docpolyce - ESPON on the Road
download 
Reclamo Transcript
polyce - ESPON on the Road
POLYCE Metropolisation and Polycentric Development in Central Europe: Evidence Based Strategic Options Roberto Camagni, Roberta Capello, Andrea Caragliu Politecnico di Milano ESPON Italian Evidence in Changing Europe ‘ESPON and your Needs’ 21 May 2014, Roma The project team Vienna University of Technology - Centre of Regional Science (AT), Leadpartner University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering Slovak University of Technology, Bratislava University of Szeged Czech Technical University in Praha, Faculty of Architecture CEPS/INSTEAD ‐ Center for Populations, Poverty and Public Policy Studies, Luxembourg Politecnico di Milano – ABC Department, Italy The project stakeholders Department of Urban Development and Planning, City of Vienna (Lead Stakeholder) Department for Spatial Systems Coordination, City of Bratislava Department of Spatial Planning, City of Ljubljana City Development Authority, City of Prague, Studio Metropolitana, Nonprofit Ltd., Hungary General goal of the POLYCE project To contribute to the understanding of: - metropolisation and polycentric development Our task: - to enter the debate if an optimal city size exists at which cities tend to grow and; - to highlight the urban characteristics that allow a city to overcome the decreasing returns; - to measure the role of the urban characteristics on the “equilibrium city size”. Main ideas throughtout the project (1) The main theory suggests that an optimal city size exists which is reached when the marginal location benefits equal marginal location costs. Cities are different one another and therefore they cannot reach the same city size. Each city maintains its own specificity and unicity, and consequently is attributed its own ‘equilibrium’ size, i.e. a size that allows marginal location benefits to equate marginal location costs. Main ideas throughtout the project (2) Cities can increase location benefits through: - their specialization in higher level functions; in networking with other cities Given the same location costs, a city can achieve an equilibrium at a higher size than other cities with the same characteristics. The European sample Canarias Sample of LUZ employed Guadeloupe Helsinki Guyane Stockholm Tallinn Madeira Riga Glasgow Belfast Copenhagen Vilnius London Groningen Hamburg Szczecin Bremen Amsterdam Rotterdam MagdeburgBerlin Acores Warszawa Lodz Erfurt Dresden Wroclaw Liège Frankfurt am Main Praha Paris StuttgartRegensburg Freiburg im BreisgauMünchen Linz WienBratislava Budapest Graz Bordeaux Toulouse Porto Lyon Milano Torino GenovaBologna Ljubljana Bucuresti Firenze Sofia Zaragoza Barcelona Madrid Lisboa Valencia Roma Napoli Sevilla Athina Martinique Réunion Data ariabile nte ente Classe di variabili Dimensione fisica delle città Benefici urbani tradizionali Variabili Dimensione Qualità della vita Amenities Creatività urbana Diversità Economie di agglomerazione Costi urbani tradizionali Densità Costo della città Rendita fondiaria Conflitto sociale Malaise Indicatore Popolazione nelle FUA Stanze d'albergo disponibili per 1000 abitanti Indice di diversità settoriale misurato come il complemento ad 1 dell'indice di HirschmanHerfindahl calcolato sulle quote settoriali di occupazione Densità di popolazione Costo di un appartamento medio al metro quadro Omicidi registrati per 1000 abitanti Anni 2010 Fonte dei dati ISTAT 2002 ISTAT 2001 Censimento nazionale dell?industria e dei Servizi 2001 2005 ISTAT 2010 2005 Osservatorio del Mercato Immobiliare Sistema di Indicatori Territoriali ISTAT Benefici urbani non convenzionali Reti urbane Funzioni urbane Reti urbane Partecipazioni di istituzioni della FUA a PQ5 sul totale degli Totale 1998-2002 occupati CORDIS Funzioni urbane Quota di imprese nei settori J e K sul totale delle imprese attive 2001 Censimento nazionale dell?industria e dei Servizi 2001 Sprawl Percentuale di suolo non urbanizzato 2006 CORINE Land Cover Costi urbani non convenzionali Forma urbana non compatta Theoretical predictions (1) 16,5 16,0 Paris Log predicted population 2004‐2006 London Barcelona 15,5 München 15,0 Berlin Madrid Milano Wien Stuttgart Lisboa Frankfurt am Main Budapest Bucuresti Lyon Praha Valencia Torino Copenhagen Stockholm Warszawa Sevilla Athina Glasgow Utrecht Dresden Firenze 14,0 13,5 Roma Helsinki 14,5 Toulouse Porto Bordeaux Amsterdam Zaragoza Edinburgh BelfastGenova Riga Bratislava Tallinn Bologna Wroclaw Ljubljana Linz 13,0 13,0 Vilnius Freiburg im Breisgau Liège Erfurt Magdeburg 13,5 Hannover y = 0,822x + 2,5115 R² = 0,822 Hamburg Napoli Rotterdam Bremen Lodz Sofia 14,0 14,5 15,0 Log real population 2004‐2006 15,5 16,0 16,5 Predicted equilibrium population over actual population (%) 6% -2% -4% -6% -8% Amsterdam Firenze Tallinn Graz Edinburgh Groningen Belfast Zaragoza Paris Lisboa Porto Dresden Glasgow Bratislava Bordeaux Bologna Regensburg Toulouse Freiburg im Breisgau Milano Wroclaw Linz Sevilla Genova Magdeburg Vilnius Lyon Ljubljana Helsinki Riga Erfurt Valencia München Utrecht Madrid Stockholm Frankfurt am Main Budapest Bremen Lodz Torino Stuttgart Athina Wien Liège Warszawa Copenhagen Praha London Barcelona Hannover Berlin Hamburg Rotterdam Roma Napoli Sofia Bucuresti Predicted city size – actual city size - European cities 8% Cities that can still expand Cities that are already too large 4% 2% 0% Torino Cuneo Brescia Foggia Pavia Roma Catania Macerata Enna Bergamo Cremona Mantova Treviso Rovigo Palermo Bari Perugia Salerno Reggio nell'Emilia Verona Arezzo Latina Vicenza Caserta Sassari Bologna Caltanissetta Grosseto Alessandria Trapani Firenze Modena Lucca Taranto Ferrara Oristano Nuoro Como Piacenza Udine Vercelli Agrigento Rieti Benevento Asti Bolzano-Bozen Lecce Parma Pordenone Cosenza Reggio Pisa Avellino Genova Cagliari Popolazione di equuilibrio predetta su popolazione reale (%) Italian cities that can still expand 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 Popolazione di equuilibrio predetta su popolazione reale (%) Varese Viterbo Chieti Trento Belluno Venezia Lecco Frosinone Napoli Crotone Novara Milano Potenza Padova Siracusa Massa-Carrara Campobasso Savona Verbano-Cusio-Ossola Pesaro Catanzaro Ancona Terni Messina La Spezia Forlì-Cesena Imperia Brindisi Ragusa Lodi Ravenna Pistoia Siena Prato Tera mo Biella Livorno Matera Pescara L'Aquila Ascoli Isernia Aosta Sondrio Rimini Vibo Trieste Gorizia Italian cities that can still expand 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08 -0.09 -0.10 Results by typology of regions 1.0% Popolazione di equuilibrio predetta su popolazione reale (%) 0.5% 0.0% Regione non metropolitana -0.5% -1.0% -1.5% -2.0% Regione metropolitana piccola Regione metropolitana media Regione metropolitana grande Predicted equilibrium population for different levels of high-value urban functions 3000000 Predicted equilibrium population 2500000 2000000 Athina Amsterdam Roma WarszawaBerlin Stuttgart Napoli Lyon München Rotterdam Sevilla Barcelona Madrid Milano Paris London Valencia Budapest Lisboa Helsinki Torino Bologna Vilnius Porto Stockholm Edinburgh Bordeaux Glasgow Firenze Toulouse Utrecht Hamburg Magdeburg Freiburg im Erfurt Breisgau Wien Belfast Lodz Wroclaw Riga Copenhagen Praha Dresden Tallinn Liège Sofia Genova Linz Zaragoza Szczecin Frankfurt am Main Ljubljana Regensburg Groningen Bratislava Bremen Graz Bucuresti 1500000 Hannover 1000000 500000 0 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% High level urban functions (share of high-quality professions) 6% 7% Predicted equilibrium population for different levels of networking with other cities 2500000 Predicted equilibrium population 2000000 Wien Barcelona Sofia Bucuresti Glasgow Firenze Milano Zaragoza Torino Hannover Tallinn Dresden Warszawa Freiburg im Breisgau Bologna Belfast Linz Riga Magdeburg Valencia Genova Madrid Utrecht Praha Roma Bratislava Graz Groningen LisboaBerlin Helsinki Amsterdam Toulouse München Hamburg Paris London Budapest Ljubljana Edinburgh Liège StockholmAthina Stuttgart Bremen Frankfurt am Main Lyon Regensburg Porto Sevilla Copenhagen Napoli Vilnius Wroclaw Lodz Bordeaux 1500000 Szczecin Erfurt Rotterdam 1000000 500000 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 City networking (number of scientific collaborations per 1,000 workers) 1.0 1.2 Predicted equilibrium population for different levels of networking with other cities 2500000 Predicted equilibrium population 2000000 Wien Barcelona Sofia Bucuresti Glasgow Firenze Milano Zaragoza Torino Hannover Tallinn Dresden Warszawa Freiburg im Breisgau Bologna Belfast Linz Riga Magdeburg Valencia Genova Madrid Utrecht Praha Roma Bratislava Graz Groningen LisboaBerlin Helsinki Amsterdam Toulouse München Hamburg Paris London Budapest Ljubljana Edinburgh Liège StockholmAthina Stuttgart Bremen Frankfurt am Main Lyon Regensburg Porto Sevilla Copenhagen Napoli Vilnius Wroclaw Lodz Bordeaux 1500000 Szczecin Erfurt Rotterdam 1000000 500000 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 City networking (number of scientific collaborations per 1,000 workers) 1.0 1.2 Conclusions - The size of the city is not the only one that explains location benefits and costs and that is behind the growth of cities; - City specificities are of great importance for the city capacity to grow; - decreasing returns to urban size can be postpone if efficiency policies on innovative functions and on networking with other cities are put in place. Thank you very much for your attention!
