METROBORDER: Cross-Border Polycentric Metropolitan Regions

METROBORDER: Cross-Border Polycentric Metropolitan Regions

Border Region
Greater Region and Upper Rhine (Rhin Supérieur)
Language(s)
Anglais
Introduction

The ESPON project “Metroborder” includes an investigation and the further development of the approach of a Cross-Border Polycentric Metropolitan Region (CBPMR) within the Greater Region and the Upper Rhine (Rhin Supérieur).

Summary

The ESPON project “Metroborder” includes an investigation and the further development of the approach of a Cross-Border Polycentric Metropolitan Region (CBPMR) within the Greater Region and the Upper Rhine (Rhin Supérieur). The study refers to the “understanding of metropolises as nodes in a globalizing world” (p. 43). Aspects of the functional integration and governance structures in the case study regions are analyzed. Strategic options and specific approaches to the further development of CBPMRs are presented.

Content

The ESPON project “Metroborder” includes an investigation and the further development of the approach of a Cross-Border Polycentric Metropolitan Region (CBPMR) within the Greater Region and the Upper Rhine (Rhin Supérieur). At the time of the study, the Greater Region consisted of the following units: the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Lorraine; Rhineland-Palatinate; Saarland; the Walloon Region with the French-speaking and German-speaking municipalities of Belgium. The German-French-Swiss Upper Rhine structure comprised the cantons of Basel-Stadt, Basel-Land, Aargau, Jura and Solothurn; Baden-Württemberg; Rhineland-Palatinate; the Alsace region. The cross-border cooperation areas Vienna / Bratislava / Brno / Györ, Helsinki / Tallinn, Øresund (Copenhagen-Malmö), Eurométropole Lille Kortrijk-Tournai and Maastricht-Aachen are also mentioned in the study.

The following is a summary of the main part of the final report. The report also contains an insightful summary, divided into an analytical part, policy options and the issue of further research and analysis needs. The report also provides a detailed description of the scientific approach. In order to interview the experts from the regions, for example, the instrument of the delphi method was chosen to examine and elaborate on the governance perspectives.

The main part begins with a few definitions and a detailed description of the cross-border polycentric metropolitan regions (CBPMR). These are described as follows: “[...] on political constructions based on cross-border agreements which consider the existence of national borders as a resource for increasing interactions at the local level and based on the embeddedness of the metropolitan center(s) in global networks. Because CBPMRs are composed of several urban centers located on either side of a border, these regional political initiatives can mobilize different geographical scales in order to utilize the assets and complementarities of the morphological and functional polycentricity” (p. 15). CBPMRs are defined at the level of functional urban areas (FUA). The FUA is an analytical concept that is primarily defined by commuter flows at the local level (see page 27 and Appendix, chapter 7). The following is a description of the two study regions, the Greater Region and the Upper Rhine Region, with explanations of the FUAs in these regions.

The third chapter provides an overview of metropolitan positioning. The fact is emphasized that “metropolitan quality is very much linked to the presence of economic headquarters and to decision-making in transnational enterprises” (p. 37). Maps are used to compare cross-border and national metropolitan regions. Chapter four contains an analysis of the functional integration within CBPMR. The authors focus on the concept of cross-border interdependence and cross-border commuting. Then a summary of the indicators on functional interdependence follows. Economic and social (feasibility study on rescue services) issues that have not been included in the integrated analysis of all CBPMRs are then examined to identify their potential. The fifth chapter presents the governance structures. First, an overview at the European level is provided. This is illustrated by an institutional illustration of CBPMRs (p. 61). Governance in the case study regions is analyzed in more detail. The structures are illustrated using maps and other graphics. The main conclusions for the Greater Region and Upper Rhine Region are as follows: “In general, the maps illustrate the differences between institutional territory (“Vertragsraum”) and the territory of political projects (“Mandatsraum”). The clear difference between both regions is that the perimeter of the Upper Rhine is, in general, seen as relevant to cross-border cooperation. The Greater Region’s experts, in contrast, concentrate much more clearly on a core area that is much smaller than the institutional perimeter.” (p. 64)

The sixth chapter contains conclusions for the case study regions. In the summary of the situation in the Greater Region, the significance of the strategy, the spatial expansion and the governance of the CBPMR are discussed (see also Chapter 18). The following dimensions are presented as strategic options: the leitmotif “economic metropolis”, the leitmotif “laboratory of Europe” and the leitmotif “mobile and accessible region.” Specific possibilities for action such as the development of spatial observation, the development of a politically strong European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) and the preparation of a mobility program for the Greater Region to address transport issues are addressed. The conclusions for the Upper Rhine Region also contain a synthesis of the situation. Within the framework of strategic options, the improvement of efficiency, transparency and democratic legitimacy of cross-border cooperation is encouraged. To illustrate how this option could be implemented, three scenarios are proposed: scenario 1 “multi-level cooperation” (status quo): scenario 2 “cooperation at two levels” and scenario 3 “integration.”

Table of Contents

  • A. Executive Summary
    • 1. Analytical part
    • 2. Options for policy development
    • 3. Need for further analysis/research
  • B. Main Report
    • 1. Introduction: Focusing on “CBPMRs”
    • 2. Spatial configuration of CBPMRs
    • 3. Metropolitan positioning
    • 4. Functional integration within the CBPMRs
    • 5. Governance of CBPMRs
    • 6. Conclusions for the case study regions
  • C. Scientific Annexes
    • 7. The system of MUAs and FUAs in a cross-border context
    • 8. The ‘competitive nodes’ approach – map appendix
    • 9. Functional integration
    • 10. Metropolitan labor market and commuting in the Greater Region
    • 11. Zooming in: automotive industry in the Greater Region
    • 12. The accessibility to emergency services: methodological choices
    • 13. Cross-border institutional mapping
    • 14. CBPMR governance
    • 15. The “European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation” (EGTC) as new governance tool
    • 16. Delphi study
    • 17. Summary of the Upper Rhine situation
    • 18. Summary for the Greater Region
    • 19. Dissemination
    • 20. Bibliography
    • 21. List of Maps
    • 22. List of Figures
    • 23. List of Tables
Key Messages
  • The ESPON Metroborder study aimed at identifying a reference framework for the main functions of cross-border metropolitan regions and to develop appropriate governance structures. The examination of the case study regions was based on this framework. 
  • In order to illustrate the metropolitan polycentric cross-border areas and their predominant functions, illustrative map material was produced. 
  • The opportunities and challenges that the case study areas face internally and externally were analyzed. 
  • A SWOT analysis was used to determine the added value of continuing to follow the strategy of a Cross-Border Polycentric Metropolitan Region (CBPMR). 
  • Instruments were presented which can serve to promote a metropolitanization process from the national level in a multi-level governance structure.
Lead

Université du Luxembourg (Lead Partner): Tobias Chilla (coordination), Estelle Evrard, Christian Schulz. Technical support: Thierry Hengen, Gilles Caspar, Marie-Line Glaesener

Contributions

Authors:

Centre d'Etudes de Populations, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio-Economiques (today : LISER), Luxembourg (Project Partner): Antoine Decoville, Frédéric Durand, Anasse El Maslohi, Christophe Sohn, Olivier Walther

Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (Project Partner) : Manfred Perlik

Université Libre de Bruxelles, IGEAT (Project Partner) : Didier Peeters, Christian Vandermotten

Regio Basiliensis (Sous-traitant ) : Véronique Bittner-Priez

Universität des Saarlandes (Subcontractor) : Christoph Hahn, H. Peter Dörrenbächer

Université de Haute-Alsace-Mulhouse (Subcontractor) : Bernard Reitel

Université Paul Verlaine Metz, CEGUM (Subcontractor) : Mathias Boquet (CEGUM, Université Paul Verlaine Metz), Sophie de Ruffray (UMR IDEES, Université de Rouen), Grégory Hamez (CEGUM, Université Paul Verlaine Metz), Amandine Hamm (CEGUM, Université Paul Verlaine Metz).

 

Stakeholders:

Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures, Département de l’Aménagement du territoire (DATer)

Office fédéral du développement territorial der Schweiz (Lead stakeholder) ;

Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures des Grossherzogtums Luxemburg ;

Délégation interministérielle à l'aménagement et à la compétitivité des territoires (DIACT) Frankreichs ;

Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ;

Ministère de la Région Wallonie, Direction générale de l'Aménagement du territoire, du Logement et du Patrimoine.

 

Contact Person(s)

Estelle Evrard

Fonction
Collaboratrice de recherche
Organisation
Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, Université du Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Date of creation
2018
Date