-career age groups, moderately retentive for the older age group
Moderate retentiveness for all working age groups
High retentiveness for all working age groups
Highly retentive for younger age group, moderately retentive for mid-career age group, unretentive for older age group
Average net migration and visiting flow rates
Low net migration and visiting flow rates
High net migration rate, average visiting flow rate
Average net migration rate, high visiting flow rate
Net migration rate
Visitor arrivals per head of pop.
CLUSTER 1average net migration and visiting flow rates
Brussels
País Vasco
Ile de France
Attiki (Athens)
Hovedstaden (Copengahen)
Noord Holland (Amsterdam)
Istanbul
Inner London
Slovenia +1 +2 +3 +4 +5−1−2−3−4−5
+1+2
+3+4
+5−1
−2−3
−4−5
Zuid Holland (Rotterdam)
Nord-pas-de Calais (LKT)
Lubelskie
Eastern Finland
Van (Eastern Turkey)
CLUSTER 2low net migration and visiting flow rates
Vienna
CyprusVeneto
DevonPrague
CLUSTER 4average net migration rate, high visiting flow rate
Catalonia
Trento
Algarve
Cornwall
Salzburg
Balearic Isl.
Iceland
CLUSTER 3high net migration rate, average visiting flow rate
High environmental capital Average-low antropic capital Low economic and institutional capital Low socio-cultural capital
High environmental capital Low antropic and economic cap. Very low institutional and socio-cultural capital
Very high economic, institutional, socio-cultural capital Average antropic cap. Low environmental cap.
High institutional and economic cap. Average high antropic cap.Low environmental and socio-cultural cap.
High socio-cultural cap.Average-high environmental cap.Average-low institutional and antropic cap.Low economic cap.
CLASS 1
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
CLASS 4
CLASS 5
Index SMART SUSTAINABLE INCLUSIVE
Monument index +
Pop density = ? = ? = ?
Rank of airport + -
Tourist beds +
accessibility ++ -
GDP pre capita = ? = ? = ?
Tertiary educated workforce +
NACE G-I employment +
Small seasonal difference
NATURA 2000 area +
Satisfied with health service +
Public sector employment + +
Student ratio + +
Life satisfaction + +
Pensionable age ratio +
Looking into the future – “Policy bundles”
Key facts and observations for policymakers• No (easy) recipes for economic growth
• Ambiguous relationship between attractiveness and economic growth• Economic growth can be one of the effects of retentiveness but not necessarily always of
attractiveness – fragility from “overheating” may be the unwanted result (and it did after 2008)
• A longer term, multi-scale perspective needed • Territorial cohesion strategies that successfully address territorial capital are long-term
strategies• The mobilisation of regional attractiveness based on a combination of top-down EU and
state policies and bottom-up initiatives of local and regional stakeholders such as municipalities, universities and businesses
• Factors to be taken into account:• Time issue• Coherent aims and targets • Place-based approach• Strategic spatial (planning) measures• EU opportunities
Experiences of the projectWhat are the main experiences of the project with regard to integrating the policy context and the territorial dimensions in the analysis?
– Policy dimensions • human mobility as a key dimension of territorial cohesion; attraction policies as
part of the EU territorial toolkit• Policy-drive of the analysis• Interrogating policy in exemplary regions• Involving policy stakeholders in our discussions
– Territorial dimensions • Regional dimension – main focus of the analysis • Local / national dimension – explored through case studies • EU dimension – addressed in our “scenario” analysis
How can this be further strengthened? • Better data at LUZ level• More resources for qualitative research à la URBACT• “Zoom in” specific regions – e.g. tourist regions, transition regions, border
regions, etc.
