Implications of Territorial Specificities for competitiveness Territory matters: Keeping Europe and its regions competitive” 16-17 June 2016 Amsterdam, The Netherlands   Workshop E: Territorial specificities

Overlapping spatial categories

Overlapping spatial categories ESPON_Area Border area (within 45 minutes) Border area (within 90 minutes) Coastal area (within 45 minutes) Coastal area (within 90 minutes) Sparsely populated and PC areas Island without fixed link Island with fixed link Outermost region Mountain area Urban area > 100 000 inh. Urban area > 750 000 inh.   100.0% 10.9% 20.5% 38.6% 0.1% 4.7% 31.6% 34.2% 11.5% 57.1% 13.0% 23.5% 25.5% 0.4% 3.3% 29.9% 40.4% 13.9% 8.9% 18.6% 26.8% 14.6% 2.9% 3.6% 38.3% 40.8% 13.2% 10.4% 20.8% 61.9% 21.5% 10.8% 1.8% 2.3% 39.5% 12.7% 34.6% 25.4% 32.9% 7.0% 1.0% 5.9% 55.9% 0.2% 0.0% 82.7% 99.0% 42.3% 6.7% 71.9% 16.7% 3.0% 3.8% 17.5% 39.9% 23.3% 15.0% 51.2% 62.8% 48.8% 83.8% 15.9% 12.2% 0.6% 14.4% 23.8% 21.3% 0.5% 17.6% 3.7% Urban area > 100 000 habitants 18.3% 37.9% 26.7% 41.7% 1.9% 30.4% Urban area > 750 000 habitants 20.3% 42.9% 28.4% 44.0% 1.1% 0.9% 14.1% The table reads as follows: - Within mountain areas (9th line), 14.4% of the area is also a within 45 minutes of a border (1st column)

A statistical challenge Mountain Island Sparsely populated Coastal Border Outermost Well-functioning / unbalanced governance Affluent / Poor Extensive/ limited infrastructure TERRITORY TERRITORY Sluggish / dynamic demography Centrally located / Remote Is this reasonable? «Innovative» «Creative» «Attractive» “ceteris paribus” Strong / weak identity Highly urbanised / rural Attractive / repulsive climate 4

Shared factor: limited economies of scale Number of persons with commuting distance (45 minute) by road

Main parameter: access to urban areas modifies the possibilities of implementing strategies for innovation, attractiveness and creative economy

The Alpine range: surrounded by metropolitan areas Proximity to metropolitan regions and large urban regions influences development perspectives for the Alps positively and negatively.

Specificity as a process 8

Specificity as an opportunity In the absence of economies of scale, geographically specific areas can only be ‘competitive’ within niches Integrated approaches are needed to preserve overall balanced development Social cohesion and strong local identities are strengths to be capitalised upon. However, is competitiveness a requirement?

Conclusions Policies addressing geographically specific areas need to consider their different levels of development European strategies can be formulated in spite of the diversity of situations across Europe Activities that are not exposed to international competition may offer a sufficient basis for economic development in a number of geographically specific areas Territorial diversity must be addressed by allowing for a greater diversity of development models Optimal development in Europe is not the result of policies to maximise growth in each region and locality. Each territory makes specific contributions to balanced and harmonious development. 10