Assessing and governing Rural-urban interactions

web page: www.oecd.org/regional/rurban

Joaquim Oliveira MartinsRegional Development Policy Division

GOV OECD

Metz, 16 November 2012

1. Urban-rural interactions and externalities: theory and evidence

2. Beyond urban and rural divide: an integrated approach

3. Towards functional regions: concept and identification

4. Governing rural-urban interactions: a more complex picture

Outline

1- Urban-rural interactions and externalities

• Traditional approaches focus on urban-rural divide There are still differences in socio-economic conditions and performances

between urban and rural areas

20

25

30

35

GD

P p

er

inh

ab

itan

t (t

ho

usa

nd

s U

S$

, P

PP,

co

nst

an

t p

rice

s)

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Time

Urban regions Intermediate Rural

Average GDP per inhabitant in OECD TL3 regions, by type of region

GDP per capita is much higher in urban areas than in rural and intermediate areas.

On average, no convergence in terms of GDP per capita

1 - Urban-rural interactions and externalities

U.S., Canada, Chile, Mexico, Israel and Island are excluded from the analysis for reasons of data availability

• However, opportunities for growth are observed in any type of regionIn terms of GDP growth, rural regions show the highest variability

-.2

0.2

.4.6

.8g

dp g

row

th r

ate

200

0-2

009

Urban Intermediate Rural

1 - Urban-rural interactions and externalities

the variability of growth rates is much higher in rural areas than for the other types of region

part of this variability can be explained by looking at the role of the relationships with Urban or Intermediate regions (urban-rural linkages)

-.4

-.2

0.2

.4.6

pop

ulat

ion

gro

wth

ra

te b

etw

een

20

00 a

nd

20

09

Urban Intermediate Rural

Population growth rates (2000-2009) in OECD TL3 regions, by typology

U.S., Canada, Chile, Mexico, Israel and Island are excluded from the analysis for reasons of data availability

• However, opportunities for growth are observed in any type of region In terms of population growth rural regions show the highest variability

1 - Urban-rural interactions and externalities

Strong spatial externalities between urban and rural regions are observed

population rural regions grow more, ceteris paribus, the more connected they are (the smaller the distance) to the closest urban or intermediate region

there positive growth spillovers from urban to rural regions in terms of population. These effects are decreasing with distance

In addition urban areas benefit from rural areas in terms of provision of landscape, recreation, open space, natural resources, etc.

there can be pressures in the use of land from urban to rural areas (e.g. issue of urban sprawl)

The existence of these externalities makes worth shifting the attention from the administrative to the functional organization of the territory (functional regions)

2 – Beyond urban rural divideDeep territorial transformations in the last decades

New patterns of territorial organization

Economic development / structural changes

Improved ICT and transport

Mass diffusion of cars

Increased urbanization

Larger functional regions

Increased integration of places before more independent

Larger distances daily travelled by individuals

New concept of cities and rural areas

The traditional concepts of cities and rural areas, based on administrative boundaries, are not anymore coherent with the actual economic and social organization of the territory

From a socio-economic point of view, territory is organized in functional regions

2 – Beyond urban rural divide

2 – What is a functional region?

Functional regions geographical spaces where the bulk of local economic processes takes place.They are increasingly different from administrative region

Administrative region (smaller level)

Functional region

How it can be identified?Commuting (labour market)

Services

Partnerships

Transport networks

Supply chains

Etc.Administrative region (higher level)

2 – Functional vs. administrative regions

A functional approach makes it possible to highlight two main discrepancies between the administrative structure and the actual organization of the territory

2) Functional regions (e.g. metropolitan areas) vs. administrative regions

1) Core cities (cities de facto) vs. administrative cities

OECD functional metro region

TL3 administrative region

Rennes, France

3 – First step: identification of functional urban regions

Under the guidance of the OECD Working Party on Territorial Indicators, and carried out jointly with the EC and Eurostat

1. OECD has identified functional urban areas beyond city boundaries, as integrated labour market areas (using population density and travel-to- work flows).

2. 1 175 functional urban areas have been identified across 29 OECD countries

3. It allows comparisons among the different forms that urbanisation takes

Website: www.oecd.org/gov/regional/measuringurban

4 – Functional regions and rural-urban interactions: a more complex picture

Urban, peri-urban and rural areas are integrated through a broad set of linkages Different functions may be associated with different boundaries

High complexity of Urban-rural relationships

High variability of spatial boundaries

4 –Governing rural-urban interactions

Functional regions based on labour market interactions are able to catch many types of rural-urban interactions, especially for metropolitan areas

The Rurban project aims at going beyond a statistical definition of functional regions and at understanding the higher complexity of rural-urban interactions and their governance.

For this reason 12 case-study regions are providing evidence on how and at what territorial level different functions are governed.

The role and the structure of partnerships to govern rural-urban interactions are being assessed

4 – Governing rural-urban interactions: preliminary findings from case studies

The case of Rennes: different geographies for different functions (1/2)(metropolitan region)

4 – Governing rural-urban interactions: preliminary findings from case studies

Rennes Métropole (main rurban partnership)

Planning activity at the level of the Pays de Rennes

Different access to public services (e.g. public hospitals)

there are different regions for different functions high discrepancy among administrative regions and functional territories

The case of Rennes: different geographies for different functions (2/2)

4 – Governing rural-urban interactions: preliminary findings from case studies

The case of Forlì-Cesena: different geographies for different functions (1/2)Network of medium-sized cities

Prov. of Ravenna

Prov. of Rimini

Prov. of Forli-Cesena

4 – Governing rural-urban interactions: preliminary findings from case studies

The case of Forlì-Cesena: different geographies for different functions (1/2)Network of medium-sized cities

Labour market areas (LLSs) Chosen rurban partnership (e.g. agro-industry)

Tourism and water: the area of Romagna (territorial identity – soft factor)

Forli

Cesena

different regions for different functions labour market areas are not large enough to catch all the territory involved in the rurban partnership soft factors such as a strong territorial identity (e.g. ‘Romagna”) plays a role for the identification some of the partnerships (tourism, water, etc.)

Governing rural-urban relationships: preliminary findings from case studies

Strong Leadership: leadership plays an important role in bringing Urban and Rural Municipalities together (e.g. Germany, Italy)

Strong partnership buy in: partnership working is viewed as the optimum way to do business (e.g. Italy, Germany, US)

Strong territorial identity: The existence of a territorial identity helps to foster partnerships (e.g. Italy, Germany)

No single model of collaborations and partnerships: complex landscape of Rurban partnerships in some cases result in high transaction costs and partnerships, sometimes engaging large number of players (e.g. Italy)

Shared regional responsibility: Rural- Urban collaborations leads to improved ownership of the region: the responsibility (e.g. Germany) Power sharing inner structure: one-voice one vote approach to power sharing in a Rurban partnership is one way to ensure that the partnership functions (e.g. Germany, Australia)

What we learnt and further steps ahead

Territorial relationships between urban and rural areas are very complex and their governance require an approach on functional regions

The statistical identification of functional regions through the OECD method is a relevant step ahead to provide a geographical representation of territorial relationships and a guide to more integrated policies for urban and rural areas

However, labour market flows alone cannot always catch the whole spectrum of urban-rural relationships, especially in non-metropolitan regions, where labour flows are less intense and representative of actual territorial relationships

A high flexibility should be accepted for both identification and governance of urban-rural interactions

After drawing functional boundaries, it is not easy to organize institutions. There are different models of governance across OECD regions (formal, informal, conflictual, cooperative, etc.). These models are analysed through a set of 12 case-studies

Thank you!