Urban problems and regional policy in the European Community

Directorate-General For Translation European Commission

Description

Regional policy and regional economies

Informations

• Publié par: EUROPEAN-COMMISSION
• Nombre de lectures: 11
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 50 Mo

Extrait

Commi ssi on of the European Communi t i es
URBAII PR(FLEIIS A]ID REGIOI{AL Pü.ICY
IlI THE EUROPEAT C(MNITY
Prepared by: Pau[ Cheshire
Denni s Hay
Gi anni Carbona ro
Ni c k Bevan
Joint fc'r C€rii r'.: t-and Devetoprmnt Studies,
Facutty of Urban and Regionat
The University, t{hiteknights, Reading, Berkshire, Great Britain
Documentnotprepared Commission. It does has been for use within the This document
position-officiaI necessariLy represent the Comnissionrs
- ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussets Luxenbourg 1987Copv.igtt '
purposes, provided thefor commerciat Reproduction is authorized, except
source is acknowtedged.COh{TBNTS
List of Abbreviations
List of Tables and Figures
Section l- Foreword
Section 2 Summary of Conclusions and
Recommendations 6
rß {. * * * * * * :N. * !ß {r * * * {. {. * * * * * * * :& * {€ * * * * * *
Section 3 Infroduction: background and the use of
Functional Urban Regions 20
Section 4 Existing Analysis relating to Problems
of Urban Decline and Growth 19L7-
75-81 39
Section 5 A Survev of Urban Areas in the EEC
af L2z Piobtems of Decline and Growth
l97l-7 S-81 59
Section 6 Case Studies 120
Section 7 Growth and Decline: the range of
urban experience 163
Section 8 Policies in Member Countries and the
USA having an Impact on Urban Decline
and Growth 180
rF rt * tN. rtr rF :N.{. * * * l€ * t * * * * * t * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Section 9 Conclusions and Policy Recommendations 204
rS* * * {. *{. {.rF:lr * ** *!N.t& *rß* * ** {€{€ {€ *** ** * * * *
References Cited in the Report and
Appendices 23r
* * * * * * tlr :t * {€ {€ * *€ t * * * * {. * *! * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appendix 1 Urban Growth Problems and Policies
in Greece 243
Appendix 2 Data and Territoriat Units: Definitions
and Sources 270
Appendix 3 Case Study Data Tables 2gBin this reportAbbreviations frequently used
AII\ Redevelopment AdministrationArea
BART Bay AreaRapidTransit
Development Block CrantCDBG Community
CEC Commission of the European Communities
Employ nt and Training ActCETA Comprehensive
EC European Community
DisticsEDD Economic Development
Econo'mic CommunityEEC European
FundERDFRegional Development
AuthorityFHA Fed€ral Housing
FRG Federal Republic of Germany
RegionFUR Functional Urban
ITC InvestmentTax Credit
ttre Community for statisticalLevel 1 Regions as officially designated within
larges-g_correspon9ing,lo-rrefrrting purposes. LevJl I regions ary ttry
Regrg$ of the UI(Level2 Lander of the FaG or the Standard e*^a-pt"I io the
- p'royinces of Italy or Spain, thein conrnron use the Levef 3 äre the smallest
- referred to.Level4 regions are occasionally Level 3 ddpartement of France but 'nomenclature desEgrostai who drew up the Re'gions have been defined by
(NUTS).Level 4 unitds tdrritoriales statistiques'
LIvIA Labotu Market Areas
-europeennes NACE des Activit6s de la Communaut6s Nomenclature
Eurostat's industrial classification
Economic and DevelopmentOECD Organisation for Coogeratlon
OEDP Overall Economic Development Plans
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
SBA Small Business Administration
Development AuthoritySDA Scottistr
SMSA Standad Meuopolitan Statistical Area
TUA Tennessee Valley Authority
UDAG Development Assistance GrantsUrban
'
AdministrationVA Veterans' List of Tables
Table 3.1 Economically active male residents in non-manual occupations:
Greater l-ondon and selected boroughs, L961 I97I (Vo)-and
Table 3.2 Residence of workers Heathrow at airport by income
Table 3.3 Population living in major FURs: 1981 EEC 12
Table 4.t Stages of urban growth: population change
Table 5.1 P-opulation change: sensitivity of rank to core:hinterland weight
change
'worst' Table 5.2 Classification of population change f,or major regionsurban
Table 5.3 Training set FURs: values of selected candidate variables
Table 5.4 Ranking of FURs by Problem Score: score derived from rnean
-84, unemployment index L977 mean travel index demand 1974-84,
change in travel demand index 197 4-84, net inmigration l. 97 L-81
Table 5.5 Ranking of FURs by scores Score 2A and Score SPz
Table 5.6 Worst Grgup I FURs in the Community growrh (G) classified by or
(D)decline
Table 5.7 Correlation matrix between Score 1 and that derived from
randomised trials
Table 5.8 Ranking of FURs by Score NU: score derived from travel demand
index L984, GDP change, net inmigration L971.-81., mean travel
demand index
Table 5.9 Problem grcups: urban problems
Table 5.10 FUR rankings for sub-periods: lgTl-75; Lgl5-81; 1981-84; co-
efficients derived for FURs of EE C 1,2
Table 15.1 patterns of change in problems urban lg74-84: Group IItgtlonal
FURs
Table 6.i Percentage of areas showing population loss, 1951-81
Table 6.ü Regional industrial decline and concentration in FUR cores
Table 6.iii The relationship between urban and regional employment change
Table 6.iv in employment and population of working age: FURs9}:1ry-t
1971-81
Table 6.v Employment rates and differences between changes in total
employment popularion and of working age: FURs 1971-81
Table 6.vi Average firm size by NACE sector and Irvel zl3Region, LgTgassociatcdin fuvel2 regions size mean unit employment 6.vii Excess of Table
declinewith urban
= 1980 100indices, unemployment Ratio of corc to hinterland Table 6.vüi
hinterlandpercentage of as a of residents core employment Table 6.ix
grcupby socioeconomic ernployment
1971-81in cores in hospital beds Per cent change Table 6.x
groupsrates for FUR in annuatised Mean population change Table'l .t
groups: annualisedfor FUR natural change Mean migration and Table 7.2
rates ofchange
groups: selectedFUR "l population for percentage change in Mean Table .3
groupsage
FUR grcupslocation quotients for Mean age Table'7.4
'1 FURfor industrial sectors in selected Mean employment change Table .5a
groups, 1971-81
groups:for FUR quotients location Mean 1981 employment Table 7.5b
indusrial sectorsselected
incidence of unemplolmrcntin the spatial Mean patterns of change Table 7.6
'l bypopulation employed in core:hinterland Mean change Table .7
groupsocioeconomic
groups: MurderManslaughterrates for FUR 7.8 Mean crime Table
1959-83comparisons, Table 8.1 SMSA
ownerincrease of relative rates of and 1 Population decentralisation Table 9.
ocöupied housing stock
(by throughtrade value) percentage of uK trade flows: Table 9.2 changing
portsselected
1981in cores 1971 and Persons perroom Table 9.3
Appendix TablesData
(1971-81)in annualised rates population change Table 6. La Fercent
- (197 & ln 5-81)rates 1 7 5 in Percent change Table 6. I"b
(1981-82 & L982-83)rates population change in annualised Lc Percent Table 6.
rates 1971-81in annualised Net migration and natural change Table 6.2a
1971-75rates nanrral change in Net and Table 6.2b
rates 1975-81in annualised migration and natural change Table 6.?ß Net ratcs 1981-82Table 6.2d Net migration and natural change in annualisod
nanual in annualised rates 1982-83Table 6.2e Net and change
Table 6.3 Percent population change by age classes 1971-81
quotients Table 6.4 Locatior by age classes 1971 and 1981
1971-81 Table 6.5 Percent employmentchange by sector
Table 6.6 location quotients by secor, 1971 and 1981Employment
= Table 6.7a Registered unemployment index; core, 1980 100
= index: hinterlan{ 1980 100Table 6.7b
= 1980 100Table 6.7c Registered unemployment index: I-evel2,
Table6.8 Vacancyownershipandcrowding,l9TL & 1981
Table 6.9 Average household size, l97l- 1981
Irvel 1981Table 6.10 Cat ownership, core, 3,l97l &
Table6.ll 1971-1981Gimerates, List of Figures
d)c) Lvon and b) tondon, in a) Bnrsscl, Figure 3.1a-d
Xt#i$Tö"ff:"tilti"
andarea: Corby surrounding to that of of Figure 3.2a,b Batio -unemployment
1979 to 1984Consett,
b) St'a) Koblenz 3 to Leye,l FU-Rs in relation Sample Figure 3.3a-e -regions;
Milano e) lvlanchesterCharleroi, d) Etierine c)
changcFactors in uöan Figure 4.1
LITL-III and2FLJRs index forGroup Populationchange Figure 5.1a-g
1975-81land2F[tRs 5.2a-g PopulationchangeindexforCroup Figure
a)change 1971-81: population rates of of Frequency distribution Figure 5.3a,b
heasure b) unweightedweight€d
pnoblemsand uöan Population change Figure 5.4
IndexChange Score 1 againstPoaulation Proble6 Figrge 5.5
aidforregional o eligibility problems compared Inci{ence of uöan Figure 5.6a-g
(ERDD
l97l-84Prroblem score changes, Figure 5.7