1. Implications of Territorial Specificities for competitiveness
Territory matters:
Keeping Europe and its regions competitive”
16-17 June 2016
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Workshop E: Territorial specificities

2. Overlapping spatial categories

3. Overlapping spatial categories
ESPON_Area
Border area (within 45 minutes)
Border area (within 90 minutes)
Coastal area (within 45 minutes)
Coastal area (within 90 minutes)
Sparsely populated and PC areas
Island without fixed link
Island with fixed link
Outermost region
Mountain area
Urban area > inh.
Urban area > inh.
100.0%
10.9%
20.5%
38.6%
0.1%
4.7%
31.6%
34.2%
11.5%
57.1%
13.0%
23.5%
25.5%
0.4%
3.3%
29.9%
40.4%
13.9%
8.9%
18.6%
26.8%
14.6%
2.9%
3.6%
38.3%
40.8%
13.2%
10.4%
20.8%
61.9%
21.5%
10.8%
1.8%
2.3%
39.5%
12.7%
34.6%
25.4%
32.9%
7.0%
1.0%
5.9%
55.9%
0.2%
0.0%
82.7%
99.0%
42.3%
6.7%
71.9%
16.7%
3.0%
3.8%
17.5%
39.9%
23.3%
15.0%
51.2%
62.8%
48.8%
83.8%
15.9%
12.2%
0.6%
14.4%
23.8%
21.3%
0.5%
17.6%
3.7%
Urban area > habitants
18.3%
37.9%
26.7%
41.7%
1.9%
30.4%
Urban area > habitants
20.3%
42.9%
28.4%
44.0%
1.1%
0.9%
14.1%
The table reads as follows:
- Within mountain areas (9th line), 14.4% of the area is also a within 45 minutes of a border (1st column)

4. A statistical challenge
Mountain
Island
Sparsely
populated
Coastal
Border
Outermost
Well-functioning / unbalanced governance
Affluent / Poor
Extensive/ limited infrastructure
TERRITORY
TERRITORY
Sluggish / dynamic demography
Centrally located / Remote
Is this
reasonable?
«Innovative»
«Creative»
«Attractive»
“ceteris paribus”
Strong / weak identity
Highly urbanised / rural
Attractive / repulsive climate 4

5. Shared factor: limited economies of scale
Number of persons with commuting distance (45 minute) by road

6. Main parameter: access to urban areas
modifies the possibilities of implementing strategies for
innovation, attractiveness and creative economy

7. The Alpine range: surrounded by metropolitan areas
Proximity to metropolitan regions and large urban regions
influences development perspectives for the Alps positively and negatively.

8. Specificity as a process8

9. Specificity as an opportunity
In the absence of economies of scale,
geographically specific areas can only be ‘competitive’ within niches
Integrated approaches are needed to preserve overall balanced development
Social cohesion and strong local identities are strengths to be capitalised upon.
However, is competitiveness a requirement?

10. Conclusions
Policies addressing geographically specific areas need to consider their different levels of development
European strategies can be formulated in spite of the diversity of situations across Europe
Activities that are not exposed to international competition may offer a sufficient basis for economic development in a number of geographically specific areas
Territorial diversity must be addressed by allowing for a greater diversity of development models
Optimal development in Europe is not the result of policies to maximise growth in each region and locality. Each territory makes specific contributions to balanced and harmonious development. 10