Speaker
Description
Population growth and the related demand for housing have been fostering a significant urbanisation process since the end of the Second World War. Urbanisation is one of the megatrends of the 21st century (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2018). Cities are conceived as the main centres of wealth, characterised by high concentrations of technology, capital and labour, infrastructure systems and high growth rates, i.e. the drivers of the system leading to socio-spatial polarisation (Friedmann, 1973). Friedmann's general theory of polarisation defined the main centres as core areas and the other areas as periphery, i.e. dependent on the rate of development set by the institutions of the core areas. This global dynamic is closely linked to the logic of capitalism and profit. It has favoured growing territorial disparities (Bernt and Colini, 2013; Kühn, 2015). This has disadvantaged peripheral regions and contributed to increasing geographically and socially marginalised communities.
The centre and the periphery have a multifaceted relationship (Copus, 2001), involving the following mechanisms: the periphery's inability to offer real investment opportunities due to social factors like emigration; the centre's rapid economic growth; and the presence of advanced economic sectors in the centre, which can more easily innovate (Conti, 1996). Remote and rural areas have a direct impact on national levels of poverty and income inequality. A higher proportion of the EU's rural population is threatened by poverty and social exclusion compared to those living in urban areas (Copus et al., 2015).
It has gradually become clear that investing in areas that suffer from imbalances of various kinds can help to stabilise the course of their economic development. This was the starting point of the European cohesion policy, which was developed precisely with the aim of achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion and reducing disparities between the different regions of the Member States (Bachtrögler, Fratesi and Perucca, 2017). The inner peripheries (ESPON PROFECY update, 2021) depend on the decisions taken in the core areas, but in turn influence regional development, including the core areas.
So, how can cities and regions be reimagined to offer more equitable resource distribution, inclusive governance, and improved access to public goods, particularly for geographically and socially marginalized communities?
The key to post-growth urbanism is to adopt spatial policies aimed at improving the quality of services and opportunities for citizens in inner peripheries and areas at risk of marginalisation. There is a need for population maintenance in order to preserve areas that have already been anthropized. The process of urbanisation, with all its consequences, must be avoided. Territorial policies must be placed at the heart of national agendas to address the problems of fragile territories, using experimental approaches based on planning.
The research shows what is being done in Italy for the inner peripheries with an innovative policy, namely the National Strategy for Inner Areas (SNAI) (Barca, 2016); the strengths and weaknesses after a decade of activity are illustrated. The SNAI goes beyond the multi-level governance of the territories. It implements a place-based mode of intervention through different approaches for each territory. The strategic design carried out by the research team in an inner periphery revealed the typical weaknesses of these territories and activated a virtuous participatory process, the 'Living Lab of the Middle Agri'. The Living Lab was the key to making this area eligible for SNAI funding. Local stakeholders were involved and a service-based strategy reflecting the real needs of the area was developed. Finally, the research sets out operational guidelines for building a place-based strategy that emerged from the field experiment.
References
Bachtrögler, J., Fratesi, U. and Perucca, G. (2017) The Influence of the local context on the implementation and impact of EU Cohesion Policy.
Barca, F. (2009) An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy. Available at: https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2010-12/docl_17396_240404999.pdf.
Barca, F. (2016) ‘Disuguaglianze territoriali e bisogno sociale. La sfida delle “Aree Interne”.’, in Lettura annuale Ermanno Gorrieri. Modena: Stampa Grafiche TEM, pp. 31–33.
Bernt, M. and Colini, L. (2013) ‘Exclusion, Marginalization and Peripheralization. Conceptual Concerns in the Study of Urban Inequalities’, Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning, 2013(49), p. 30.
Conti, S. (1996) Geografia economica : teorie e metodi. Torino: UTET.
Copus, A. et al. (2015) ‘Regional poverty mapping in Europe – Challenges, advances, benefits and limitations’, Local Economy, 30(7), pp. 742–764. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094215601958.
Copus, A.K. (2001) ‘From Core-periphery to polycentric development: Concepts of spatial and aspatial peripherality’, European Planning Studies, 9(4), pp. 539–552. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/713666491.
ESPON PROFECY update (2021). Available at: https://archive.espon.eu/projects/espon-2020/monitoring-and-tools/profecy-data-and-maps-update.
Friedmann, J. (1973) ‘A theory of polarized development’, Urbanization, planning, and national development, pp. 41–67.
Kühn, M. (2015) ‘Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio-Spatial Inequalities’, European Planning Studies, 23(2), pp. 367–378. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.862518
| Keywords | inner peripheries; spatial policies; living lab; place-based strategy; |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
