Matera Seminar ESPON 2.2.3 The Territorial Effects of the Structural Funds in Urban Areas ECOTEC,...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Matera Seminar ESPON 2.2.3 The Territorial Effects of the Structural Funds in Urban Areas ECOTEC,...
Matera Seminar
ESPON 2.2.3 The Territorial Effects of the
Structural Funds in Urban Areas
ECOTEC, ECORYS-Nl; IRS; MCRIT; Nordregio; OIR; SDRU
Structure
• Focus• Towards a typology of urban
areas• First policy recommendations• Challenges for the next phase
Focus
• Work has concentrated on identifying consistent indicators and methods for identifying those urban areas that might be eligible for Objective 2 style programmes in the future – across the EU 27+2
• Assessing the territorial effects of structural funds in urban areas has not been a priority
Towards a typology of urban areas
• Economic trends– Changing employment levels– Changing prosperity– Levels of dependency/vulnerability– Economic structure
• Social trends– Education levels– Income levels– Health– unemployment
• Environmental conditions
Data availability
• Common European data sets at NUTS 3
• Nationally available data at NUTS 4 or 5
• Data that is specific to individual urban areas – Through case study analysis– Awaiting data that will become
available through the Urban Audit 2
Initial typology
• Building on FUAs – using common data (at NUTS 3 level)– Limited economic data
• Employment*• GDP*• Economic structure (estimated)
– Limited social data• Unemployment*• Education levels• Population levels
Initial basic typology
Type Sub-type Definition Number of NUTS 3 areas
AA Those areas which are in absolute difficulty on 3 indicators
13
AB
Those areas which are in absolute difficulty on 2 indicators and relative on 1
36
AC Those areas which are in absolute difficulty on 2 indicators but have none in relative difficulty
136
AD Those areas which are in absolute difficulty on 1 indicator but have 2 in relative difficulty
85
Absolute difficulty
AE Those areas which are in absolute difficulty on 1 indicator but have 1 or less in relative difficulty
431
BA Those areas which are in absolute difficulty of 0 indicator but have 3 in relative difficulty
29 Relative difficulty
BB Those areas which are in absolute difficulty on 0 indicator but have 2 area which is in relative difficulty
150
Not in difficulty
C Those areas which have 0 areas in absolute difficulty and 1 or less areas in relative difficulty
713
Mapping of typology
Accessibility and the typology 1
Accessibility and typology 2
Structural Funds and the typology
Structural Fund assistance in functional urban regions in difficulties 1994-99 Absolute Fragile Relative No
no fua (in %) 0 0,1 0 1
local/regional (in %) 8 26 7 34
National (in %) 2 2 1 9
International (in %) 0 3 5 3
Total 10 31 13 47 Source: ESPON 2.2.3 using the spending typology of ESPON 2.2.1 and the functional urban areas typology of ESPON 1.1.1.
Developing the typology
• The strength of this typology is that it makes use of comparable datasets enabling robust comparisons to be made across the European territory.
• The weakness is that it applies at the NUTS 3 level, is particularly ‘blind’ to sub-urban level difficulties and utilises a limited set of indicators.
• An extended typology has been developed, but the data is not available to populate it.
Extended typologyEconomic
Social Environmental
GrowthEfficiencyStability
PovertyInstitution/InclusionConsultation/Empowerment
Biodiversity/resilienceNatural resources
Pollution
Intragenerational equity
Governance/ culture
Economic
Social Environmental
GrowthEfficiencyStability
PovertyInstitution/InclusionConsultation/Empowerment
Biodiversity/resilienceNatural resources
Pollution
Intragenerational equity
Governance/ culture
The elements of sustainable development – Munasinghe 1993
Components
• Multi-criteria analysis– PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization
METHod for Enrichment Evaluations)
• Status indicators (11)• Performance indicators (17)
• But: – from a total of roughly 1,600 FUAs in Europe
(including the accession countries and Switzerland) only about 100 FUAs showed a relatively complete set of indicators
First policy recommendations
• Urban NUTS 3 areas tend to perform badly in EU 15 (particularly local/regional), an urban focus thus valuable
• Not to attempt to undertake a comprehensive assessment of all urban areas in the EU for Structural Fund purposes
• To undertake an initial assessment based upon NUTS 3 level data
• To use MCA to undertake urban-centred analysis in partnership with urban authorities
• To make use of data from Urban Audit 2 to assess the potential role of the Structural Funds in assessing urban–level difficulties
Challenges for the next phase
• To assess the effects of the Structural Funds in urban areas– Data from 2.2.1– Case study analysis
• To assess the role of urban typologies in decisions regarding eligibility for Objective 2-style actions– Particularly issues of scale and competence
• To test the MCA approach using Urban Audit 2 data
• But, resource constraints