Geographic specificities in Europe:
What are they? Where can they be found?
How are they socio-economically relevant?
Mountains
Mountain areas
What
mountain area
area
What
is is
a amountain
a socio-economic point
point of
fromfrom
a socio-economic
ofview?
view?
•Criteria of altitude,
slope, terrain and
relief
•LAU 2 area defined
as mountainous if
more than 50% of
territory is classed as
mountainous
• Majority of people
live in valleys / at
lower altitudes
• Many economic
processes strongly
linked to nearby urban
centres
Mountains in Europe
• Area covered by mountain areas: 41.3%
• Population living in mountain areas: 25.5%
• Most mountainous countries:
Switzerland (94%), Iceland (85%), Norway (83%), Turkey (83%), Greece (78%),
Slovenia (77%), Austria (74%), Italy (62%)
• Most significant overlaps with other specificities
•77% of population in Sparsely Populated Areas live in mountain areas
•72% of islands* are mountainous, 54% of island population lives in mountain
areas
•14% of mountain areas are also coastal areas
(*islands without a fixed link to the mainland)
Development opportunities and challenges
in mountain areas
Challenges
Limitations for
agriculture
Effects of geographic
specificity
Harsher climate
Opportunities
Potential for renewable
energies (hydro)
Rough terrain
Transport infrastructure
limited
Access to services
costly
Fewer employment &
education opportunities
Unbalanced
demography
“Unspoilt” landscape
Lower population
densities
Closely knit
communities
Tourism potential
Attractive living area
Mountains
Islands
What is an Island
from a socio-economic point of view?
• Islands are characterised by a mix of
geographical and behavioural traits
that are better described by the term
“insularity”.
• This implies that the following three
conditions are met:
• In the main part surrounded by
the sea;
• Dependent on centres of
economic, social and cultural
activity outside the territory;
• Peripheral in relation to the
main centre of economic,
social and cultural activity.
• The extent to which islands are
affected by their uniqueness
depends on their degree of insularity
since islands are heterogeneous.
Islands in Europe
Area
All European Islands
of which:
Island State
Without Fixed Link
Mountainous
South
North
Iceland
9,562
236,000
121,695
118,808
156,123
% of EU
5.6%
% of total for
Islands
3.5%
85.8%
44.3%
43.2%
56.8%
102,699
37.4%
sq km
274,931
sq km
Population
% of EU
million
4.1%
20,518,886
% of total for
sq km
Islands
5.8%
1,189,803
76.9%
15,785,558
64.3%
13,200,431
75.0%
15,381,270
25.0%
5,137,616
289,542
1.4%
Development opportunities and challenges
in island areas
Challenges
Resistance to “imposition”
Internal governance
Inadequate infrastructure
Big public sector
Lack of diversification
High and volatile U
Migration (empl. + educ.)
Social divide
Accessibility problems
Development restrictions
Influx of migration
Coastal settlement
Media stereotypes
Barriers to integration
Missed dev. opportunities
Social claustrophobia
Historic Legacy
Legacy of dependence
and exploitation
Opportunities
Fiscal federalism
ICT potential
Education potential
Detached governance
(incl. languages)
Migration allows for
High cost of doing
new ideas & culture
business
Renewable energy
Emphasis on human
Protected areas &
capital
preserved landscape
Geographical location Tourism potential
Creativity hubs
Idyllic image
Social ethic & low crime
Traditions preserved
Strong identity
Flexibility in skills
Sharing culture
Tight-knit communities Strong support network
Mountains
Sparsely Populated Areas
Sparsely Populated Areas in Europe
• Sparsely populated and poorly
connected areas cover 24.2% of the land
area in ESPON space, but only 3.7% of
the ESPON population lives there
• Based on low population potential both
after the 50km and 45minutes
delineation, sparse areas are mostly
located in the Northern Europe and in
Mid-Spain
•Based only to 45min delineation, also in
the Balkans, Turkey and in the mountain
areas (like the Alps).
• Most significant overlaps with mountain
and border specificities
Characterizing Sparsely Populated Areas
• Sparsely Populated Areas are usually rural, as the exploitation of natural
resources has an important role in the economic legacy of those places,
and still have an importance place in the SPA identity
•Agriculture (e.g. in Central Spain)
•Fisheries (e.g. in Scotland and Norway)
•Mining (e.g. in Central Spain, Sweden and Finland)
•Forestry (e.g. in Finland and Sweden)
• Sparsely Populated Areas are often enduring steady demographic
decline
•Especially most remote municipalities within SPAs
• - The combination of two aspects tend to differentiate between Northern
SPA and other European SPA
•Geographical scale of the phenomenon
•Proximity to agglomerations
Development opportunities and challenges
in sparsely populated areas
• Two fields of policy initiatives have important leverage for the
development opportunities of SPA
•Transport and ICT (combined!)
•Labour market
• Scarce or inadapted transport infrastructure creates sparsity and leaves
many rural business communities isolated
•Entrepreneurs need to be able to reach out to and interact with
extra-local partners
•Use of ICT may substitute by limiting the number of interactions,
but not completely
• SPA are thinning out. Does it mean that the problem disappears? It
becomes more acute
•Local labour markets are getting smaller, and more isolated,
leading to weakening diversity and increased need for
specialisation
•Local economies need to be more integrated between them and
within wider networks. How do we achieved that?
Mountains
Coastal areas
What is a Coastal Area
from a socio-economic point of view?
• Socio economic characteristics of the European
coasts are not uniform but unequally distributed
• Spectrum e.g. population density from one extreme,
the coastal mega-city, to the other extreme, where
large areas of European coasts are sparsely populated
• Wide range of socio economic activities that however
concentrate in centers of activity
• Concept of ‘landing points’/ports are unique to coastal
zones and reflect these patterns
• Ports are the primary gateways for many activities
associated with the coast such as tourism, ferries,
containers, oil, fishing, bulk
• In many areas development of port - basis of socioeconomic activity in an area (port town/city historical
influence – way of life)
Europe’s Coasts
• 28 of the 37 countries GEOSPECS investigates have coastlines
• The overall coastal area investigated is 1,343,847 km2 with a
population of 206,454,334
• 34.67% of population within the GEOSPECS area live in a coastal
region
• Of countries that have a coastline over 70% of the population of
Portugal, UK, Ireland, Norway, Greece, Iceland, Cyprus, Denmark and
Malta reside in a coastal area, while the coastal population of Romania,
Poland, Montenegro and Lithuania account for less than 9%
• Most significant overlaps with other specificities: Islands, Sparsely
Populated Areas and Urban Areas
Development opportunities and challenges
in coastal areas
Challenges
Competition for space (e.g.
between nature conservation,
industry, tourism…)
Geographic
Specificity
Many different users
and activities
Migration/tourism impact on
natural environment and
cultural/traditional way of life
(Urbanisation, ghost estates)
Scenic land and
seascapes
Retirement of well off people
exclusion of younger less affluent
people
Coastal climate
Seasonal employment
Changing dynamic
environment
Dramatic weather events
(storm/floods) increase with
climate change
Opportunities
Interest in the same
environment /place can also
drive innovation (need for
agreement)
Migration/tourism investment
and job opportunities, better
infrastructure/connectivity,
Potential for renewable Energy
(wave/wind) – new job
opportunities
Mountains
Border regions
What is a border region
from a socio-economic point of view?
GEOSPECS delineated border
areas on the basis of a 45-minute
travel distance to a politically
defined borderline. This reference
value corresponds to a reasonable
proxy for the maximum generally
accepted commuting and daily
mobility distance and will therefore
play a key role for a large range of
socio-economic processes.
By varying this time-distance
parameter (< 45 min. or > 45 min.)
and mapping this, one can easily
see that the scope of border areas
varies considerably across Europe.
Borders in Europe
Data for EU27 including NO, IS, CH and LI (based upon 45 min.
travel distance delineation):
• Area covered by border areas: 661,000 km2 or 14% of total surface.
• Population living in border areas: 99,343,000 or 20% of total
population
• Countries with highest share of border areas in total surface: LI &
LUX (100%), BE (92%), SI (72%), SK (61%), NL (60%), CZ (52%) and
CH (49%).
• Countries with highest share of border area population: LI & LUX
(100%), BE (84%), CH (75%), SI (68%), SK & AT (66%), NL (51%) and
CZ (49%).
• Most significant overlaps with other specificities: Most likely
mountain areas (in absolute) & sparsely populated areas (only
Scandinavia)
Development opportunities and challenges
in border regions
At borders, different national political systems, regulatory frameworks,
welfare state service provision or income redistribution schemes and
cultural / linguistic settings or norms are meeting. These differences
produce a variety of “positive border effects” and “negative border
effects” in the areas close to a given border (i.e. i.e. the border
areas).
 Borders can act as a “relational interface” between territories,
because the systemic differences generate specific regional or crossborder flows & exchanges in relation to other domestic areas and areas
across the border (i.e. positive border effects).
 Borders can act as an “obstacle” between territories, mainly due
to political decisions which deliberately restrict flows and exchanges
and/or because the above-mentioned politico-administrative, economic
and socio-cultural differences hamper exchanges and interaction (i.e.
negative border effects).
Development opportunities and challenges
in border regions
The considerable variety of
real-life or imaginary border
effects (i.e. existing as
“instinctive attitudes”)
generally creates in border
areas a pattern of “half-circle
social and economic
relations”, i.e. with normally
stronger relations to the
domestic hinterland and
comparatively weaker
relations across the border.
This pattern strongly differs from the usual pattern of “full-circle social and
economic relations” which is prevailing in regions more centrally located
within the domestic context, i.e. with normally strong relations to all the
surrounding domestic areas.
Development opportunities and challenges
in border regions
Due to the specific context settings existing along each border, it is
evident that the significance of border-regional and cross-border
relations / interactions differs considerably across Europe.
It is, however, also clear that all kinds of social and economic
relations and interactions in border areas and with other areas located
across a border are still not functioning in a way that comes close to
what is normally experienced by areas located within the wider
domestic territory.
Mountains
Outermost regions
What is an Outermost Region
from a socio-economic point of view?
Although those
regions are notably
distinguished by a
combination of
geographical
characteristics,
historical and political
specificities contribute
to the delineation of
Outermost Regions. This concept was introduced in 1997 by the Treaty of
Amsterdam and OR’s specific status confirmed by the Treaty of Lisbon (article 349).
If the delineation of OR is engraved in the EU Treaty, a specific legal disposition
ensures that overseas territories can switch from OCT status to OR status (and
inversely) without having to adopt a new EU treaty (example Mayotte or part of
Netherland Antilles Versus Saint Barthelemy). In fact, OCT and OR share similar
geographical specificities but different legal & political characteristics.
Outermost Regions in Europe
Complex
Small area territorial
Climate
morphology
Remoteness
Insularity
Double
insularity
Azores
Canarias
Guadeloupe
French
Guyana
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Madeira
Martinique
Réunion
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Regions
Natural risk
•1.7% of the ESPON space are Outermost Regions, with 0.7% of population
•Distance from the capital of the Member State: Guadeloupe & Martinique (6800
km), French Guyana (7500 km) and La Réunion (9400 km) but direct frontiers with
Non EU countries (Africa, Central & Latin America)
• The Azores: 9 islands that are dispersed in a area of 650 km. Canary archipelagos: 13
islands in a area of 460 km
• Small and mountainous area combined with high population led to high density and
congestion problems (except Guyana: low density)
• In addition to these physical characteristics, one should add cultural diversity and historical
backgrounds (colonialism, etc.)
Development opportunities and challenges
in Outermost Regions
Challenges
Cost of public
infrastructure (investment
& maintenance)
Effects of geographic
specificity
Remoteness, insularity,
climate, etc.
Lack of business
initiatives / opportunities
Attractive natural resources
EU single outlets
in Non EU
continent
Isolation (Accessibility
internal & external)
Small market / no
exportations
Opportunities
Economic and political
dependency on the member
state
Weight of the public sector
and traditional activities
Research and
knowledge hub
Tourism potentials
(sports / adventure,
scientific, etc.)
Demographic challenges
Human capital
shortage
Social conflict / delinquency
Important migration flows &
illegal immigration
Cultural diversity / dynamism
Mountains
Inner peripheries
What is an Inner Periphery
from a socio-economic point of view?
•
•
•
•
•
Inner Peripheries (IP) is a new
concept in the European policy arena
IP are considered in spatial planning
and regional development as ‘places’
that suffer from socio-economic
decline or stagnation
The peripherality is not limited to the
outer margins of any given territory
The distances that contribute to
determine the conditions for economic
and social development are not the
Euclidian ones to a hypothetical
“centre”, but linked to the
configuration of physical, social,
economic, institutional and cultural
networks.
Conclusion: it is unfeasible to make
ONE map of IP for the whole of
Europe based on current data
availability; the mapping should start
at national level
Inner Peripheries in Europe
• IP are identified with a development concept that is not a question of
urban or rural but of being a centre or a periphery, which implies that IP
are found both in urban as in rural environments;
• IP are neither permanent in time nor in place, but appear and
disappear in the course of the history of a region, differing in this aspect
from the other GEOSPECS specificities;
• IP are initially recognisable by a population shrink initiated by the
disappearance of the main economic activity;
• In general, IP are closely located to strong development centres
associated with provision of Services of General Interest (SGI), defined
by population, jobs, universities, hospitals, administrative centres, etc.
Development opportunities and challenges
in Inner Peripheries
Development opportunities
• High potential to fulfil
needed functions in the
region, not easy to be
developed in the highly
populated areas
• For example: new nature,
tourism (e.g post-industrial
cultural landscapes),
primary production (food,
wood, biofuels), residential
areas for 65+
Challenges
• Regain the local identity
• Development of a long-term
view, resistant to changes in
politics
• Create a new entrepreneur
network
• SMART use of subsidies and
investments