IntroRegional development and regional resilience, often described as the capacity of a region to for example bounce back in terms of employment after a crisis (see for example have often been described in economic terms, using economic indicators such as growth in GDP or demographic indicators such as net migration or employment.Some researchers argued that regional development should be understood broader, by including for example social indicators and living environment indicators . In addition, in recent years researchers have shown that policies directed towards regional development have broadened as well , but are also still evaluated within specific narratives or frameworks that often constitute the goals of the policy, for example the Keynesian framework favours increasing demand and favoursthe evaluation of policies aimed at exactly this .By using the broader framework from Pike in combination with sifting through numerous data sources from EUROSTAT and OECD, researchers in the PREMIUM_EU project developed a new framework that is measuring Regional Development using 15 economic, 13 social and 5 living environment indicators.This new innovative interpretation of Regional Development also opens up discussions on the efficiency of developed implemented and evaluated public policies.MethodBy regarding regional development (and individual indicators) as an outcome of public policies on the local, regional, national and international level and by analysing regional development policies on different levels from 2010 and onwards we believe it is possible to understand the impact of these policies in a more evidenced based sense, regardless of the above mentioned different types of narratives or frameworks.We started our research with an analysis from the OECD on the different types of regional development policies and the relations between different levels of government within countries. Based on this and literature research, we developed a framework with relevant topics for regional development policies and different levels of government.Based on the work of Moritz Schütz presented during the ERSA 2024 conference, we developed and employed an webcrawler to automatically download and analyse policies and also manually tested the results of this exercise.Findings/resultsThe webmining exercise in combination with the new set of indicators will offer a much broader and more comprehensive view of the use and necessity of regional development policies. The findings will be discussed in dedicated policy labs with policymakers and researchers from the respective regions.Discussion/conclusionsBoth the new set of indicators and the analysis of the policies are not only innovative, but will also be viewed as speculative. Although we believe that a direct causal relationship between policies and the regional development will be hard to uncover, we do believe that this research will move the field of policy analysis forward, because it is more focused on evidence-based indicators and is based on larger sets of policies.
DOCUMENT
Liveability along four streets in Hanoi, Vietnam is assessed. Hanoi is a rapidly growing metropolis characterised by high levels of personal motorized traffic. Two high traffic volume streets and two low traffic volume streets were studied using a mixed methods approach, combining the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data on traffic volumes and liveability perceptions of its residents. The research methodology for this study revisits part of the well-known Liveable Streets study for San Francisco by Appleyard et al. (1981). A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) shows that residents on both low traffic volume streets experience less traffic hazard and stress, including noise and air pollution, than neighbouring high traffic volume streets. In line with Appleyard, the study shows that low traffic volume streets were rated more liveable than high traffic volume streets. In contrast to Appleyard, however, the study also shows that traffic volumes are not correlated with social interaction, feeling of privacy and sense of home, which is likely caused by the high levels of collectivism typical for Vietnam. Finally, the study indicates a strong residential neighbourhood type dissonance, where a mismatch exists between preferences for living in peaceful and quiet streets and the actual home location of residents.
LINK
In 2012 researchers from the professorship 'Krimp en Leefomgeving', together with the inhabitants of the village, created a longterm on how the village of Westerbroek would set its priorities concerning livability (facilities, health, environment, etc). This vision will be evaluated and used to work on a new longterm plan for the village together with all stakeholder inside and outside Westebroek.What is realized and what is not realized? Is this still important for the inhabitants or do they focus on new longterm targets?In 2012 researchers from the professorship 'Krimp en Leefomgeving', together with the inhabitants of the village, created a longterm on how the village of Westerbroek would set its priorities concerning livability (facilities, health, environment, etc). This vision will be evaluated and used to work on a new longterm plan for the village together with all stakeholder inside and outside Westebroek.
Krewerd is a small village in the North-East side of the Groningen Gas Field. It has 45 houses in total, 2 of which are included in the P50 risk zone and will therefore be assessed by National Coordinator Groningen (NCG). The rest of the houses are not in the priority list and will not be evaluated within 3 years, according to the existing plans of September 2019. It has been made clear by NCG that the usual engineering process, that includes all sorts of engineering calculations and procedures per NPR9998, cannot be followed in Krewerd. This is because the available engineering capacity is being used by NCG at its maximum, for the prior aim of accelerating the assessment and strengthening works in the P50 region. This project is prepared for presentation to NCG as an experimental project at Krewerd and is based on an initial document prepared by Fons Verheijen , a supportive document prepared by Otto Wassenaar , as well as the recent meeting by the two and Ihsan Engin Bal from Hanze. Furthermore, considering that the NCG is seeking an acceleration of the assessment procedure, the village Krewerd may play a role as a pilot.
The project focuses on sustainable travel attitude and behaviour with attention to balance, liveability, impact and climate change (as indicated above). The customer journey is approached from the consumer side and intends to shed light on the way COVID-19 has influenced (or not) the following aspects:• consumer’s understanding and appreciation of sustainability • the extent to which this understanding has influenced their attitude towards sustainable travel choices• the extent to which this change is represented in their actual and projected travel behaviour throughout the travel decision-making process • conditions that may foster a more sustainable travel behaviourThe project can be seen as a follow up to existing studies on travel intention during and post COVID-19, such as ETC’s publication on Monitoring sentiment for domestic and Intra-European travel – Wave 5, or the joint study of the European Tourism Futures Institute (ETFI – www.etfi.nl) and the Centre of Expertise in Leisure, Tourism and Hospitality (CELTH – www.celth.nl) highlighting four future scenarios for the leisure, tourism and hospitality sectors post COVID-19. The project will look beyond travel intention and will supplement existing knowledge with crucial information on the way consumers view sustainability and the extent to which they are willing to adjust their travel behaviour to aid the recovery of a more sustainable travel and tourism industry. Therefore, the report aims to generate knowledge vital for the understanding of consumer trends and the role sustainability will play in travel choices in the near future.Problem statementPlease describe which question in the (participating) industry is addressed.How has the sustainable travel attitude and behaviour in selected European source markets been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic? Further questions to be answered:• How did the COVID-19 pandemic influence the consumer’s understanding and appreciation of sustainability?• To what extent did this understanding influence their attitude towards sustainable travel choices?• To what extent is this change represented in their actual and projected travel behaviour throughout the travel decision-making process?• What are the conditions that may foster a more sustainable travel behaviour?
