La comparaison des territoires transfrontaliers à l’échelle nationale. Vers une typologie fondée sur les logiques d’intégration

In the first part of this paper, which deals with comparability challenges of cross-border territories, the authors outline the methodological, theoretical and/or operational problems of this specific situation. The second part explains the methodological details. The third part is devoted to presenting the differentiated integration logics linked to the different territorial dynamics of the three metropolitan areas Pôle Européen de Développement de Longwy (PED), the French-Vaud-Geneva metropolitan area and the French-Belgian platform Flanders – Dunkirk – Opal Coast.

First, the authors summarize the paradox of defining a cross-border area, the methodological challenges of a comparative study on cross-border areas and the territorial difficulties in such spatial planning. Examples are presented to illustrate these challenges.

In the second part we explain the selected methodology, which is dictated by the requirement of comparability. First of all, it is important to deal with the question of the geographic reference level. The issue of geographic coverage (size, shape, and surface effects, as well as the effects of the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem) is addressed in order to achieve balanced coverage. In order to take the functional dimension into account, "the expression of everydayness is measured by the distance traveled by the residents within an hour of departure from the main French or foreign employment center (Geneva, Luxembourg and Dunkirk)" (p. 8f). The perimeters of cross-border cooperation are used to represent the institutional framework. The selection of indicators is based on the availability of statistical data on a small scale (municipalities in Belgium, cantons in France and Luxembourg, districts in Switzerland).

The areas of Luxembourg, Geneva and Dunkirk show distinctive integration logics. First, the authors note that the population density in the three metropolitan areas is different.

In order to filter out relevant indicators, thematic maps of population density, the age index, the average annual migration balance, the unemployment rate, cross-border worker flows, total annual population development and links between municipalities and the nearest airport were created (time period: early 2000s). The analysis of the maps shows that discontinuities are caused by the national border. These vary qualitatively and quantitatively depending on the analyzed zone. The areas of Geneva and Luxembourg are comparable in terms of attractiveness for cross-border worker flows. In terms of metropolization, too, the dynamics in the areas studied are different. Some zones, such as those around Luxembourg, even follow different logics (population decline in the municipalities affected by the conversion of former mining areas, benefits for some municipalities along the border).

The authors summarize saying that the reciprocity of relations is not a given in all cross-border areas. They find that four types of relationships are feasible, namely dominance, complementarity, asymmetry and autonomy. The special functionality of cross-border areas was confirmed. To confirm these initial observations, the field of investigation would have to be increased. This would require preliminary work to harmonize statistical data.

Content

Introduction

• Research context: A comparative study at a national level in partnership

I. The specific challenges of border areas

• A. From the newly reconsidered object of the border to the paradox of defining a cross-border area
• B. Methodological challenges of a comparative study on cross-border areas
• C. Territorial challenges in planning

II. Choice of methodology dictated by the requirement of comparability

• A. A balanced geographical coverage
• B. A functional framework that encompasses the institutional framework
• C. Indicators

III. Differentiated integration logic

• A. Discontinuities due to the border
• B. Flows
• C. Metropolization