ESPON 1.1.2. Urban-rural relations in Europe

1. ESPON 1.1.2.Urban-rural relations in Europe Lead Partner Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) Christer.Bengs@hut.fiKaisa.Schmidt-Thome@hut.fiHanna.Ristisuo@hut.fi

2. Project partners ·Centre for Urban Development and Environmental Management, Leeds Metropolitan University ·OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Technical University of Delft ·Taurus Institute, University of Trier ·European Agency Territories and Synergies, Strasbourg ·Centre of Geographical Studies, University of Lisbon ·Department of Economics, University of Rome Tor Vergata ·Regional Development and Policy Research Unit,University of Macedonia ·The National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis, NUI Maynooth

3. Subcontractors ·Mcrit sl., Barcelona ·ÖIR, Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning, Vienna ·Nordregio, Stockholm Webpage of the project http://www.hut.fi/Units/Separate/YTK/research/ur/index.html

4. Typology work: first round Grasping the European urban and rural • via national, diverse classification systems • collecting of definitions used by the NSIs or equivalent • indicing the share of rural population with the country average • relating the different ruralities with each other via the total population density

5. Urban population based on national classifications

6. Rural population based on national classifications

7. Rural population based on national classifications

8. Typology work: second round Grasping the European urban and rural • European, harmonised classification systems • Physical environment, human intervention: building – agriculture – “non-affected” land • Population density • Urban system

9. Share of agricultural land

10. Share of ”wilderness”

11. Share of artificial surface

12. Artificial surface per capita

13. Land use categories & population density

14. Population and urban integration:four categories Population density and share of population living in FUAs / 4 categories at NUTS3- and NUTS2-level Population density and share of FUA population above average Only population density above average Only the share of FUA population above average Population density and share of FUA population below or equal to average Note: in Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands the area unit is NUTS2.

15. Share of urban population

16. FUA ranking + degree of urban integration Classification of FUAs 4 European / global level 3 National / Transnational 2 Local / Regional FUA 4, population density above average FUA 4, share of population living in FUAs above average FUA 3, population density above average FUA 3, share of population living in FUAs above average FUA 3, population density and share of population living in FUAs below or equal to average FUA 2, population density above average FUA 2, share of population living in FUAs above average FUA 2, population density and share of population living in FUAs below or equal to average No FUAs, population density and share of people livin in FUAs below or equal to average

17. Map 14: Combination of land use type, population density and the share of FUA population / 24 categories Urban-rural typology: 24 categories Land use, dominant categories (6 different combinations) X Population density, share of FUA population (4 different combinations)  Map

18. Map 14: Combination of land use type, population density and the share of FUA population / 24 categories Urban-rural typology: 24 categories Share of artificial surface above average, pop. density and share of FUA pop. above avg Share of artificial surface above average, population density above average Share of artificial surface above average, share of FUA population above average Share of artificial surface above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to average Share of artificial surface and agricultural land above average, population density and share of FUA population above average Share of artificial surface and agricultural land above average, population density average Share of artificial surface and agricultural land above average, share of FUA population above average Share of artificial surface and agricultural land above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to avg Share of artificial surface and “wilderness” above average, population density and share of FUA population above average Share of artificial surface and “wilderness” above average, population density above average Share of artificial surface and “wilderness” above average, share of FUA population above average Share of artificial surface and “wilderness” above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to average Share of agricultural land above average, population density and share of FUA population above average Share of agricultural land above average, population density above average Share of agricultural land above average, share of FUA population above average Share of agricultural land above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to average Share of agricultural land and “wilderness” above average, population density and share of FUA population above average Share of agricultural land and “wilderness” above average, population density above average Share of agricultural land and “wilderness” above average, share of FUA population above average Share of agricultural land and “wilderness” above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to average Share of “wilderness” above average, population density and share of FUA population above average Share of “wilderness” above average, population density above average Share of “wilderness” above average, share of FUA population above average Share of “wilderness” above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to average Map

19. High share of artificial surface only • Urban, densely populated and high urban integration • High share of artificial surface and agriculture or “wilderness” • Urban-rural, densely populated and high urban integration • Urban-rural, not densely populated but high urban integration • Urban-peripheral, not densely populated and low urban integration • High share of agriculture only or agriculture and “wilderness” • Rural-urban, densely populated and high urban integration • Rural-urban, not densely populated but high urban integration • Rural-peripheral, not densely populated and low urban integration • High share of “wilderness” only • Peripheral-urban, densely populated and high urban integration • Peripheral-rural, not densely populated but high urban integration • Peripheral, not densely populated and low urban integration Urban-rural typology

20. Urban-rural typology: 10 categories

21. Policy implications • some key ESDP objectives correspond to tendencies that are already in full swing; • the ”over-representation” of medium-sized cities vs. policy option 14 and 20 • enlarging commuter catchment areas vs. policy options 22 and 23 • important exceptions to this rule from several corners of Europe must be noted • what is not supported, are the policy options related to qualitative aspects of environment (53, 54, 56)

22. Policy recommendations • evaluation of EU-policies that impact urban-rural relations: any sensitivity in sight? • national policies addressing u-r? => growing recognition of interdependencies, although promotion often a subsidiary aim • regional/local initiatives: some good practise examples identified