ESPON 1.1.2.Urban-rural relations in EuropeLead PartnerCentre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS)Helsinki University of Technology (HUT)

Christer.Bengs@hut.fi Kaisa.Schmidt-Thome@hut.fi Hanna.Ristisuo@hut.fi

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

SubcontractorsMcrit sl., Barcelona IR, 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

Typology work: first roundGrasping the European urban and rural via national, diverse classification systemscollecting of definitions used by the NSIs or equivalentindicing the share of rural population with the country averagerelating the different ruralities with each other via the total population density

Urban population based on national classifications

Rural population based on national classifications

Rural population based on national classifications

Typology work: second roundGrasping the European urban and rural European, harmonised classification systemsPhysical environment, human intervention: building agriculture non-affected landPopulation densityUrban system

Share of agricultural land

Share of wilderness

Share of artificial surface

Artificial surface per capita

Land use categories & population density

Population and urban integration: four categoriesPopulation density and share of FUA population above averageOnly population density above averageOnly the share of FUA population above averagePopulation density and share of FUA population below or equal to average

Population density and share of population living inFUAs / 4 categories at NUTS3- and NUTS2-level

Note: in Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands the area unit is NUTS2.

Share of urban population

FUA ranking + degree of urban integrationFUA 4, population density above averageFUA 4, share of population living in FUAs above averageFUA 3, population density above averageFUA 3, share of population living in FUAs above averageFUA 3, population density and share of population living in FUAs below or equal to averageFUA 2, population density above averageFUA 2, share of population living in FUAs above averageFUA 2, population density and share of population living in FUAs below or equal to averageNo FUAs, population density and share of people livin in FUAs below or equal to average

Classification of FUAs4 European / global level 3 National / Transnational2 Local / Regional

Urban-rural typology: 24 categories

Land use, dominant categories (6 different combinations)

X

Population density, share of FUA population (4 different combinations)

Map 14: Combination of land use type, population density and the share of FUA population / 24 categories

Map

Urban-rural typology: 24 categoriesShare of artificial surface above average, pop. density and share of FUA pop. above avgShare of artificial surface above average, population density above averageShare of artificial surface above average, share of FUA population above averageShare of artificial surface above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to averageShare of artificial surface and agricultural land above average, population density and share of FUA population above averageShare of artificial surface and agricultural land above average, population density averageShare of artificial surface and agricultural land above average, share of FUA population above averageShare of artificial surface and agricultural land above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to avgShare of artificial surface and wilderness above average, population density and share of FUA population above averageShare of artificial surface and wilderness above average, population density above averageShare of artificial surface and wilderness above average, share of FUA population above averageShare of artificial surface and wilderness above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to averageShare of agricultural land above average, population density and share of FUA population above averageShare of agricultural land above average, population density above averageShare of agricultural land above average, share of FUA population above averageShare of agricultural land above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to averageShare of agricultural land and wilderness above average, population density and share of FUA population above averageShare of agricultural land and wilderness above average, population density above averageShare of agricultural land and wilderness above average, share of FUA population above averageShare of agricultural land and wilderness above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to averageShare of wilderness above average, population density and share of FUA population above averageShare of wilderness above average, population density above averageShare of wilderness above average, share of FUA population above averageShare of wilderness above average, population density and share of FUA population below or equal to average

Map 14: Combination of land use type, population density and the share of FUA population / 24 categories

Map

Urban-rural typologyHigh share of artificial surface only

Urban, densely populated and high urban integrationHigh share of artificial surface and agriculture or wilderness

Urban-rural, densely populated and high urban integrationUrban-rural, not densely populated but high urban integrationUrban-peripheral, not densely populated and low urban integrationHigh share of agriculture only or agriculture and wilderness

Rural-urban, densely populated and high urban integrationRural-urban, not densely populated but high urban integrationRural-peripheral, not densely populated and low urban integrationHigh share of wilderness only

Peripheral-urban, densely populated and high urban integrationPeripheral-rural, not densely populated but high urban integrationPeripheral, not densely populated and low urban integration

Urban-rural typology: 10 categories

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)

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