e ED onsort um UHI Millennium Institute Inverness NORDREGIO, Stockholm University of Newcastle Von Thunen Institute, Braunschweig

Transcription

1 EDORA: European Development Opportunities for Rural Areas ESPON 2013 Programme Malmö Seminar, 2nd December 2009 Mark Shucksmith School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University Andrew Copus Centre for Remote and Rural Studies

2 The EDORA Consortium UHI Millennium Institute, Inverness NORDREGIO, Stockholm University of Newcastle University of Valencia University of Patras TEAGASC, Dublin University of Gloucester University it of Ljubljana Von Thunen Institute, Braunschweig BABF, Vienna Dortmund University Polish Academy of Sciences Hungarian Academy of Sciences Higher Institute of Agronomy, Lisbon Scottish Agricultural College International Organization for Migration, Warsaw

3 The EDORA Project Objectives (According to the Specification) to describe the main processes of change which are resulting in the increasing differentiation of rural areas. to identify development opportunities and constraints for different kinds of rural areas to consider how such knowledge can be translated into guiding g principles p to support the development of appropriate cohesion policy.

4 Outline of Presentation: 1. General approach and structure of EDORA 2. Highlights from the Conceptual Phase Understanding/characterising the process of rural change. 3. Highlight ht from the Empirical i Phase the EDORA Typology 4. Some policy issues emerging from the work so far 5. The Malmo Mindset (Potential use

5 The EDORA Approach A very eywide-ranging g task Rural data availability is strongly influenced by the agrarian rural development tradition. Being driven by the data availability risks slipping into well-trodden paths A hybrid deductive/inductive approach first establish territorial concepts and theory, then empirical analysis and assessing policy implications. Work so far has been mainly conceptual and empirical have not yet considered policy implications in any detail.

6 EDORA Project Structure t Review of literature: -Rural demography -Rural employment -Rural business development -R-U relationships -Cultural heritage -Access to services -Institutional capacity -Climate change -Farm structural change Grand Narratives of Rural Change Policy Narratives Exemplar Regions Future Perspectives Cohesion Policy Implications and Potential for Territorial Co-operation Available Indicators Typology Database and Country Profiles

7 The Conceptual Phase: Understanding Rural Change Economic processes: Declining relative importance of agriculture, Refocusing of agriculture (multifunctionality, ecological modernisation, post-productivism p etc). Opportunities presented by the Consumption Countryside. Semi-subsistence micro-farms as a social buffer (esp. in NMS12) Labour market segmentation ti human capital issues. Rise of diversified New Rural Economy (NRE), especially in accessible areas. Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints Importance of extra-local networks in growth and innovation. PROCESSES OF Environ- RURAL CHANGE Economic Social mental Political

8 The Conceptual Phase: Understanding Rural Change Social Processes: R-U Migration, counter-urbanisation, ageing. New Rurality in accessible rural areas, prosperous, urban characteristics Service provision issues in remote and sparsely populated areas. Contrasting live-work models of NRE and NMS. Decline of traditional institutions tions and rise of individualism. id Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints PROCESSES OF Environ- RURAL CHANGE Economic Social mental Political

9 The Conceptual Phase: Understanding Rural Change Environmental Processes: Maintenance and commodification of the rural environment Effects of climate change. Effects of anticipation of C. C. and mitigation efforts Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints PROCESSES OF Environ- RURAL CHANGE Economic Social mental Political

10 The Conceptual Phase: Understanding Rural Change Political Processes: From Government to Governance, and the Project State. Changing welfare state systems, privatisation, fiscal pressures Innovation strategies, emphasis on potential and competitiveness, (rather than compensation or support for weakness). Localism v central control (neo-endogenous) and managerial approaches. Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints PROCESSES OF Environ- RURAL CHANGE Economic Social mental Political

11 The Conceptual Phase: Understanding Rural Change META - NARRATIVES Agri- Centric Urban- Rural CONNEXITY Economic Competit., Global Capital Overarching theme of increasing CONNEXITY (Mulgan) network society, relational space, multi-level governance. Freedom v interdependence. Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints 1. Agri-centric narrative (post-productivism, duality, mutifunctionality etc. 2. Urban-rural rural (core-periphery) narrative. PROCESSES OF Environ- RURAL CHANGE Economic Social mental Political 3. Economic competitiveness and global capital penetration

12 The Conceptual Phase: Understanding Rural Change META - NARRATIVES Urban- Rural CONNEXITY Agri- Centric Economic Competit., Global Capital Two Key Issues Determining Path of Rural Change: Nature of Interactions (mainly Rural Urban; or Local - Global?) KEY ISSUES DETERMINING LOCAL "PATH OF CHANGE" Interaction: (Rural-Urban, Local-Global) Assets (Agglomeration or Place Shaping?) Available regional assets physical proximity, or less tangible assets such as institutional capacity, education, entrepreneurialism, networks

13 The Empirical i Phase: The EDORA Typology The role of the typology (project spec.): To review explanatory potential of the Dijkstra-Poelman version of the OECD typology. Explore potential to elaborate it; add structure and performance aspects to U-R dimension. Elaborated typology might then serve as a framework for analysis of recent trends, consideration of future perspectives, and policy implications. Underlying Aims: To correct/replace Stylised Fallacies (Hodge 2004) about rural areas as background to rural/regional policy debate. To provide a means of benchmarking for regional and national policymakers.

14 The Empirical i Phase: The EDORA Typology N.B. It cannot be a typology of Rural Areas two reasons: (a)rural areas do not function separately from adjacent urban areas they are connected by a dense web of interactions. (b)smallest practicable data units are NUTS 3(2), most of these contain sizable towns/cities. It is a typology of Intermediate and Predominantly Rural Regions. At present it covers EU27 (+NO, CH partially), further work will fiil gaps in NO and CH, possibly add TR, HR.

15 The Empirical i Phase: The EDORA Typology more of a three-dimensional framework for analysis, rather than a one-dimensional classification. The three dimensions i are: Urban-Rural (remote/accessible) Accumulation Depletion (performance). Economic structure (diversification). D-P Typology: IA, IR, PRA, PRR Types of Intermediate and Predominantly Rural Areas: Agrarian.. Consumption Countryside.. Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector)... Diversified (Strong Market Services) Accumulation - Depletion

16 The Empirical i Phase: The EDORA Typology The database used: 27 raw data variables (mainly from Eurostat REGIO) 12 (ratio) indicators used for Structural Typology 5 used for Accumulation-Depletion (Performance) Scores No. Short Name Description Ag1 PCPrimeE % Private Sector Employment in Primary Activities Ag2 PCPrimeG % Private Sector GVA from Primary Activities Ag3 AWUPEmp AWU as a % of Total Private Employment CC1 HotCat % of employmet in Hotels and Catering CC2 BPPC Bed Places per Capita CC3 NSRES Nights Spent by Residents per capita CC4 NSNON Nights Spent by Non-Residents per capita CC5 NSTOT Nights Spent (Total) per capita CC6 ANA Access to Natural Areas CC7 PCOGA % of holdings with OGA CC8 LT4ESU % of Holdings <4 ESU NR1 CEGKGR Ratio of GVA from NACE CE to GK AD1 NETMIG Net Migration (rate) AD2 GDPpercap GDP per Capita AD3 GDPCh Average annual change in GDP AD4 TotEmpCh Avg. annual change Total Employ. AD5 Unemp Unemployment Rate

17 Agrarian Rural Economy Indicators NUTS 3 Number of Indicators exceeding the NUTS 3 Mean 0 Note: Reykja vi k 1 This map shows the number of the following indicators exceeding the NUTS3 mean: 2 (i) Percentage of Private Sector GVA from Primary Industries. (ii) Percentange of Private Sector Employment in Primary Industries. 3 (iii) AWU as a percentage of Total Private Sector Employment. PU Regions Canarias Guadeloupe Martinique Réunion Note: NO and CH results preliminary (missing data) Oslo St ockholm Helsin ki Tall inn Guyane Riga Madeira Dubli n Køb enhavn Vilnius Mi nsk Acores Lon don Amsterdam Berlin Warszawa Bruxelles/Brussel Kyiv Paris Luxembourg Praha Bern Vad uz Wi enbratislava Budap est Kishinev Lj ublj ana Zagreb Beograd Bucuresti Sarajevo Lisboa Madrid Roma Sofiya Pristina Podgo ri ca Skopje Tirana Ankara At hin ai Ar Ribat El -Jazai r Tou nis Vallett a Nicosia

18 Consumption Countryside Indicators NUTS 3 Number of Indicators exceeding the NUTS 3 mean Note: Reykjavik This map shows the number of the following indicator groups with at least one indicator exceeding the Rural NUTS3 mean: (i) Tourism capacity and intensity it (ii) Proximity of natural public goods (iii) Peri-productivist agriculture Canarias Guadeloupe Mart inique Réuni on PU Regions Note: NO and CH results preliminary (missing data) Oslo Stockholm Helsin ki Tall inn Riga Guyane Madeira Dubli n Køb enhavn Vilnius Mi nsk Acores Lon don Amsterdam Berlin Warszawa Bruxell es/brussel Kyiv Paris Luxembourg Praha Bern Vaduz Wi enbratislava Budap est Kishinev Lj ublj ana Zagreb Beograd Bucuresti Sarajevo Lisboa Madrid Roma Sofiya Pristina Podgo ri ca Skopj e Tirana Ankara At hinai Ar Ribat El -Jazai r Tou nis Vall ett a Nicosi a

19 Secondary to Private Services Ratio (GVA) NUTS 3 Ratio of GVA from NACE CE to GK Reykjavik Canarias Guadeloupe Martinique i Réunion No data available Note: NO and CH results preliminary (missing data) Oslo Stockholm Helsin ki Tall inn Riga Guyane Madeira Dub lin Køb enhavn Vilnius Min sk Acores L ondon Amsterdam Berlin Warszawa Bruxel les/brussel Kyiv Paris Luxembou rg Praha Bern Va duz Wi enbratislava Budape st Kishinev Lj ublj ana Zagreb Beograd Bucuresti Sarajevo Lisb oa Madrid Roma Sofiya Pristina Podgo ri ca Skopj e Tirana Ankara Athina i Ar R ibat El-Jazair Tou nis Vallett a Nicosia

20 Typology of Intermediate and Predominantly Rural Areas EDORA Project September 2009 NUTS 3 TYPES PU Regions Reykjavik Agrarian Canarias Consumption Countryside Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector) Guadeloupe Martinique Réunion Diversified (Strong Private Services Sector) No data available Note: NO and CH results preliminary (missing data) Oslo Stockholm Helsin ki Tall inn Riga Guyane Madeira Dub lin Køb enhavn Vilnius Minsk Acores L ondon Amsterdam Berlin Warszawa Bruxelles/Brussel Kyiv Paris Luxembou rg Praha Bern Va duz Wi enbratislava Budape st Kishinev Lj ublj ana Zagreb Beograd Bucuresti Sarajevo Lisb oa Madrid Roma Sofiya Pristina Podgorica Skopje Tirana Ankara Athina i Ar R ibat El-Jazair Tou nis Valletta Nicosia

21 Accumulation - Depletion Scores NUTS 3 Unweighted Mean of Z Scores > >1 PU Regions Note: Reykjavik This map shows the unweighted mean of the following indicators: (i) Annual rate of net migration (ii) Per Capita GDP (in PPS) (iii) Annual rate of change in GDP (excluding regions where GDP per capita is below NUTS 3 average) (iv) Annual percentage change in total employment (v) Average unemployment rate Oslo Stockholm Helsin ki Tall inn Canarias Guadeloupe Guyane Mart inique Réuni on Riga Madeira Dubli n Køb enhavn Vilnius Mi nsk Acores Lon don Amsterdam Berlin Warszawa Bruxelles/Brussel Kyiv Paris Luxembourg Praha Bern Vad uz Wi enbratislava Budap est Kishinev Lj ublj ana Zagreb Beograd Bucuresti Sarajevo Lisboa Madrid Roma Sofiya Pristina Podgorica Skopje Tirana Ankara At hinai Ar Ribat El -Jazai r Tou nis Vallett a Nicosi a

22 The Empirical i Phase: The EDORA Typology Summary Statistics EDORA Typology (EU27) Type % of Regions % of Area % of Population % of GDP PU Agrarian Consumption Countryside Diversified (Secondary) Diversified es ed( (Market Services) Agrarian and Consumption Countryside regions cover about 45% of the total area of the EU27, but only 19% of the population and 12% of the GDP. By contrast the diversified regions cover almost 50% of the area, 37% of the population and 32% of GDP.

23 Dijkstra-Poelman Types EDORA Structural Types Comparing D-P with EDORA Structural Typology (NB %s relate to Intermediate+PR Total) D-P Typology Types uneven in size (e.g. Intermediate Remote very small - 23 regions 2% pop.) Intermediate Accessible dominates especially in terms of population and GDP (>60%). Predominantly Rural regions (both accessible and remote) have much smaller share of population and GDP than of regions or area. EDORA Structural Typology Dominated by Diversified (Private Services), especially in terms of GDP (almost 50%). Diversified (Strong Secondary) almost quarter of area, roughly a quarter of area, population and GDP. Agrarian type almost a quarter of area, but much smaller share of population and GDP. Consumption Countryside 22% of area, 12% of population, but 15% of GDP. PRA PRR IR REGIONS IA TOTAL AREA POPULATION GDP (PPS) D(PS) D(Sec) Ag CC

24 Comparing distributions ib ti of Population and GDP, by D-P and Structural Types (Location Quotients) Structural Types Consumption D ive rsifie d D ive rsifie d (priva te All Structura l D ijkstra -Poe lma n Intermediate t Accessible Agrarian Countryside (Secondary) services) Types Intermediate Remote Predominantly Rural Accessible Predominantly Rural Remote All Inte rme dia te a nd R ura l Comparison of share of population with share of GDP is a simple indicator of performance D-P Types: Intermediate Accessible regions usually have a larger share of GDP than of population (LQ>1) The three other D-P types show a mixed picture, but generally smaller LQ. EDORA Structural Types: Agrarian regions (regardless of D-P type) have a lower share of GDP than population (i.e. LQ<1). Consumption Countryside regions generally have larger share of GDP than population. Diversified (Strong Private Services) have high LQs except in Intermediate Remote Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector) show rather mixed pattern remote regions have smaller share of GDP than population. Accessible regions more positive situation.

25 Cross Tabulation of A-D (Performance) Types and D-P Types (% of Total Population) A-D Types Dijkstra-Poelman Depleting Below Average Above Average Acumulating % in Positive Types Intermediate Accessible Intermediate Remote Predominantly Rural Accessible Predominantly Rural Remote All Intermediate and Rural Almost 60% of the population of Intermediate Accessible regions live in regions which have A-D scores above the EU27 average. In the Intermediate Remote category almost 75% of the population lives in regions with below average A-D scores. Almost 36% live in Depleting regions. In both the Accessible and Remote PR categories over 60% live in regions with below average scores.

26 Cross Tabulation of A-D (Performance) Types and Structural Types (% of Total Population) A-D Types Structural Types Depleting Below Average Above Average Acumulating % in Positive Types Agrarian Co nsumptio n Countryside Diversified (Secondary) Diversified (private services) All Structural Types Two-thirds of the population of the Diversified ifi (Private Services) category live in regions with above average A-D score. More than a quarter live in accumulating regions. In the Diversified (Secondary Sector) category a (slight) majority live in regions with below average D-P scores. In the Consumption Countryside group almost 69% live in regions with above average D-P scores. The Agrarian group has the most negative result almost 88% live in regions with below average scores. More than half live in Depleting regions.

27 Looking ahead to the Policy Phase: Some Key Issues to Consider This analysis shows that agrarian regions tend to be poorer, but that most rural regions are not agrarian. The most prosperous rural regions are those least associated with the primary or secondary sectors, and this is not restricted to those close to urban areas. The research shows a diversity of territorial potentials among the rural regions of Europe, with many different pathways. Could a menu of policy measures be developed which would allow this diversity to be addressed by regional stakeholders? Key issues are the interaction between places and the territorial assets upon which people can draw. If urban-rural interactions are viewed as most important, then the key asset is proximity to urban areas. But if interactions extend globally through relational space, then spatial differentiation reflects many other assets. Each suggests a different policy priority. The former prioritises transport infrastructure. The latter suggests a much broader range of interventions, building institutional capacity, education, digital inclusion, enterprise, etc The breadth and range of interventions required offers a challenge for the (vertical and horizontal) coordination and integration of policies.

28 EDORA and the Malmö Mindset: What s the use? To show complexity of rural socio-economic changes, and the drivers behind them, and to illustrate the range of opportunities and constraints. To formulate some meta-narratives to serve as illustrations of typical ways in which different aspects of change interact. To replace stylised fallacies (Hodge 2004) about rural areas, with evidence-based generalisations about contemporary rural Europe, and likely Future Perspectives (as a context for the rural policy debate). To provide regional and national policy makers with the means to benchmark their rural areas within a European context. To provide regional and national policy makers with a more objective means to assess the appropriateness of different forms of rural policy in their local context. The EDORA project has thus mainly addressed the first two of the Types of Relations listed in the Setting the Mind paper: i.e. The Characteristic Region, and the Performing Region.

29 Thank you for your attention. Coordinator: