ESPON 1.1.2
Urban-rural relations
in Europe
Final Report
Lead Partner
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies,
Helsinki University of Technology
Project partners:§ Centre for Urban Development and Environmental
Management (CUDEM), Leeds Metropolitan University§ OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and
Mobility Studies, Technical University of Delft§ TAURUS - Institute at the University of Trier§ TERSYN Agence Européenne Territoires et
Synergies§ Centre for Geographical Studies (CEG) University of
Lisbon§ Regional Development and Policy Research Unit
(RDPRU), University of Macedonia§ Economic and Financial Studies and Quantitative
Methods (Sefemeq), Faculty of Economics, University of Rome Tor Vergata§ National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis
(NIRSA), NUI Maynooth§ Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial
Planning (ÖIR)
Subcontractors:§ Nordregio§ Mcrit
Observing partners:§ VÁTI, Hungarian Public Company for Regional
Development and Town Planning§ Ljubljana Urban Institute (LUZ)
Urbanisation
•Demographic change
•Structural change of the economy
•Behavioural patterns, life styles,
images and ideas
•Differential urbanisation: cyclical
development (polarisation,
polarisation reversal)
Urban-rural typology
Typology of urban-ruralcharacteristics
• 6 types of regions
• Degree of urban influence,
degree of human intervention
• Type 1: 19% of the total area,
60% of the total population, 72%
of the total GDP
• Urban types (1-3): 27% area,
69% pop., 78% GDP
Urban–rural typology in Belgium at NUTS 5 level, based on EU 23+3 averages
Urban–rural typology in Belgium at NUTS 5 level, based on national averages
The flexibility of the model
• Possible to apply on various
territorial levels by change of
territorial unit (NUTS-level) and
averages applied
High urban influence,
high human intervention
High urban influence, medium human
intervention
High urban influence,
low human intervention
Low urban influence,
high human intervention
Low urban influence, medium human
intervention
Low urban influence,
low human intervention
Urban-rural typology
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
0,85%1,06% 0,97%
-0,22%
0,65%
0,1%
High urban influence,
high human intervention
High urban influence, medium human
intervention
High urban influence, low
human intervention
Low urban influence,
high human intervention
Low urban influence, medium human
intervention
Low urban influence, low
human intervention
Urban-rural typology
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
Pop
ulat
ion
chan
ge (
%)
in 1
995-
1999
-0,75%
0,27% 0,39%
-1,19%
0,26%
-0,88%
1,11%1,52%
0,98%
2,21%
0,8%
0,31%
Country groupEU15+1New members and accession countries (no data on Cyprus and Malta)
Population change from 1995 to 1999 in relation to urban–rural typology
Population change (%) in 1995-1999
Population change from 1995 to 1999 in relation to urban-rural typology
High urban influence,
high human intervention
High urban influence, medium human
intervention
High urban influence,
low human intervention
Low urban influence,
high human intervention
Low urban influence, medium human
intervention
Low urban influence,
low human intervention
Urban-rural typology
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
GD
Ppp
s pe
r ca
pita
21605
13717
17526
9539
1415315813
High urban influence,
high human intervention
High urban influence, medium human
intervention
High urban influence, low
human intervention
Low urban influence,
high human intervention
Low urban influence, medium human
intervention
Low urban influence, low
human intervention
Urban-rural typology
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
GD
Ppp
s pe
r ca
pita
23347
10716
17634
6959
17591
13204
17911
6218
16953
6702
17732
6584
Country groupEU15+1New members and accession countries (no data on Cyprus and Malta)
GDPPPS per capita in relation to urban–rural typology
GDPPPS per capita in relation to urban-rural typology
High urban
influence,
high human
intervention
High urban
influence,
medium
human
intervention
High urban
influence,
low human
intervention
Low urban
influence,
high human
intervention
Low urban
influence,
medium
human
intervention
Low urban
influence,
low human
intervention
Urban -rural typology
0
20
40
60
80
100
62 %
25 %
37 %
18 %
32 %
39 %
21 %
13 %
27 %
13 %
24 %
21 %
17 %
62 %
36 %
69 %
44 % 40 %
Lagging typology
Non lagging
Potentially
lagging
Lagging
% of total population
Lagging typology (from ESPON Action 2.1.1.) in relation to urban–rural typology
Lagging typology (from Project 2.1.1.) in relation to urban-rural typology
Local Regional National European GlobalTypology of tourism level
0
200
400
600
800
Pop
ulat
ion
dens
ity
96 76
169220
794
Local Regional National European Global
Typology of tourism level
0
200
400
600
800
10770
170223
86124
160198
EU15+2
New members and accession
countries
Country group
Level of tourism (from ESPON Action 1.1.1.) in relation to population density .
Rural restructuring
The post-productive countryside:
• quality food, public amenity
space, space for housing, spaces
of environmental protection
• the commodification
(valorization) of rural assets
Share of agricultural land use in relation to population density
0 20 40 60 80 100
Share of agricultural land use (no data on Cyprus, Malta and Norway)
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Country group
EU15+1
Newmembersand accession countries
R Sq Cubic =0,009
FUA ranking in relation to the shares of different land cover types in EU 23+3 (FUA typology by ESPON Action 1.1.1).
Regional/Local Transnational/
National
Global/European
0
20
40
60
80
100
2,88%
51,55%47,74%
48,08%
45,57%49,04%
44,12%
FUA ranking
3,22% 7,8%
Share of artificial surfaces
Share of agricultural land use
Share of residual land use
Structural propertiesof Europe
The share of agricultural land is
stable regardless regional type:
§ local food production could beencourages
§ agricultural land provides for recreational facilities acrossEurope
The share of artificial surfacesper capita indicates the ecologicalstate of a territory
The share of artificial surfacesper GDP indicates sustainabilityof a territory
Artificial surfaces per capita
Artificial surfaces per GDPPPS
Land use sustainability (artificial surfaces per GDPPPS) in relation to urban-rural typology
Functional relations
• increased size of functional
urban regions and a foreseen
drop of their number
• increased spatial inter-
connectedness within major
urban regions
• increased wealth of medium-
sized towns
• access to rural consumption
space increasingly important
Improved functionalrelations
Benefits for urban regions:
• enlarged markets (also labour
markets)
• generation of additional
investments
Less accessible rural regions:
• hard to diversify the economic
basis
• population density of crucial
importance
• economic diversification directly
related to urban markets
Protection of ”urban” and ”rural”?
• the attractiveness of the rural
requires protection measures
• rural locals need to have access
to new rural markets
• land speculation and speculative
development are major sources
of urban sprawl
• urban containment and
densification must be regarded in
connection to livability
Recommendations
1. The structural policies of the EU need to take into accountthe issue urban-rural relations
2. The sectoral policies of the EU need to recognise the issueof urban-rural relations
3. The functional urban-ruralrelations can and should beimproved in a variety of waysby diversifying the economy
4. The structural properties of European urbanisation providesfor an unique opportunity to valorize existing enviromentalassets
Main scientificachievement
• The structuring and
conceptualisation of the whole
issue
• The typology, which despite its
simplicity seems to render an
accurate picture of urban-rural
characteristics regardless
geographical scale
Further research
1. The refinement and testing of the typology on variousgeographical levels
2. A closer study of the currenttrends related to the expansionand reduced number of functional urban regions
3. More detailed studies of the territorial implications of poly-centricity and enhancedurban-rural relations in various parts of Europe(Mediterranean Region, North Sea Region, Baltic Sea Region, Central-Eastern Europe, etc.)
Networking1. Networking with other ESPON
projects: the typology tested withregard to all relevant results of other projects, other co-operationas well
2. Methodological improvements in co-operation with subcontractors
3. The Lead Partner meetings,ESPON seminars and ECP comments have been veryusefull
4. The consortium: too smallresources for this activity
5. The Observing partners: uncomplicated co-operation
6. The project has got a logo and web site of its own, and an internal web site as well for project partners
