ESPON 2013 Programme - Internal Seminar “Evidence-based Cohesion Policy: Territorial Dimensions ” November Kraków, Poland A.P. Russo (URV, LP) and L. Servillo (KUL) ATTREG Project (ESPON 2013/1/7) “The Attractiveness of Regions and Cities for Residents and Visitors” ( ) Presentation of quasi-final results

LEAD PARTNER University Rovira i Virgili (ES) PROJECT PARTNERS KU Leuven (BE) Univ. of Venice Ca’ Foscari (IT) EURICUR Rotterdam (NL) Univ. of Coimbra (PT) Centre for Tourism Research (DK) IGSO (PL) Univ. of Ljubljana (SI) Univ. of West England (UK) RESEARCH SUBCONTRACTOR Istanbul Technological University (TR)

Project background Objectives of the project – Understanding the attractiveness of territorial assets to different “audiences”, looking into the period – Explaining mains spatial trends, classifying regions accordingly – Investigate these relations at different spatial scales, and focusing on idiosyncrasies and “immeasurable” facts – Developing an analytic framework to asses different policy options Policy questions – How are regions endowed with territorial capital assets? What is their potential attractiveness for different “audiences”? – How can this potential be liberated? How does governance intervene in this process? – What is to be expected in the future, given the current EU policy scenarios?

Project structure DEFINING AND INTERPRETING ATTRACTIVENESS CONSTRUCTING A DATABASE OF INDICATORS OF TERRITORIAL ASSET ENDOWMENTS DEVELOPING ATTRACTIVENESS TYPOLOGIES AND ESTIMATING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ASSETS AND FLOWS VALIDATING / DEEPENING THE ANALYSIS THROUGH CASE STUDY RESEARCH MODELLING SCENARIOS TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF POLICY DECISIONS

Main results achieved/envisaged New evidence related to the territorial dimensions of the project A.Indicators and regional typologies by flows attracted (discriminating by migrations attracted and by “wavelengths” of mobility): REALISED ATTRACTION B.Indicators and regional typologies by endowments of classes of territorial capital: POTENTIAL ATTRACTIVENESS C.Model estimates relating A. to B. and identification and classification of outliers: PROCESS INTERPRETATION

Unretentive for young and mid-career age groups, moderately retentive for the older age group Moderate retentiveness for all working age groups High retentiveness for all working age groups Highly retentive for younger age group, moderately retentive for mid-career age group, unretentive for older age group

Average net migration and visiting flow rates Low net migration and visiting flow rates High net migration rate, average visiting flow rate Average net migration rate, high visiting flow rate

Net migration rate Visitor arrivals per head of pop. CLUSTER 1 average net migration and visiting flow rates Brussels País Vasco Ile de France Attiki (Athens) Hovedstaden (Copengahen) Noord Holland (Amsterdam) Istanbul Inner London Slovenia −1−2−3−4− −1−2−3 −4−5 Zuid Holland (Rotterdam) Nord-pas-de Calais (LKT) Lubelskie Eastern Finland Van (Eastern Turkey) CLUSTER 2 low net migration and visiting flow rates Vienna Cyprus Veneto Devon Prague CLUSTER 4 average net migration rate, high visiting flow rate Catalonia Trento Algarve Cornwall Salzburg Balearic Isl. Iceland CLUSTER 3 high net migration rate, average visiting flow rate

High environmental capital Average-low antropic capital Low economic and institutional capital Low socio-cultural capital High environmental capital Low antropic and economic cap. Very low institutional and socio- cultural capital Very high economic, institutional, socio-cultural capital Average antropic cap. Low environmental cap. High institutional and economic cap. Average high antropic cap. Low environmental and socio-cultural cap. High socio-cultural cap. Average-high environmental cap. Average-low institutional and antropic cap. Low economic cap. CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 CLASS 4 CLASS 5

IndexSMARTSUSTAINABLEINCLUSIVE Monument index+ Pop density= ? Rank of airport+- Tourist beds+ accessibility++- GDP pre capita= ? Tertiary educated workforce+ NACE G-I employment+ Small seasonal difference NATURA 2000 area+ Satisfied with health service+ Public sector employment++ Student ratio++ Life satisfaction++ Pensionable age ratio+ Looking into the future – “Policy bundles”

Key facts and observations for policymakers No (easy) recipes for economic growth Ambiguous relationship between attractiveness and economic growth Economic growth can be one of the effects of retentiveness but not necessarily always of attractiveness – fragility from “overheating” may be the unwanted result (and it did after 2008) A longer term, multi-scale perspective needed Territorial cohesion strategies that successfully address territorial capital are long-term strategies The mobilisation of regional attractiveness based on a combination of top-down EU and state policies and bottom-up initiatives of local and regional stakeholders such as municipalities, universities and businesses Factors to be taken into account: Time issue Coherent aims and targets Place-based approach Strategic spatial (planning) measures EU opportunities

Experiences of the project What are the main experiences of the project with regard to integrating the policy context and the territorial dimensions in the analysis? – Policy dimensions human mobility as a key dimension of territorial cohesion; attraction policies as part of the EU territorial toolkit Policy-drive of the analysis Interrogating policy in exemplary regions Involving policy stakeholders in our discussions – Territorial dimensions Regional dimension – main focus of the analysis Local / national dimension – explored through case studies EU dimension – addressed in our “scenario” analysis How can this be further strengthened? Better data at LUZ level More resources for qualitative research à la URBACT “Zoom in” specific regions – e.g. tourist regions, transition regions, border regions, etc.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

Research framework “ASSETS” (dimensions of territorial capital): 1.Environmental cap. -Climate and its variability, geographic characteristics, protected green areas 2.Antropic cap. -Heritage, infrastructure, urbanity, accessibility 3.Economic and human cap. -GDP, employment structure, labour market characteristics. 4.Social & cultural cap. -Population age and education, social satisfaction 5.Institutional cap. -Quality of public services “AUDIENCES” (attracted populations): -Low-skilled labour force (cohort 15-24) -High-skilled labour force (cohort 25-49) -Tourists -“traditional” – foreign and domestic -“unconventional” – new lifestyle mobilities: retirement mobility (50-64) and study exchanges (ERASMUS) 1.How do different audiences respond to differences in endowments (or changes) in dimensions of territorial capital? 2.How are these phenomena distributed territorially, what are their local and spatial effects? 3.Regional typologies based on Capital endowments Attractiveness / retentiveness of specific audiences Model outcomes (underperforming / overperforming) ?

APPENDIX TO SLIDE 9

APPENDIX TO SLIDE 10

Net migration rate In-migr. Death Born Migration From / to Out-migr. Labor force Labor partic. rate Unem-ployment Employ ment Export em- ployment Pop. dep. employment Production employment tourism employment Local em- ployment Pop Dens. Area Acces- sibility GDP per capita # Monum. & tour. sights Rank Air Passenger Tourism acc. beds Metrop. In NUTS 2 reg Tert.educ. In work force Cons.empl. share …………. etc. : Exogenous attraction factors : Endogenous or cumulative attraction factors