The analysis based on the comparison of deviations and overlaps between geographies of IPs and other regional typologies in Europe is using cross table analysis and overlaid maps to gain information on meaningful patterns. Units of analyses are provided by the delineation process identifying four groups of inner peripheral areas. Besides, regional typologies widely used in association with NUTS 3 EU regions (separated elements of Urban–Rural typology, mountain areas, islands and metropolitan regions) are also processed into analyses. Since a special focus on lagging areas is expected to be applied in comparisons with inner peripheries, different groups of lagging EU regions are identified by economic performance (GDP per inhabitant) in relation to EU and national averages.
Results based on cross tables and overlaid maps indicate significant overlap between different groups of inner peripheries and other regional typologies. In general, regarding EU regional typologies, inner peripheral regions most frequently tend to overlap with intermediate regions (Map 2.1–Map 2.4), rural regions (Map 2.5–Map 2.8) and mountain areas (Map 2.13–
Map 2.16) (see also Table 2.1). Besides, other regional types might show more notable overlap with one or another IP delineation types, such as in the case of depleting inner peripheries and urban areas (Map 2.9–Map 2.12) or metropolitan areas, which imply that processes of marginalisation could significantly affect these territories too.
Table 2.1 shows the overlap between IP regions (resulting from the four delineations) and other regional typologies for Europe. Regarding IP delineations 1 and 3 (based in lower accessibility to regional centres and SGIs) it is worth mentioning that around half of them are identified as mountain regions. By contrast, the overlapping percentage is lower for mountain areas regarding IP Delineation 2 (lower economic potential interstitial areas), and Delineation 4 (depleting areas). This overlap is mostly located in the biggest mountain ranges. It should be noted that mountains have a major influence reducing accessibility due to geographical factors, therefore they also influence the averaging process used to delineate IPs.
Notwithstanding that, there are also inner peripheries in less mountainous areas.
Regarding the urban-rural typology it is interesting to note that most IP regions are located in non-urban areas (>80%), except for Delineation 4 (depleting areas) where IPs are distributed more or less equally between the three categories (urban, intermediate, rural). However,
Table 2.1: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU regional typologies
The following tables present an analysis of the overlap between inner peripheries and EU regional typologies for the different macro-regions in Europe (countries are grouped according to its geographical location based on the Eurovoc Classificationa). The text below presents the results of the overlap of the four Delineations for Central and Eastern Europe (Table 2.2);
Western Europe (Table 2.3); Southern Europe (Table 2.4) and Northern Europe (In Southern Europe (Table 2.4) it is remarkable the high proportion of IPs located in intermediate regions (ranging from 39% to 70% of IPs). However, for Delineation 4 the number of IPs located in rural regions is more relevant. In this macro-region, the presence of mountainous regions seems very relevant and it is related to the existence of IPs, as there is a high percentage of IPs located in these areas (ranging from 58 to 88% depending on the Delineation).
In Northern Europe (Table 2.5), IPs are mostly located in non-urban regions (only showing a slight overlap in Delineation 1). In addition, depending on the delineation used, they mostly overlap with rural regions (Delineation 1, 2 and 4) or with intermediate ones (Delineation 3).
Delineation 4 also shows an important overlap (>45%) with the intermediate typology of regions. The overlap between mountain regions and the different four delineations shows also and interesting results, as there is a relevant overlap with delineations 1 (38%) and 2 (43%) while the overlap is low or inexistent for the other two delineations.
Table 2.5).
a Eurovoc Classification: Central and Eastern Europe (Albania; Belarus; Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Hungary; Kosovo;
Moldova; Montenegro; Poland; Romania; Russia; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; and Ukraine; where Turkey has also been added); Western Europe (Andorra; Austria; Belgium; France; Germany; Ireland;
Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Monaco; Netherlands; Switzerland; and United Kingdom); Southern Europe (Cyprus; Greece; Italy; Malta; Portugal; San Marino; and Spain) and Northern Europe (Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Iceland; Latvia; Lithuania Norway; and Sweden).
(http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/?q=request&view=mt&mturi=http://eurovoc.europa.eu/100277&languag e=en)
Table 2.2: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU regional typologies (Central and Eastern Europe)
In Central and Eastern Europe (Table 2.2) IPs overlap less with urban regions, as about 90%
of IPs are located on the other categories of the urban-rural typology. In addition, the percentage of IPs in Mountain regions is significantly high (>50%) for all the delineations, being particularly high (>75%) regarding Delineation 3, based on access to SGIs. As these countries are located inland, and subsequently there are no IPs on Island regions. On the other hand, the overlap of IPs with metropolitan regions is low (10%), although the value doubles for Delineation 4.
Table 2.3: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU regional typologies (Western Europe) Urban
In Western Europe (Table 2.3) most of the IPs are not located intermediate and rural regions, with the exception of Delineation 4 where the overlap of IPs and urban areas increases until 29%. The IPs of Western European countries in Mountain regions varies significantly depending on the delineation used: if the focus is set on the distance to regional centres or SGIs (Delineation 1 and 3) the number of IPs is approximately three times than for Delineation 2 (lower economic potential interstitial areas) and 4 (depleting areas). Regarding metropolitan regions, a relevant proportion of IPs in can be observed for all delineations, where again Delineation 4 stands out (>50%).
Table 2.4: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU regional typologies (Southern Europe)
In Southern Europe (Table 2.4) it is remarkable the high proportion of IPs located in intermediate regions (ranging from 39% to 70% of IPs). However, for Delineation 4 the number of IPs located in rural regions is more relevant. In this macro-region, the presence of mountainous regions seems very relevant and it is related to the existence of IPs, as there is a high percentage of IPs located in these areas (ranging from 58 to 88% depending on the Delineation).
In Northern Europe (Table 2.5), IPs are mostly located in non-urban regions (only showing a slight overlap in Delineation 1). In addition, depending on the delineation used, they mostly overlap with rural regions (Delineation 1, 2 and 4) or with intermediate ones (Delineation 3).
Delineation 4 also shows an important overlap (>45%) with the intermediate typology of regions. The overlap between mountain regions and the different four delineations shows also and interesting results, as there is a relevant overlap with delineations 1 (38%) and 2 (43%) while the overlap is low or inexistent for the other two delineations.
Table 2.5: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU regional typologies (Northern Europe) Urban
From the comparison of the four tables (Table 2.2 to Table 2.5), where the different European countries are grouped according to its geographical location, some aspects need to be highlighted:
- Regarding the urban-rural typology, most IPs are located in non-urban regions, and depending on the group of countries analysed, they are predominantly rural regions (Central and Eastern Europe or Nothern Europe), intermediate regions (Southern Europe) or similarly distributed across both categories (Western Europe).
- The geographical characteristic of being located in a mountain region is very relevant regarding the four delineations, although it is more marked in the macro-region of Central and Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, where the overlap of IPs with mountain regions ranges from 58 to 76% and from 57 to 88%, respectively. In the other groups, although important the overlap is below 42%.
- The relationship between IPs and metropolitan regions shows also interesting results because, although the overlap is lower as compared to other regional typologies (i.e.
mountain regions), it represents a maximum overlap of about 19%, except for Western Europe where the proportion increases up to 28–56% depending on the delination analysed.
Map 2.1: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 1 – travel time to regional centres) and intermediate areas of the urban-rural typology
Map 2.2: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 2 – economic potential interstitial areas) and intermediate areas of the urban-rural typology
Map 2.3: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 3 – access to SGIs) and intermediate areas of the urban-rural typology
Map 2.4: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 4 – depleting areas) and intermediate areas of the urban-rural typology
Map 2.5: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 1 – travel time to regional centres) and rural areas of the urban-rural typology
Map 2.6: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 2 – economic potential interstitial areas) and rural areas of the urban-rural typology
Map 2.7: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 3 – access to SGIs) and rural areas of the urban-rural typology
Map 2.8: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 4 – depleting areas) and rural areas of the urban-rural typology
Map 2.9: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 1 – travel time to regional centres) and urban areas of the urban-rural typology areas
Map 2.10: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 2 – economic potential interstitial areas) and urban areas of the urban-rural typology areas
Map 2.11: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 3 – access to SGIs) and urban areas of the urban-rural typology areas
Map 2.12: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 4 – depleting areas) and urban areas of the urban-rural typology areas
Map 2.13: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 1 – travel time to regional centres) and mountain regions
Map 2.14: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 2 – economic potential interstitial areas) and mountain regions
Map 2.15: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 3 – access to SGIs) and mountain regions
Map 2.16: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 4 – depleting areas) and mountain regions