Competitiveness indicators in regional development

This is a presentation of some competitiveness indicators which are created with grid methods to describe how competitiveness affects to development. Some example maps are shown below. The methods and tools used to produce these maps are described in GRID tools entity.
There are also URL linkages to thematic map collection in the site of Regional Council of Päijät-Häme.

1. Competitiveness and sustainability
2. Change as a result of competitiveness
3. Accessibility measures
4. Costs as competitiveness indicator

Competitiveness and sustainability

The driving forces of development represent the general demand of different land use purposes and should therefore be recognized by planners in advance. They should also be sensitive to changes in driving forces especially in spatial distribution.
What most affects to pressure of land use is competivity. Accessibility of certain attractions represents competivity and should therefore be known by planners.
Some attractions and their accessibility seems to prove why some areas grow and some others decline.
By studying the future attractions we may predict the coming migration patterns.
Furthermore by knowing the driving forces and pressure we can direct the structural policy to the right target and land use planning efforts as well.

• European Spatial Development Policy
  Regions compete to each others. In that they take in advantage of the all competitve factors they can.
  Always in upper level the competition may lead to land use pressure which is not sustainable and acceptable. Therefore there should be objectives that are quiding the development under pressure of competition.
  In EU level the spatial development objectives have stated in ESDP report.
  - developing polycentric and balanced urban system
  - promotion of integrated transport and communications concepts
  - conservation of the natural and the cultural heritage
  To monitor spatial development integrated indicators are needed to reveal whether we are drawing closer or moving away from the goal of balanced and polycentric European territory.
• Criteria for spatial differentation
  In the first official draft (Noordwijk) of the ESDP, a list of seven criteria for the differentation of the European territory was defined. The study Program on European Spatial Planning was appointed and seven working groups produced indicators and maps to reveal those criterias. Some brief quotations of those are presented below.
  • Geographical position
    Accessibility is a main measure for geographical position since it describes the influence of all affecting factors considering their connections, volume and location.
    Although plenty of accessibility studies have been made standardised data and operational spesifications concerning calculation models are needed to enable researhers to calculate indicators in comparable way.
  • Spatial integration
    The availability of reliable and homogenous sources of information transcending national borders is a basic presiquisite for analysis of European spatial integration. work so far has shown that one cannot rely on traditional data. Instead of using NUTS division a more systematic territorial unit could be appropriate for further analysis.
  • Economic strength
    Policy makers should identify the weakest causal factors affecting economic performance and strenghten it as basis fo further development. Arange of complementary policies should be considered for spatial development rather than relying on one policy to enhance competitiveness.
  • Natural assets
    Work on indicators at a European level has unveiled the deficiences of presently available data banks. The regional scale applied, which was based on administrative borders, limits severely possibilities of adequately reflecting thes tate of nature.
    Models of territorial characterisation constructed by combining indicators should enable the analysis of complex aspects or concepts for which a singe indicator or a single data source is insufficient.
  • Cultural assets
    A singek register for cultural landscapes has not yet been established at the Eu level. A Europenwide cultural landscape typology system is needed.
  • Land use pressure
    Most significant forms of land-use pressure is urbanisation. Urban sprawl has led to lower urban population densities, higher requirements for infrastructure, and the permanent conversion of land from other uses to built-up areas.
    Just how land use pressure should be measured is anything but obvious.
  • Social integration
    There is a lack of conceptual basis, viable data and documented empirical experience on social relations and processes at the European level.

Change as a result of competitiveness

Change in land use is usually due to competivity factors. By describing the land use efficiency and changes with appropriate indcators we may catch the spatial reasons to urban growth.

• Several indicators describe development
  • Low average age indicates new settlement
    Average age of population in 1995
    This is a very good indicator of development both in urban areas and in rural areas.
  • High average age indicates migration
    Population change between 1980-1995
  • The age of buildings show the development phases of urban settlement
    The age of buildings
  • The rate of incomes describe just competivity
    Taxable income in 1995
  • Commuting distances describe the gravity of work places
    Average commuting distances in 1991
• Some indicators explain development
  • Changes in accessibility
    Traveling time to Helsinki
  • High average age means depopulation
    Average age in 1995
• A few indicators predict development
  • High average age of population predicts change in purpose of use of houses.
    Average age in 1995
    High average age of people in rural areas with weak accessibility predicts that the usually small houses are taken in to country cottages.
  • Accessibility potential of centres
    

    Accessibility of centres means nearness of industry and service workingplaces. That means ability to choose from different working places nearby.
    New roads are increasing the accessibility of rural areas near cities. In those areas the houses are taken in use by people who are willing to commute.

  • Nearness of summer cottages
    Accessibility potential of summer cottages is predicting the rising trend to increase the presence of casual inhabitants.

Accessibility measures

• Rising attractions
  Settlers appreciate safe neigbourhoods, human scaled environs, diversified education facilities, cultural services as nature values and recreation and sport facilities.
  The nearness of watercourses can focus growth.
• Change in attraction of working place
  The concentration of working places seems to predict the migration and growth of large agglomerations. People move in to growth centres to get work. The shortage of floorspace is rising the prices. Commuting times and traffic are inceasing. The quolity of environs is usually decreasing. Creative new knowledge based work is depending on preferencies of skilled labour. Families with children move out to get air and space.
  Dull, noisy and monotonic work looses its attraction and leaves areas for new activities.
• Change in traffic systems
  Large agglomerations produce ever more traffic and traffic jam. Highway capacity is yet increasing in main directions where commuting distances are growing respectively.
  Public transport systems are developed and new railway links are largening the daily commuting areas.

  New railway shortcut decreases traveling time from Helsinki and its impacts can be measured by accessibility calculations.

• Change in commuting
  Information technology both concentrates to places where critical creative potential is available and allows workingplace independence. What does the creative working need in future. Automation in manufacturing may suddenly move the production where the circumstancies are favorable.

Costs as competitive indicator

Increasing deal of running costs of urban structure is traffic costs. Although constructing new structure is taken place the maintenace costs of present mass of infrastructure is greater than investments in new structure. Maintenance costs are also exceeding the tax paying willingness. In future the traffic costs are more strictly directed to the one who causes them. These factors may reduce the urban sprawl and are therefore worth focusing on.

• Housing costs
  

  Average housing costs has been calculated by the selling prices of dwellings according Statistics Finland. The prices are converted to yearly costs by annuity payment method of 5 % intrerest rate and 15 years repaying time.

• Commuting costs
  

  Average commuting costs have been calculated from home to work for every inhabited 1*1 km cell by Statistcs Finland. Using 200 working days/year and 0,17 e/km as average cost an yearly commuting cost is calculated and presented as raster grid.

• Operating costs
  Average operating costs can be calculated for a standard family of three persons living in a 80 sqm2 flat.

Top of page

Send comments to : erkki.rope@paijat-hame.fi
Last update: 26.11.2005