WP3:Typology of rural regions in Europe A regional typology as instrument for integrative rural development

Sylvia Herrmann, Johanna Scholz*, Manuel Döllefeld

Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz Universität Hannover

Introduction As the objectives of the rural development policy shift from an agricultural-centred approach to wider rural development, the idea of multi-dimensional (social, ecological and economic) development of rural areas comes into play. Therefore a wide range of policies has to be integrated to allow for sustainable rural development. To bring rural development policy objectives and rural territorial conditions closer to each other, the instrument of “RUFUS Typology” is developed within the RUFUS project.

The RUFUS Typology focuses on identifying and describing the diversity of rural regions in Europe. By means of this tool, different types of rural regions with specific characteristics concerning their strengths and weaknesses are mapped. The typology is based on the results of a policy baseline assessment (fig. 1) which reflects the actual politics relevant to rural regions. The major aim of the typology is to show relative differences between rural regions. These `type characteristics´ can then be translated into spatial requirements to derive rural policy recommendations.

Methods The typology is based on statistical analyses. It covers the regional level (NUTS3) of the project countries: NL, UK, SE, F, HU, IT, POL, PT and DE. First a delineation of urban and rural regions has been made. This is based on indicators of population density and percentages of land covered by urban land use. In a second step, the rural regions have been further classified into rural types. First, a set of nine multi-dimensional indicators has been derived. These indicators have been used in the factor and cluster analysis (fig. 2). This clustering process resulted in three different dimensions of rural characteristics that build the basis for the rural types.

1. Social-economic success (indicators: GDP, population change 1995-2005, rate of unemployment)

2. Distribution of economic sectors (indicators: employees in agriculture, GVA from manufact., service ratio)

3. Tourism and nature capital (indicators: Natura 2000 area, hotel and campsite bed spaces)

Generally, the typology is a top-down statistical approach. By producing the results on the regional and local level and by deriving sub-types, it is tried to come as close as possible to the regional reality.

Results

As result, five rural types and two urban types (fig.3) have been developed. Rural Type 1 & 2 are economically oriented towards agriculture and services, but they are differing in the importance of tourism. Rural Type 3 & 4 are economically lagging behind, but with differences in population change as well as nature potential. Rural Type 5 can be described as the socio-economic” winner” highly depending on manufacturing. The RUFUS Typology results are formulated as relative descriptions oriented towards the average indicator values. Thus, the typology does not use defined thresholds.

Aspects for policy use Results show a high diversity of rural regions with different strength and weaknesses, policy regimes and stakeholders. Detailed descriptions of types, groups of types and subtypes can be used to compare approaches and problem solutions in regions of the same type (co-ordination of problem solving strategies) and to monitor the EU and MS programmes in respect to the consideration of specific regional starting conditions and development potentials (territorial capital).

Fig. 3 RUFUS Typology of rural regions

Fig. 1 Overview of RUFUS Project compartiments

Fig. 2 Methodology for the derviation of the RUFUS Typology

Acknowledgements

This work has been performed in close cooperation with Prof Dr Andrew Lovett, University of East Anglia RUFUS is a collaborative project under FP7 (Theme 8: Socio Economic Sciences and Humanities, project duration: 2008-2011).

*scholz@umwelt.uni-hannover.de iterative process

cluster analysis

RUFUS WP 4maps+scenarios

visualisation

RUFUS WP 5case studies

indicators

selection criteria RUFUS WP 2policy

integration

RUFUS WP 6Policy

recommendation

Rural regions in Europe

factor analysis

Socio-economic

success

Importance of sectors

Nature & tourism capital

TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5

4. 5.1 5.35.21.1 1.31.2 2.1/22.3 3.23.33.1

Type 1 most socio-economically successful rural regions with low unemployment and high income. No sector dominates in its contribution to the economy. Low share of Natura 2000 sites and agricultural employment plays a major role.

Type 2 rural regions with medium level of economic success in which agriculture and service sector play a major role; minor increase of population and a high share of Natura 2000 sites and tourism. Type 3 rural regions tend to be economically lagging behind with high unemployment, low income (GDP) and strong population decline. High percentage of Natura 2000 areas, although importance of tourism is low. Type 4 rural regions similar to Type 3; economically lagging behind with high level of unemployment and low income (GDP). Population change is comparable to the overall average, manufacturing oriented with little potential for nature and tourism. Type 5 rural regions with highest income but higher unemployment than Type 1; dominated by the manufacturing sector; Tourism is moderately important with marginal number of Natura 2000 sites.

Missing Data

Urban

Urban