Getting stronger by knowing our weaknesses Janis Brunenieks Analysis and Research Coordination Department State Regional Development Agency Latvia

What are we talking about Development Urban ¹ development Measuring urban development Measuring urban development in Latvia Indicating differences in development Detecting weaknesses Finding strength Understanding mutual influences ¹ Urban development here is used only for shorter form. In our context it doesnt include development of physical space.

Map images from commons.wikimedia.org About Latvia (I) 77 cities / towns 447 rural municipalities Population density – of EU average Urban population – 67.9% of total in Latvia Population of Riga – 31.7% of total in Latvia (or 47% of total urban)

About Latvia (II) Area – 1.6% of EU Population – 0.5% of EU Latvia produces ~ 0.23% of EU total GDP GDP per capita – 54.2% of EU average Picture: Source: Innovations (compared to other EU countries) Forests cover 44.1% of Latvia's territory > 45% of electricity is produced from renewables

Studies on development Socio-economic development tendencies in Latvian towns which will be evolved in Assessment of Mutual Influence Between Urban and Rural Areas in Latvia /upcoming in 2009/ Proposals for Elaboration of Town and City Policy /upcoming in 2009/ Methodological approaches for Evaluation of Regional Policy and Territory Development /upcoming 2009/

Scope of the research study Elaboration of methodology (including studies of existing experience) Selection of development dimensions and indicators Creation of representative sample of towns Measurement of the development collection of existing statistical and administrative data sociological survey (1500+ respondents) questionnaire (data and opinions) for municipal institutions collecting information on policy documents SWOT analysis Drawing conclusions and recommendations

Choosing development dimensions Quality of Life Economic activity Openness Human resources + creativity, activity Administrative capacity Ecological footprint

... are essential, but often audience get dog-tired... jump forward ! interested experts will do home-reading, but we will... Methodological details

Quality of life Accessibility of education Health care Safety (crime rate) Habitation Internet usage Sports infrastructure Life satisfaction Communal services

Economic activity Employment statistics (unemployment rate, number and structural characteristics of enterprises; job satisfaction) Economic branches represented; structural characteristics Personal income tax revenues Newly established enterprises; change in number of self-employed persons Dynamics in number of economically active enterprises Presence of Special Economic Zones Amounts of EU funds attracted in projects Geo-economic advantages

Openness Transportation and road infrastructure Mobility Number of visitors of municipality maintained web pages International events Partner-cities Services provided to visitors Tourism infrastructure Interests expressed by inhabitants regarding life in other towns (and vice-versa)

Human resources Population Gender proportions Natural growth Migration

Creativity, activity Number of innovative enterprises Number of hobby groups Number of pupils wining prizes in education (art and science) contests Number of library visitors Cultural activities Number of NGO-s Numbers on music's, art and other specialized schools Numbers on Culture houses, exhibition halls Satisfaction of inhabitants with potentialities to be involved in cultural life and to express creativity

Administrative capacity Municipal budget Satisfaction of inhabitants with municipal government and municipal services Elaboration and implementation of long-term strategies Elaboration and implementation of development programs

Ecological footprint calculated from: Land area Energy consumption Transportation amounts Food consumption Waste production Built area

Creation of representative sample There are 77 cities and towns of different size in Latvia – too much for all-inclusive study Included all major cities (cities of state importance) (Rīga, Daugavpils, Jēkabpils, Jelgava, Jūrmala, Liepāja, Rēzekne, Ventspils, Valmiera) = 9 Included all cities of regional importance (Talsi, Kuldīga, Saldus, Tukums, Dobele, Bauska, Ogre, Sigulda, Cēsis, Limbaži, Valka, Alūksne, Gulbene, Madona, Balvi, Preiļi, Aizkraukle) = 17 remains 51 town of local importance random sampling method is applied

Random sampling in group of towns of local importance Aim – to choose X towns representing diversity of development patterns (at least – main types) Selection is realized by grouping all towns in groups. The most similar towns have to fit in one group, and towns in different groups have to be as dissimilar as possible. Practically – factor analysis is applied. Factors, used to group towns, are basic statistical data (available for all towns) representing in general lines all development dimensions. Small number (2 – 3) of towns from each group are chosen by lot to represent this group in further analysis.

Key findings

What characterizes Latvian towns? People are more satisfied with their city/town rather then quality of life!

By inhabitants there are indicated main limitations in opportunities: to get acceptable job, and to influence decisions on matters essential for the city/town Also as somehow limited are mentioned: possibilities for leisure time activities, and possibilities to attain additional education, knowledge, competences

State of health by most part of population in cities/towns is perceived as not good enough Accessibility of health-care services mostly is assessed as insufficient Main obstacle for taking sufficient charge of health is mentioned lack of resources Negative assessment of health-care is the main component, which diminishes overall assessment of life quality in cities/towns

Inhabitants of cities/towns are quite intolerant – more then half of them would prefer not to live in neighbors with Roma people, homosexuals, and Muslims. There is quite high intolerance also regarding guest-workers and nonwhite people. Higher level of tolerance is typical for smaller towns.

Data regarding years 2005 / In average 2% of urban population have experienced discrimination in labour market – in most cases owing to age and state of health. In some specific towns more often discrimination was experienced owing to nationality.

there are no leader- towns regarding concentration of creative people 58,1% of creative class lives in Riga (Riga constituates xx% of Latvian population)

Riga is metropolis of creativity, especially regarding technologies and talents Towns of Riga region are creative too Other towns are not standing out (including those, where higher schools are located)

There is evident concentration of economic activity in Riga: more than 50% of GDP is produced in Riga with tendency to increase in dominance (in period of 1997 – 2005 share of Riga increased from 49% to 57%) number of enterprises (per 1000 of inhabitants) is much higher in Riga absolute majority (369) of top-500 enterprises (ranked by turnover) are located in Riga

As well maps of market potential (MP) indicate dominance of Riga. Market potential is calculated from data on GDP produced, and distances between towns. Comparing maps for years 1997 and 2001 there is evident increase in economic concentration g g.

Besides of Riga there are several region level exporting centers – Liepāja, Daugavpils, Jelgava and Valmiera. Riga is dominating also as main exporter. There are district level exporting centers, which cant compete with Riga, but are remarkable in region. Number of exporting enterprises by cities and districts in Volume of Exports by cities and districts in 2006 (mill. Euro)

In most cities Ecological Footprint exceeds average for Latvia. To sustain our planet there is available 1.9 gha of footprint per inhabitant – it means: if all inhabitants of the World would consume the same amount of resources (emit the same amount of pollution etc.) as average inhabitant of Latvia, there would be necessary to have two planets like our; if all inhabitants of the World would like to live as average inhabitant of Liepāja, Ventspils or Riga, there would be necessary to have 2.6 planets like our.

Satisfaction of inhabitants with municipal government and municipal services is quite low. Only in some cases it exceeds 50%. Remarkable are some critical cases – Riga 8%, Jurmala 10%, Rezekne 12%.

Administrative borders are limiting Majority of development plans are limited by administrative border-lines – in preparation there is omitted regional context. In many cases neighboring cities are indicating contradictory tendencies or competing with the same specialization

Models of polycentric development Development models Several development centers Cooperation networks Driving force of development Development centersCooperation Regime of developmentRelation center – periphery Cooperation Additional benefitsExternalities, spilloversSynergy, complementarity Critical massConcentration of resources Conjunction of resources Development of transport infrastructure Optimal growthWidening of cooperation Economic developmentDiversity and specialization Profiling in frames of network Institutional capacityLevel of the cityRegional and inter- regional level

Several development centers (I) Riga has potential, however it isnt metropolis of the Europe: Riga is like as Krakow, Turku, Cork, Vilnius or Tallinn Riga still lacks critical mass of creative people as well as international investment Riga has the most opportunities for specialization, nevertheless those remain unused. Riga have to decide to become city of industry or city of creativity Riga is the head of Latvian economy: Market potential decreases with distance from Riga Riga is center of technologies and science – 83% of scientific potential as well as 83% of high-tech enterprises are located in Riga Riga is center of economic activity, creativity and exports

Several development centers (II) There are also other development centers in Latvia of lower importance Liepaja, Ventspils, Jelgava, Daugavpils, Rezekne and Valmiera These centers however have impact limited to district / region These centers are incomparable with Riga, they lack critical mass Opportunities for development – attractive environment and developed transport system make efforts to develop environment (including institutional) attractive for living and business and concentrate resources in development centers specialization (!) – otherwise critical mass cant be achieved improve connectivity with towns in periphery

Cooperation networks (I) Development of Riga as international (regional) center is driving force for development of Latvia as whole Develop cooperation with some of cities from European pentagon (London – Paris – Milan – Munich – Hamburg), as well as some of Baltic regional centers Riga has to be involved in network of Latvian cities. Cooperation between cities has to strengthen positions of all cities, especially – Riga. Cooperation networks in Latvia Latvian cities are weak in functional specialization Cooperation networks are not developed as a part of strategies and development plans In everyday life networks exist - 38,6% of inhabitants are employed and 39,4% are studying outside territory, they live

Cooperation networks (II) Opportunities for development. We are too small to make no cooperation: Critical mass has to be created not by concentrating resources, but merging existing resources of cities by developing infrastructures of transportation and information technologies Cities have to cooperate, complement each other, not competing and duplicating different functions Larger cities with higher potentials of creativity, economic activity and exports have to be networked as a priority

Cooperation networks (III) Opportunities for development. We are too small to make no cooperation: Not only Riga, but also other cities have to develop international cooperation. For example – networking of Liepaja with Lithuanian, and Valmiera with Estonian cities is natural way of development Urban – rural cooperation has to be developed Probably, not support for development of particular cities is the best policy, but support for development of cooperation (networking) projects

Real cooperation networks (I)

Real cooperation networks (II) Sweden Norway FinlandEstonia Russia BelorussiaLithuaniaPoland UK USA Germany Denmark France Romania GreeceTurkey Spain PortugalSlovakiaCzech Republic Ireland Belgium Israel Canada China Netherlands Switzerland Hungary Iceland Italy Georgia Ukraine

Real cooperation networks (III) In previous slide only two types of cooperation are represented –town partnership (sister – towns) –cooperation between universities Obviously there exist much more types, However picture is already mazy and unlikely informative

Measuring cooperation in networks (I) There is need for methodology to assess regional cooperation The simplest way to capture connectiveness in networks is to calculate l/n (links per node) ratio Its already improvement, but this method does not reflect –different types of cooperation –intensity of cooperation –outcomes of cooperation

Measuring cooperation in networks (II) To reflect –different types of cooperation –intensity of cooperation –outcomes of cooperation we propose idea for weighted method: where: is measure reflecting cooperation - measure for outcomes from cooperation of type t - measure for intensity (inputs) for cooperation of type t - number of effective links - number of nodes (towns)

Home work (for us and others) We propose only rough idea mainly stressing necessity to develop methodology for assessment of regional cooperation We are open to cooperate with other interested parties in developing comprehensive methodology

Paldies ! Thank You !