Territorial Development Opportunities in Europe and its Neighbourhood

1. Parallel Workshop Session: Workshop 1.1 Urban Fabric ESPON Internal Seminar 2012 “Territorial Development Opportunities in Europe and its Neighbourhood Fostering Global Competitiveness”

2. Networks of cities servicing global capital are more evenly spread and balanced within the European territory than in the USA. Many of these have been growing in global connectivity. London remains Europe’s top-ranking centre followed by Paris, Milan and Madrid. Other particular high performer cities are Brussels, Munich and Amsterdam. The challenge for Europe is to continue to support and safeguard Europe’s major global cities while exploiting global second tier city opportunities to both grow and support their larger, possibly overheating, national or international counterparts. Stimulus map Evolution of cities servicing global capital, 2000-2008

3. Workshop 1.1 – key questions for ESPON projects What are the main territorial trends or observations from your project - for Europe, its regions and cities - in relation to “urban structures, functional regions and city networking”? Please select maximum 2 maps from your project and include maximum 5 bullet points that could illustrate and synthesize this question. Maximum use 3-4 slides for showing ESPON evidence on this question. 2. How do developments in Europe´s neighborhood influence the territorial development in Europe and vice-versa (according to your mind / your ESPON findings)? Please include maximum 3 bullet points that could illustrate and synthesize this question, as much as possible based on your project results and on the case studies developed. Please use 1 slide to answer to this question. 3. What opportunities and challenges exists for Europe and its neighbourhood for increasing competitiveness through further cooperation and integration? (according to your mind / your ESPON findings)? Please include maximum 3 bullet points that could illustrate and synthesize this question.   Please use 1 slide to answer to this question.

4. ATTREG is about flows of (different) people between places, their determinants and presumable territorial impacts The main observed trends Europe-wise for the 2001-2007 period have been an important shift of population • from the north and east of Europe to the south and west, and locally from rural to urban areas (in the East) • from the “remote and cold” to the “accessible and warm” regions of each country (though not necessarily into large cities) in the West [MAP 1] • Favourite destinations of a “structural migration” match with places that are also mature tourism destinations, especially on the Mediterranean and Atlantic seaboard and nationally However, this general trend was significantly stratified by age (motivation) groups: • The younger age cohort (starters) still favour large and dynamic urban areas at the expenses of remoter, ageing regions • The mid-career age cohort (creatives?) prefer areas with quality of (residential) life, even not in the core • The older age cohort (pre-retirement) flow from colder and urban regions to warmer places with good amenities [MAP 2, 8 GROUP TYPOLOGY] Main territorial trends from ATTREG in relation to “urban structures, functional regions and city networking”

5. ATTREG typology based on combination of attraction rates “ORDINARY” CLUSTERS: Cluster 1: 90 regions with average annual net out-migration of resident population across all age groups and relatively low rates of visiting; Cluster 2: 79 regions (on average) net in-migration rates and a mid-level visitor rate; Cluster 3: 34 regions located in a mainly western Mediterranean Arc and the Atlantic seaboard with mid to high levels of both net migration and visitor rates; Cluster 4: 5 mainly Mediterranean regions with high levels of net migration and very high levels of visiting. “ODD” CLUSTERS: Cluster 5: 37 regions (mainly metro areas) with net migration rates for the younger age cohort (15-24 years old) associated with net out-migration by those in the older age cohort (50-64 years old). Cluster 6: 23 mostly N-EU regions where net in-migration by the older cohort is combined with net out-migration by those in the younger age cohort. Cluster 7: 16 regions with high rates of tourist stays. Cluster 8: 6 regions in Spain that seem to combine high levels of migration with only moderate levels of attracting visitors (in terms of visitors per head of population). This group of regions are all located within Spain. RUSSO, SMITH – ERSA 2012

6. The crisis has partly reverted or slowed down these trends: [DIAGRAM UNEMPLOYMENT RATES] • Less “lifestyle” migration and more opportunity oriented mobility • PIGS started to lose population in younger age groups • Regions that were relatively less attractive in the earlier part of the decade have shown to be more resilient – probably less “inflated” job market Some guesses: • The breach between EU and the neighbourhood has mitigated • The divide between urban cores and the rest may be widening again • Gentrification of some urban areas likely to kick in even harder than before (urban planning matters!) Our case studies show a number of interesting phenomena: • Regions and cities that have been traditionally the “gateway” of unskilled migration to Europe (e.g. Istanbul) now start to be destinations of a skilled, creative migration from Europe and other countries • Regions that were leading tourism destinations (and “overheated” from this, both for job market and for construction: e.g. Spanish and Italian coastal areas) now face fierce competition of less developed destinations in the neighbourhood and beyond • “Revolving door regions” thriving from a shortwave mobility (e.g. Trento, Algarve, Bornholm) are now in greater pressure to consolidate their attractiveness with different audiences • Interesting trends of “return” migration (e.g. Lubelskie) Foreseeable influence of developments in the neighborhood on territorial development in Europe and vice-versa

7. Mobility and regional performance 2001-2010: UNEMPLOYMENT RUSSO, SMITH – ERSA 2012

8. Our analysis of territorial trends highlighted a rationale for • territorial partnerships between origins and destinations • a territorial policy aimed at supporting regional “vocations” in attracting specific audiences, also at the level of multi-polar (and cross border) regions (e.g. Lille eurometropole) We may expect a more dynamic role of regional hubs in the neighbourhood of Europe (Istanbul, Moscow, Tel Aviv, Cairo?) – EU cities and regions must get accustomed to liaise with these Investing in the knowledge infrastructure (e.g. Cornwall) proved to be an important, though long-term, strategy for a “resilient” demographic trajectory. Now some non-core but education-rich regions could look at the European neighbourhood to attract talents and promote regional amenities Opportunities and challenges for Europe and its neighborhood for increasing competitiveness