1. NEW REGIONS – CHALLENGES FOR REGIONAL PLANNING Professor Jørgen Amdam, Volda University College, Norway. ja@hivolda.no

4. Figure 1. Urban-rural structure in South-Norway. (Selstad 2004)

5. Urban change 1990 – 2003: Rural change 1990 - 2002 POPULATION CHANGE IN LABOUR MARKET REGIONS 1990 - 2003 Urban Population:

6. History Cooperation Integration?

7. Situation: South is growing while the North is stable or declining. The Coast is growing while the fjord and mountain areas is declining Urban areas is growing and rural areas is declining

8. Challenges: Different models for political-administrative organisation are presented regarding the West Coast: What are the conditions necessary to enable such co- operation to function in a new region; can it in fact result in common regional development and how can a new administrative regional structure influence? Are there special geographical barriers or challenges associated with co-operation and the building of networks between business and industry, public actors with knowledge (resources) and the civil community? And what form and content can and should such co- operation involve?

9. Figure 3. Regional capacity building (Amdam 2003)

10. Knowledge Relations Mobilisation Tradition Talk Trust (Storper 1997) Healey et al 1999

11. Regional change processes – new regional integration? Enlargement of labour regions due to communication change Change in employment structure Regional specialisation - clusters

18. THE RURAL COUNTY SOGN OG FJORDANE - EMPLOYMENT AGRICULTURE AND FISHING MANUFACTURING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SERVICES SHOPPING AND TRANSPORT

20. THE URBAN COUNTY OF ROGALAND AGRICULTURE AND FISHING MANUFACTURING SHOPPING AND TRANSPORT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SERVICES

21. URBAN CONCEN- TRATIONS RURAL STRUCTURE MANUFAC- TURING (Focus on natural and economic capital) Big scale manufacturing regions “Traditional” rural areas - production based on land and nature – agriculture, fisheries, mining, mass tourism … KNOWLEDGE (Focus on social capital) Diversified metropolitan and urban regions “Flexible” rural areas – diversified, focus on life quality for inhabitants

23. “Total” integration, is characterised by Cornett in Bengs (2002) The development of specific geographically defined systems of production such as industrial districts, clusters of industries, or systems of innovation. A system of urban networks defined according to specific functional links. The availability of a relevant regional infrastructure linking the analysed areas together. Last but not least, the intensity of intra-regional flows relative to outside flows can be considered the “conditio sine non quo” when we talk of a spatially integrated area.

24. Integration and structure From small scale manufacturing to a diversified “metropolitan” region – the South-West? Growing self –developing urbanised rural areas in the North-West? What so regarding the traditional rural areas on the West Coast?

25. 3 economic zones

26. Structure: According to economic integration or lack of such processes, the West Coast can possibly be divided into three areas with more or less common situation and challenges in the future: The strong and dynamic south-west town belt from Bergen to Stavanger that will be more and more integrated in the near future due to road building and economic concentration and integration, but still have a lot of challenges regarding social integration (identity, dialects etc) The small town belt in the north-west from Kristiansund to Volda where economic and social integration is in a distant future due to communication difficulties, but that have strong common interests in development of a more integrating communication system as well as cooperation to reduce the tremendous dominance of Oslo regarding services both to producers and consumers. The rural “rest”, i.e. the county of Sogn and Fjordane and the inner (eastern) part of Møre and Romsdal, Hordaland and Rogaland. This areas common interest is the localisation outside commuting distance from towns, the difficult geographical structure due to fjords and mountains, the tremendous needs for communication improvements and the lack of development of advanced services and jobs. If not a geographical integration, the area has a strong need of common empowerment politically and economically.

27. The major challenges: - a lack of integration south-north, - possible power struggle between Bergen and Stavanger - Lack of focus on rural areas and the north-west. The region must have strong power and means to function as a political and communicative arena for development “The response to “what’s in it for me” is money”

28. SOUTH NORTH South: The mayor challenge will be the political, economical and cultural competition between Stavanger and Bergen North: The region can be full of internal conflicts that will give internal and external political passivity and lack of political focus on economic and social development.

29. This alternative will divide Bergen and Stavanger and can reduce the synergic effects of an economic integration. Both Møre and Romsdal and the new “mid-region” will have internal conflicts between urban and rural, coast and fjord and in the north also between the small towns. The positive effects of this structure can be a clearer structure regarding town and hinterland and can stimulate that integration. But the challenge is that each of these regions will be small in population and can easily be “set up against each other” politically.

30. CHALLENGES REGARDING REGIONAL PLANNING SYSTEMS Planning and development coordination: Local level – municipal and/or community. Housing and labour market regions City and hinterland.

31. Vestland – Vestland - 2020

32. Sør og Nord - hav og fjord - 2020 STRATEGI: Samanknytting av større stadar og regionar med knappe budsjett STORBYREGION I SØR 3 SMÅBYREGIONAR I NORD BERRE ÅLESUND OVER 100.000

33. Regionenes Vestland 2020 STRATEGI: PRIORITERING AV REGIONUTVIDING LITE VEKT PÅ REGIONSAMANKNYTNING

35. Bergen region Stavanger region

36. Table 1. Employment by Economic Regions 2003.

37. 19462003Prosent endring Rogaland by – urban35630176915397 % Rogaland bygd - rural4928713565-72 % Hordaland by - urban50701185882267 % Hordaland - rural7611425320-67 % S&F by - urban721105421362 % S&F bygd - rural39467425168 % M&R by - urban1605076141374 % M&R bygd - rural5922036756-38 % Sum32719056763773 % By – Urban103102449480336 % Bygd - Rural224088118157-47 %