Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
A Preliminary Characterisation of the Mountain Area of Europe Andrew Copus Rural Policy Unit Scottish Agricultural College Martin Price Centre for Mountain Studies Perth College UHI Millennium Institute Aim • To prepare a preliminary characterisation of the mountain area of Europe based on available statistical reporting areas and data Methodology • to identify a European mountain area using consistant criteria that is spatially compatible with existing databases • to undertake a statistical analysis of selected socio-economic variables for this area Existing national definitions: EU • linked to support for agriculture – altitude ( + slope ) ( + > 62° N ) 1000 500 n ai Sp Au str ia l ce Gr ee rtu ga Po Ita ly Ge rm an y Fr an ce um lgi Be Ire la UK 0 nd Elevation (m) Minimum Elevation for Mountain definitions Total area (excluding Belgium, East Germany, Finland, Ireland): 780,000 km² Recent statements: mountain regions of the EU • “Some 30% of community territory consists of mountain ranges or massifs” – (European Commission - DG Regional Policy, 2000) • “mountain regions account for about 30% of the land area … in the European Union” – (European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, 2001) • “Mountain areas as % total EU15 surface area: 38.8%” – (Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, 2001) Existing national definitions: non-EU • Minimum altitude – 350 – 500 – 600 – 650 – 700 m: m: m: m: m: Poland Yugoslavia Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Norway Albania, Croatia Czech Republic, Romania Development of consistent criteria • UNEP – WCMC map (2000) – USGS GTOPO30 altitude database at 1 km² resolution slope local elevation range (relief) • 7 km radius • > 300 m elevation change Europe’s mountain area • 23% (746,321 km²) of EU area is mountainous • 19% of Europe (excluding CIS) is mountainous Definition of NUTS III mountain regions • UNEP-WCMC map • NUTS III regions • EU and Accession States • Norwegian Fylke • Swiss Cantons • Balkan States classification of “mountainousness” Thresholds of mountainousness % of Region Within WCMC Boundary • Wholly mountainous (>95% within WCMC boundary) • Predominantly mountainous (60-95%) • Partly mountainous (40-59%) Mountain Regions (10%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Predominantly Mountainous Regions (47%) Partly Mountainous Regions (20%) Non Mountainous Regions (23%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cum ulative % of Total European Mountain Area 90 100 Definition of NUTS III mountain regions >95% within WCMC boundary Definition of NUTS III mountain regions >60% within WCMC boundary Definition of NUTS III mountain regions >40% within WCMC boundary The NUTS III database 1 Mountainousness 2 Area 3 Urban areas 4 Population 5 Population density 6 GDP/capita (purchasing power parity) 3-6 from Eurostat (comparable data for Balkans, NO, CH) Number of NUTS III regions by percentage mountain threshold NUTS III Regions 284 300 >95% mountain 203 200 115 100 28 6 27 177 >60% " >40% " 41 36 17 32 45 0 EU CEECs NO, CH Europe % of NUTS III regions by % mountain area threshold % NUTS III Regions % 100 >95% mountain >60% " >40% " 80 60 40 20 3 11 19 14 22 71 80 24 13 3 21 3 0 EU CEECs NO, CH Europe Total area within UNEP-WCMC boundary, (NUTS III regions by % mountain threshold) Area ( '000 km2) 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 983 727 >95% mountain 510 354 94 11 EU >60% " >40% " 96 131 CEECs 197 207 125 19 NO, CH Europe Proportion of UNEP-WCMC mountain area within NUTS III regions by threshold Mountain area (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 91 95 77 69 7 EU 76 57 48 13 >95% mountain >60% " >40% " CEECs 57 9 NO, CH 10 Europe Population of European NUTS III mountain regions Population (millions) 150 122 >95% mountain 100 73 36 50 5 1 >60% " >40% " 12 20 65 1 7 8 7 0 EU CEECs NO, CH Europe Population density of European NUTS III mountain regions 2 Population density (pop'n/km ) 150 97 100 91 96 80 61 55 >95% mountain >60% " >40% " 50 84 65 57 68 26 28 0 EU CEECs NO, CH Europe GDP 1999 (purchasing power parity) European NUTS III mountain regions GDP (m€) 2,000 1723 1396 1,500 1,000 500 >95% mountain 672 >60% " >40% " 125 6 79 118 27 163183 921 151 0 EU CEECs NO, CH Europe Impact of large towns • >100,000 population (critical mass to affect regional economy) • 114 “NUTS III” regions >40% mountain and with large town • • • • 86 EU regions 16 CEEC regions 8 Norwegian / Swiss regions 4 Balkan states The impact of large towns Regions >40% mountain GDP/capita (€) 25 20 With city 15 Without " 10 5 0 EU CEEC NO, CH The role of peripherality Source: Schürmann, C., Talaat, A. (2000): Towards a European Peripherality Index. Report for General Directorate XVI Regional Policy of the European Commission, Dortmund, Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund Peripherality and Mountainousness: (a) • Peripheral mountain regions are experiencing depopulation % Mountain <70 <40 >40 >60 >95 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.8 Peripherality Index 70-79 80-89 90-100 % Population Change 1995-99 0.7 -0.1 2.2 0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.1 -2.0 Peripherality and Mountainousness: (b) • Peripheral mountain regions have a lower GDP per capita % Mountain <40 >40 >60 >95 Peripherality Index <70 70-79 80-89 90-100 GDP per Capita (€ PPS) 1999 20,439 15,388 15,783 14,059 23,614 17,705 16,431 10,858 23,646 17,015 13,239 10,501 24,446 17,487 8,519 Conclusions • The data suggests that mountain regions have some disadvantages hampering socio-economic development relative to lowlands, in terms of: – population – GDP/capita • this relationship is complicated by – peripherality – presence/absence of large towns Some words of caution: • NUTS III geography is inadequate – size/configuration of regions • little consistency across EU and CEECs (MAUP) – “ecological fallacy” in mixed regions need for finer-resolution data • lack of harmonised data (e.g. NUTS V?) (even at NUTS III) – few variables – lack of standardisation need to use national data sources