1. ESPON Seminar 14-15 November 2006 Espoo Chair: Phaedon Enotiades, MC, Cyprus Rapporteur: Janne Antikainen, Ministry of the Interior Workshop 1 – Polycentricity as a territorial potential

2. Ideas for discussion What territorial evidence in relation to polycentricity has ESPON 2006 provided (at macro, meso and micro levels)? How can we translate this evidence into territorial potentials? Which recommendations can be given to future ESPON projects approaching these questions? How can ESPON 2013 better inform policy and how can the policy-research interface be developed?

3. Urban functions 1.4.3. Flows 1.4.4. SMESTO 1.4.1. evidencequestioning findings of 1.1.1. Many projects keen on flows, data generation required due to poor data availability SMESTOs easily overlooked at macro and meso levels translating evidence Not to be translated, but to improve analysis method Challenge of generalising findings and breaking information to micro -level SMESTOs do exist, requires policy attention Recommen dations Morphological analysis and apply new index for polycentricity, study internal structure of FUAs Do not develop own flow model analysis tool, but focus on migration, freight and passengers and analyse polycentricity, urban-rural relationships and enlargement again Closer analysis of spatial position and morphology and administrative boundaries of SMESTOS, Further development of typologisation ESPON 2013 Different history and different contexts lead to differentiated policy Analysis of flows contribute to the assessment of competitiveness, cohesion, sustainability and polycentricity Integrate SMESTOs to urban, regional and spatial development policies

4. Conclusions ESPON 2006 has generated massive amount of interesting information on macro, meso and micro levels. Findings are very relevant in relation to polycentricity Polycentricity is a fact – polycentrism is a political issue, further analysis of polycentrism required Focus has been on territorial tissue (physical structure), spatial aspect (functional relations) should be focus on ESPON 2013 Alternative ways of analysis do exist, data and analysis must be critically reviewed, quality control needed, create constant dialogue Context dependency is strong (different member states has different definitions and understanding of concepts), challenge to draw common agenda Many interesting research questions and new ideas (eg. polycentricity within FUAs), more questions than answers now? Start with findings from 2006, add critical views, combine projects ESPON 2013 definitely needed

5. Thank you for your attention

6. Opening statement polycentricity is a tool for territorial development different contexts, different understanding of the concept emphasis on functional links

7. Project 1.4.3 Urban Functions delimitation of the functional urban areas –different scales have to be taken into account –Produced: Morphological urban areas (MUAs) based on population –Different FUAs need different political measures polycentricity and its performances –polycentricity is a fact - polycentrism is a political idea –Different history, different context, that not cannot be changed study of the functional specialization of the FUAs –Finding good niche compensates size

8. Key issues in developing polycentricity further correction of data (level of analysis) simpler polycentricity index based on population, study correlation between polycentricity and economic performance and other important issues internal structure of FUAs should be studied

9. Project 1.4.4. Flows space of flows (Castells) analysis of all existing ESPON studies as well as identification of potential value of flow analysis 9 different flows identified (trade flows, financial flows, migration flows, transport flows, commuter flows, tourist flows, cultural exchange, information flows and environmental flows), case-study analysis Has to know where flows are generated and where they go How different flows are contributing to polycentricity What effect flows have

10. Project 1.4.1. SMESTO SMESTOs are in danger of getting forget in EU policy as well as in urban studies Large proportion of population live in SMESTOs Analysis of administrative, morphological and functional dimension -> typology Built-up area maps and data required for further analysis of spatial position, morphology and administrative units Relevant to context: each member state have different criteria for SMESTOs -> Link of SMESTOs to larger units should be analysed, and SMESTOs are also important link to rural development (but challenge is that rural “non-spatial”). But not rural issue on: Most of the SMESTOs are located in proximity of large areas.

11. comments Erik Gløersen on 1.4.3.: very good quality control, data reviewed well, mistakes were made, but this is what you get for asking results quickly (should learn to say no), quantitatively challenging issue, but policy and discussion should be reviewed as well and the work of 1.4.3. does not help this but closes the issue Christer Bengs: Diffenrence between spatial (functional relations) and territorial (physical structure), territorial can be analysed without spatial aspect but spatial can not be analysed without territorial aspect, find indicators with explanatory power, but this does not mean simple models