Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Overcoming simplistic „urban vs. rural“ and
„social vs. economic innovation distinctions
Frank Waeltring
Parallel Session 2.1: Cluster Models Worldwide. Unique Features, Common Challenges
Promoting competitive territorial Living Spaces
Overcoming simplistic „urban vs. rural“ and
„social vs. economic innovation distinctions
18th TCI Conference in Daegu, 3.-6. Nov. 2015
Frank Waeltring, www.mesopartner.com
❖ MY KEY MESSAGE:
❖ There is a Risk of taking a too strong cluster and agglomeration approach when we want to promote innovative living spaces!
Macro policies
Micro world
Meso.Inst.Territorial change
The Rural-Urban Differentiation
❖ Classification by the OECD
❖ five types of regions: ❖ Predominantly Urban (PU),
❖ Intermediate Close to a city (INC)
❖ World Bank (2009)
❖ A classification of spaces
❖ Intermediate Remote (INR)
❖ Predominantly Rural Close to a city (PRC)
❖ Predominantly Rural Remote (PRR).
❖ Place neutral vs. place-based international approach discussion❖ agglomeration advantages of cities vs. space matters/local unique
advantages /„creative space making“
Rural-Urban Divide in Europe
❖ Europe
❖ Still high difference between rather urban or rural based population in Europe
❖ Trend in all countries towards urbanization
❖ Population increase in large cities, population loss in medium-sizedtowns
❖ bridging function of medium-sized towns to rural areas gets weaker
❖ Economic development efforts incluster promotion focuses more on vibrant agglomeration centers
Rural-Urban Divide in Germany
❖ Germany❖ Large cities grew around
2,8% between 2008 and 2013
❖ In medium-sized towns population decreases
❖ Even stronger population decrease in rural areas
Vicious circle of medium-sized cities and rural areas
❖ Loss of employment opportunities (employment rate)
❖ Migration (nr. of working population) ❖ Less local purchasing power
(income) ❖ Less demand for local products (turn
over of local businesses) ❖ Loss of tax incomes (budget revenues) ❖ Loss of welfare of community ❖ Increase of running costs
(infrastructure, health, supporting institutions)
❖ further closing of shops and businesses
Innovative strategies ❖ „Smart city“, Smart region“,
„Future region“ etc. ❖ a region as a living space with
its unique diverse advantages
❖ rural and urban areas as one competitive space that requires the promotion of different kinds of innovation
❖ search for inclusive strategies for rural and urban sustainable economic development
❖ requirement to combine economic and social innovation promotion
Stereotype example from Germany
❖ 3 medium-sized towns joint forces in structural change process
❖ challenges & potentials: ❖ closing of mine, atom-power station,
military base, automobile sector ❖ potentials: tourism, mobility,
decentralized energy system, conversion, creation of technology region
❖ Cooperation beyond administrative boundaries
middle centre
(e.g. Rheine)
middle centre
(e.g. Lingen etc. )
middle centre (e.g.
Ibbenbüren etc. )
The success in creating new innovation space will depend on the city’s ability to follow a dynamic dual- innovation strategy by creating a highly attractive
living and innovation space
Dual = rural
and urban areas
as one space
Weaknesses of current perspectives
middle centre
(e.g. Rheine)
middle centre
(e.g. Lingen etc. )
middle centre (e.g.
Ibbenbüren etc. )
Focus on burning issues, mainly conversion and
infrastructure, not innovation
Lack of a clear living space orientation with different
priorities
Lack of involvement of their rural environment as factors of attractiveness and innovation
Joint but isolated approach
Sociallens
Econo-miclens
Environ-ment.lens
Examples of living space combinations
Cooperation between medium
town cities
Application of innovations in rural areas
Economic development
Green/social development
Strengthening of a local/regional innovation system with stronger SME
orientation and start-up activities
Innovative competence networks e.g. in climate-
friendly technologies, construction etc.
City Innovation Labs
energy-friendly renovation of suburbs and villages
New service delivery modelse.g. in the health sector
Organizational development promotion for NGOs, social and
business organizations to increase efficiency and innovation
orientation
Promotion of creative industry settlement in rural areas
Knowledge transfer between innovative and less-innovative enterprises in the countryside
Promotion of creative freelancers e.g. with Co-working spaces, matching platforms innovation and info centers
Increase education in the countryside through e.g. village academies, mobile laboratory spaces, life-long learning for entrepreneurs & employees
Coaching initiatives to assure basic services like small shopping
cooperatives in villages, to restructure social organizations and social clubs
Mobility projects (e.g. car sharing, e-buses, self-sufficient villages, mobile health centers
Promotion of new business models (e.g. in ecological agricultural
production, sustainable tourism, creative industries etc.)
Rural Impact Labs
My key message
❖ „Promotion of creative economies and spaces require new lenses (beyond the agglomeration lens) “
❖ Consideration of a living space approach increases potential to combine innovation potentials
❖ Learnings between cities and rural areas can be very rich and provide us with new perspectives and increase of sustainable competitiveness
