ESPON 1.1.2. Urban-rural relations in Europe Lead Partner Centre for Urban and Regional Studies...
22
ESPON 1.1.2. Urban-rural relations in Europe Lead Partner Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) Christer . Bengs @hut. fi Kaisa.Schmidt- Thome @hut. fi Hanna. Ristisuo @hut. fi
ESPON 1.1.2. Urban-rural relations in Europe Lead Partner Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) [email protected]
Project partners Centre for Urban Development and Environmental
Management, Leeds Metropolitan University OTB Research Institute
for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Technical University of
Delft Taurus Institute, University of Trier European Agency
Territories and Synergies, Strasbourg Centre of Geographical
Studies, University of Lisbon Department of Economics, University
of Rome Tor Vergata Regional Development and Policy Research Unit,
University of Macedonia The National Institute for Regional and
Spatial Analysis, NUI Maynooth
Slide 3
Subcontractors Mcrit sl., Barcelona IR, Austrian Institute for
Regional Studies and Spatial Planning, Vienna Nordregio, Stockholm
Webpage of the project
http://www.hut.fi/Units/Separate/YTK/research/ur/index.html
Slide 4
Typology work: first round Grasping the European urban and
rural - via national, diverse classification systems collecting of
definitions used by the NSIs or equivalent indicing the share of
rural population with the country average relating the different
ruralities with each other via the total population density
Slide 5
Urban population based onnational classifications
Slide 6
Rural population based onnational classifications
Slide 7
Slide 8
Typology work: second round Grasping the European urban and
rural - European, harmonised classification systems Physical
environment, human intervention: building agriculture non-affected
land Population density Urban system
Slide 9
Share of agricultural land
Slide 10
Share of wilderness
Slide 11
Share of artificial surface
Slide 12
Artificial surface per capita
Slide 13
Land use categories & population density
Slide 14
Population and urban integration:four categories Population
density and share of FUA population above average Only population
density above average Only the share of FUA population above
average Population density and share of FUA population below or
equal to average Population density and share of population living
in FUAs / 4 categories at NUTS3- and NUTS2-level Note: in Belgium,
Germany and The Netherlands the area unit is NUTS2.
Slide 15
Share of urban population
Slide 16
FUA ranking + degree of urbanintegration FUA 4, population
density above average FUA 4, share of population living in FUAs
above average FUA 3, population density above average FUA 3, share
of population living in FUAs above average FUA 3, population
density and share of population living in FUAs below or equal to
average FUA 2, population density above average FUA 2, share of
population living in FUAs above average FUA 2, population density
and share of population living in FUAs below or equal to average No
FUAs, population density and share of people livin in FUAs below or
equal to average Classification of FUAs 4 European / global level 3
National / Transnational 2 Local / Regional
Slide 17
Urban-rural typology: 24categories Land use, dominant
categories (6 different combinations) X Population density, share
of FUA population (4 different combinations) Map 14: Combination of
land use type, population density and the share of FUA population /
24 categories Map
Slide 18
Urban-rural typology: 24categories Share of artificial surface
above average, pop. density and share of FUA pop. above avg Share
of artificial surface above average, population density above
average Share of artificial surface above average, share of FUA
population above average Share of artificial surface above average,
population density and share of FUA population below or equal to
average Share of artificial surface and agricultural land above
average, population density and share of FUA population above
average Share of artificial surface and agricultural land above
average, population density average Share of artificial surface and
agricultural land above average, share of FUA population above
average Share of artificial surface and agricultural land above
average, population density and share of FUA population below or
equal to avg Share of artificial surface and wilderness above
average, population density and share of FUA population above
average Share of artificial surface and wilderness above average,
population density above average Share of artificial surface and
wilderness above average, share of FUA population above average
Share of artificial surface and wilderness above average,
population density and share of FUA population below or equal to
average Share of agricultural land above average, population
density and share of FUA population above average Share of
agricultural land above average, population density above average
Share of agricultural land above average, share of FUA population
above average Share of agricultural land above average, population
density and share of FUA population below or equal to average Share
of agricultural land and wilderness above average, population
density and share of FUA population above average Share of
agricultural land and wilderness above average, population density
above average Share of agricultural land and wilderness above
average, share of FUA population above average Share of
agricultural land and wilderness above average, population density
and share of FUA population below or equal to average Share of
wilderness above average, population density and share of FUA
population above average Share of wilderness above average,
population density above average Share of wilderness above average,
share of FUA population above average Share of wilderness above
average, population density and share of FUA population below or
equal to average Map 14: Combination of land use type, population
density and the share of FUA population / 24 categories Map
Slide 19
Urban-rural typology High share of artificial surface only
1.Urban, densely populated and high urban integration High share of
artificial surface and agriculture or wilderness 2.Urban-rural,
densely populated and high urban integration 3.Urban-rural, not
densely populated but high urban integration 4.Urban-peripheral,
not densely populated and low urban integration High share of
agriculture only or agriculture and wilderness 5.Rural-urban,
densely populated and high urban integration 6.Rural-urban, not
densely populated but high urban integration 7.Rural-peripheral,
not densely populated and low urban integration High share of
wilderness only 8.Peripheral-urban, densely populated and high
urban integration 9.Peripheral-rural, not densely populated but
high urban integration 10.Peripheral, not densely populated and low
urban integration
Slide 20
Urban-rural typology: 10categories
Slide 21
Policy implications - some key ESDP objectives correspond to
tendencies that are already in full swing; - the
over-representation of medium-sized cities vs. policy option 14 and
20 - enlarging commuter catchment areas vs. policy options 22 and
23 - important exceptions to this rule from several corners of
Europe must be noted - what is not supported, are the policy
options related to qualitative aspects of environment (53, 54,
56)
Slide 22
Policy recommendations - evaluation of EU-policies that impact
urban-rural relations: any sensitivity in sight? - national
policies addressing u-r? => growing recognition of
interdependencies, although promotion often a subsidiary aim -
regional/local initiatives: some good practise examples
identified
