Understanding the Attractiveness of Regions and Cities

1. ATTREG Project (ESPON 2013/1/7) “The Attractiveness of Regions and Cities for Residents and Visitors” (2010-2012) ESPON 2013 Programme – Open Seminar “European Territorial Evidence for EU Cohesion Policy and Programming” 13-14 June 2012 - Aalborg, Denmark A.P. Russo (URV, LP) and L. Servillo (KUL)

2. LEAD PARTNER University Rovira i Virgili (ES) PROJECT PARTNERS KU Leuven (BE) Univ. of Venice Ca’ Foscari (IT) EURICUR Rotterdam (NL) Univ. of Coimbra (PT) Centre for Tourism Research (DK) IGSO (PL) Univ. of Ljubljana (SI) Univ. of West England (UK) RESEARCH SUBCONTRACTOR Istanbul Technological University (TR)

3. The ATTREG project • Objectives of the project • Understanding the attractiveness of territorial assets to different “audiences”, looking into the 2001-07 period • Explaining mains spatial trends, classifying regions accordingly • Investigate these relations at different spatial scales, and focusing on idiosyncrasies and “immeasurable” facts • Developing an analytic framework to asses different policy options • Achievements • 30+ indicators and 5 regional typologies of potential and realised attractiveness, providing inputs for place-based attraction strategies • 8 case studies illustrating “mobilisation” mechanisms in a variety of contexts and territorial scales • 18 scenarios to assess the potential impacts of different policy options (“inclusive”, “smart”, “sustainable”)

4. Unretentive for young and mid-career age groups, moderately retentive for the older age group Moderate retentiveness for all working age groups High retentiveness for all working age groups Highly retentive for younger age group, moderately retentive for mid-career age group, unretentive for older age group

5. Low net migration and visiting flow rates Average net migration and visiting flow rates High net migration rate, average visiting flow rate Average net migration rate, high visiting flow rate

6. Main trends with attraction/retention of populations • 2001-2007 (study period) • Global population shift from North-East to South-West, with dominant role of Western Mediterranean arc regions • Within countries, ongoing polarisation towards national capitals in the periphery; in the core, stratification by age groups with “alarming” signals from larger and wealthier urban areas (gentrification?) • Increasing retentiveness of rural and mountain regions • Attractiveness for visitors generally correlates strongly with retentiveness – with some interesting variations • 2008-2009 (peeking forward) • Very attractive tourist regions as well as very retentive regions (mature tourist attractions and “tigers”) have been strongly affected by the financial crisis • Moderately retentive regions that have maintained their population mix have been more resilient

7. Balearic Isl. Visitor attraction Salzburg “Revolving doors” regions – High attractiveness for fast mobilities as a potential “knowledge capitalisation” strategy Algarve Trento Cornwall Should be looking to retain more human capital? Iceland “Risk” regions – have capitalised on their attractiveness but possibly overheating Inner London Prague Noord Holland (Amsterdam) Devon Cyprus Veneto Brussels Catalonia Île-de-France Vienna Eastern Finland “Slow down” approach needed? Slovenia Nord-Pas-de-Calais (LKT) Hovedstaden (Copengahen) País Vasco Zuid Holland (Rotterdam) Attiki (Athens) Istanbul Van (Eastern Turkey) Retentiveness Lubelskie Problem regions – Not attractive nor retentive “Miracle” regions – Very good at retaining what they attract Do they need a kick in terms of attractiveness, followed by a long term strategy to retain? Possibly a template for problem regions?

8. What attracts whom? ANTROPIC CAPITAL ECONOMIC-HUMAN CAPITAL ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL CAPITAL SOCIO-CULTURAL CAPITAL

9. Much less attractive than what expected from territorial endowments Less attractive than what expected from territorial endowments As attractive as predicted through territorial endowments More attractive than what expected from territorial endowments Much more attractive than what expected from territorial endowments

10. Main policy insights from the ATTREG analysis • Place-based approach • Demand-led: adapting territorial assets to existing audiences in order to enhance their impacts • Supply-led: identifying strategic audiences which may fit to the regions’ characteristics • Governance • The importance of a multi-level governance system • The role of the EU policy • The time factor • EU territorial cohesion and human mobility • Effects of inclusive, smart and sustainable ‘policy bundles’ in … • … convergence / overheating regions … • … in terms of population / GDP / export jobs … • …. in target / neighbouring / other regions …. • with respect to baseline (DEMIFER) scenarios

11. “Inclusive” policy in overheating regions – predicted change over baseline POPULATION P.C. GDP

12. Role of creativity? • As “audience” involved in processes of place restructuring • mobile creative workers: net migration rate of the 25-49 y.o. • mobile consumers: tourists / ERASMUS students • As territorial asset (‘cultural capital’) which attracts audiences • students in local universities (as % of young age cohort) • creative workforce (as % of act. pop.) as economic-human capital (from TO5) • Cross-project analysis of creative workforce, mobility and territorial assets over ‘00 decade (pre-crisis)

13. Trends in creative workforce / attractiveness

14. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION! • antonio.russo@urv.cat • loris.servillo@asro.kuleuven.be