Applying the European Spatial Development Perspective in Low-density Regions: A Methodology Based on Mobility and Labour Market Structure

Abstract

The paper reflects on how ESDP (European Spatial Development Perspective) principles can be applied in territories with weak population patterns in quantitative terms. The ESDP defines a functional urban area (FUA) as the influence area of a city and sets a minimum threshold of 15,000 inhabitants for the city and 40,000 for the entire FUA. These thresholds are taken as guidelines to explore the concept of functional regions, adding more information from several sources. Hence the paper starts under the normative background given by EU spatial policy and proposes a methodology of analysis combining several techniques, including an application for the Castilla–La Mancha autonomous region (ES42 in NUTS 2). The approaches used in the method proposed include data from mobility, commuting, accessibility and qualitative analyses of services. The outcome shows how ESDP principles could be applied in practice in places with low-density settlement.

Keywords

European Spatial Development Perspective polycentrism labour markets functional urban areas

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguilera

Mignot

(2004) Urban sprawl, polycentrism and commuting: a comparison of seven French urban areas, Urban Publics Economics Review, 1, pp. 93–114.

Brenner

(1999) Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union, Urban Studies, 36(3), pp. 431–451.

Burchell

R. W.

(Ed.) (1998) The Costs of Sprawl Revisited. Report No. 39, Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington: National Academy Press.

Casado

J. M.

(2000) Local labour market areas in Spain: a case study, Regional Studies, 34(9), pp. 843–856.

Castañer

Vicente

Boix

(Eds) (2001) Áreas Urbanas y Movilidad Laboral en España. Girona: Diversitas.

Davoudi

Dammers

(2010) The territorial futures of Europe: introduction to the special issue, Futures, 42(8), pp. 779–784.

EC (European Commission) (1999) ESDP—European spatial development perspective: towards a balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Office of the Official Publications of the European Community, Luxemburg.

EU (European Union) (2007a) Territorial agenda of the European Union: towards a more competitive and sustainable Europe of diverse regions (www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/Reference%20Documents/Territorial-Agenda-of-the-European-Union-Agreed-on-25-May-2007.pdf;accessed 21 May 2010).

EU (2007b) The territorial state and perspectives of the European Union: towards a stronger european territorial cohesion in light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg ambitions. A background document to the territorial agenda of the European Union (www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/Reference%20Documents/The-Territorial-State-and-Perspectives-of-the-European-Union.pdf; accessed 21 May 2010).

10.

Faludi

(2007) Now more than ever: the open method of co-ordination in EU territorial cohesion policy, European Social Research and Policy, 14(1), pp. 11–24.

11.

Faludi

(2009) A turning point in the development of European spatial planning? The ‘territorial agenda of the European Union’ and the ‘first action programme’, Progress in Planning, 71(1), pp. 1–42.

12.

Faludi

Peyrony

(2011) Cohesion policy contributing to territorial cohesion—future scenarios, European Journal of Spatial Development, Refereed Article No. 43, September.

13.

Feria

J. M.

(2004) Problemas de definición de las áreas metropolitanas en España, Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 38, pp. 85–100.

14.

Findlay

A. M.

Short

Stockdale

(2000) The labour-market impact of migration to rural areas, Applied Geography, 20(4), pp. 333–348.

15.

Green

(2007) Functional polycentricity: a formal definition in terms of social network analysis, Urban Studies, 44(11), pp. 2077–2103.

16.

Janin Rivolin

. (2010) EU territorial governance: learning from institutional progress, European Journal of Spatial Development, Refereed Article No.38, April.

17.

Karlsson

Olsson

(2006) The identification of functional regions: theory, methods, and applications, Annals of Regional Science, 40, pp. 1–18.

18.

Martínez

(2010) La Estructura del Transporte y sus Implicaciones Territoriales en Castilla-La Mancha. Consejo Económico y Social de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo.

19.

Méndez

Michelini

J. J.

Romeiro

Sánchez

(2006) Ciudades intermedias y desarrollo territorial en Castilla-La Mancha, Xeográfica, 6, pp. 69–93.

20.

Panadero

Pillet

(1999) Castilla-La Mancha, in: García

J. M.

Sotelo

J. A.

(Eds) La España de las Autonomías, pp. 291–330. Madrid: Síntesis.

21.

Pillet

Cañizares

M. C.

Ruíz

A. R.

Martinez

. (2010) El policentrismo en Castilla-La Mancha y su análisis a partir de la población vinculada y el crecimiento demográfico, Scripta Nova, 14(321) (www.ub.es/geocrit/sn/sn-321.htm; accessed 21 May 2010).

22.

Pillet

Cañizares

M. C.

Ruíz

A. R.

Plaza

. (2007) Fuentes para la aplicación de la estrategia territorial Europea en Castilla-La Mancha, Estudios Geográficos, 68(263), pp. 627–651.

23.

Priemus

Nijkamp

Banister

(2001) Mobility and spatial dynamics: an uneasy relationship, Journal of Transport Geography, 9, pp. 167–171.

24.

Rouwendal

(2004) Search theory and commuting behaviour, Growth and Change, 35(3), pp. 391–418.

25.

Santos

J. F.

(2008) Distribución, dinámica demográfica y grado de envejecimiento de la población en Castilla-La Mancha (1991–2001), Cuadernos Geográficos, 42, pp. 109–121.

26.

Schwanen

Dieleman

F. M.

Dijst

(2001) Travel behaviour in Dutch monocentric and polycentric urban systems, Journal of Transport Geography, 9, pp. 173–186.

27.

Sohn

(2005) Are commuting patterns a good indicator of urban spatial structure?, Journal of Transport Geography, 13, pp. 306–317.

28.

Travisi

Camagni

Nijkamp

(2010) Impact of urban sprawl and commuting: a modelling study for Italy, Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), pp. 382–392.