Modelling firm (re-)location choice in UrbanSim

Over the last decade, low economic growth rates resulted in intensified competition between nations, regions, and towns in trying to attract new firms and inhabitants. In particular, the establishment of new firms has become one of the most vital objectives of governments and public authorities all over Europe. To raise the attractiveness of a region, different instruments have been used: tax reductions, incentives for new establishments, as business destination promotion activities, supply of outstanding infrastructure and public services. On the one hand, this paper investigates effects of different possible options for cantonal and municipal authorities’ intent to attract firms: improvements in transport infrastructure, designation of new building zones, and last but not least tax reductions. These actions have been tested by simulating the decisions of existing firms. The parameters for these simulations have been estimated with a discrete choice model using data of the cantons St.Gallen and both Appenzell as well as Zurich. On the other hand, the paper aims to provide an approach to implement these models in UrbanSim. UrbanSim is a software-based simulation system for supporting planning and analysis of urban development, incorporating the interactions between land use, transportation, the economy, and the environment. At the moment, UrbanSim is adapted to an European context (see the according research project SustainCity, www.sustaincity.eu).

Gastgewerbe - anhaltende konjunkturelle Talfahrt endlich gestoppt? Branchen im Blickpunkt

In den letzten zehn Jahren musste das Gastgewerbe, der zentrale Bereich der Tourismuswirtschaft, rückläufige Umsätze hinnehmen. 2002 beschleunigte sich diese Entwicklung: Die Umsätze gingen nominal um 3,6% gegenüber dem Vorjahr zurück. Parallel dazu errechnete sich seit 1994 eine Personalreduzierung von 16,7%. Die Hoffnung auf eine Trendwende liegen jetzt im »Rekord-Sommer« 2003. Es gibt erste Anzeichen, dass die konjunkturelle Talfahrt im Gastgewerbe zu Ende sein könnte

Branchen im Blickpunkt: Die deutsche Gastronomie

Die konjunkturelle Situation und Entwicklung verlief für das deutsche Gaststättengewerbe in den letzten Jahren alles andere als befriedigend. Von Jahr zu Jahr mussten neuerliche Umsatzrückgänge verkraftet werden. Die Zahl der Insolvenzen stieg in dieser Branche überproportional an. Aber das Jahr 2006 verlief für das deutsche Gaststättengewerbe etwas positiver. Vor allem die Fußballweltmeisterschaft trug dazu bei, dass im Juni und Juli 2006 einmalig seit geraumer Zeit ein Umsatzplus gegenüber den Vorjahreszeiträumen erwirtschaftet werden konnte. Der Getränkeabsatz wies während der beiden WM-Monate Steigerungsraten von 4,7% auf

Branchen im Blickpunkt: Anmerkungen und Daten zum Weltbiermarkt

Im Jahr 2004 ist die Bierproduktion weltweit im Vergleich zum Vorjahr um 4,8% angestiegen, in Europa verlief das Wachstum mit 2,5% unterdurchschnittlich, und in Deutschland wurde ein Rückgang um 1,2% beobachtet. Gewachsen ist der Bierausstoß vornehmlich in den osteuropäischen Staaten

Der Eiermarkt in Deutschland und der EU zu Ostern 2012

Während in Deutschland, Schweden und Österreich bereits zum 1. Januar 2010 die Legehennenhaltung in herkömmlichen Käfigen aufgegeben wurde und diese EU-Mitgliedstaaten somit die Umstellungsfriktionen zwei Jahre früher durchgestanden haben, wurde in den übrigen Mitgliedsländern der EU die per EU-Gesetz abgeschaffte Batteriekäfighaltung bis zum letztmöglichen Termin, dem 31. Dezember 2011, weiter zugelassen. Zum 1. Januar 2012 ist EU-weit das Verbot, Legehennen in traditionellen Käfigen zu halten, verbindlich wirksam geworden. Die EU-Kommission musste 13 Mitgliedstaaten abmahnen, da hier zu Jahresanfang 2012 noch etliche Millionen Batteriehennen vorhanden waren. Insbesondere Bulgarien, Frankreich, Griechenland, Italien, die Niederlande, Polen, Portugal, Spanien, Tschechien und das Vereinigte Königreich befinden sich immer noch mitten im Umstellungsprozess

Introduction

Since the 1980s, planning approaches in European regions shifted as a result of increasing attention to spatial patterns of interaction and movement on regional levels of scale, and alongside “a relative decline of the role of the state, a growing involvement of nongovernmental actors in a range of state functions, the emergence of new forms of multi-agency partnerships and more flexible forms of networking at various spatial scales” (Davoudi, 2008, p.63). Upcoming approaches, often called spatial planning, moved attention from the planning of predefined, contained territories to the planning of spatial networks, stretching across multiple and multi-scalar administrative boundaries. Planning that relied on generally applicable rationalities, statutory planning frameworks and authoritative planning power was challenged by planning that relied on an understanding of the specificities of regions, political consent on their desirable futures and the dedication of actors to these visions (Albrechts et al., 2003, Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010, Healey, 2006, Nadin, 2007, Needham, 1988, Schön, 2005). New approaches typically involved coalitions of plan actors from multiple tiers and levels of government as well as market and civil actors. Packaging their interests in shared visions became a way to operationalise planning. Collaboration in decision-making was used to simultaneously legitimise it. In an "institutional void" (Hajer, 2003, p.175) - in near absence of generally accepted and formally approved regional planning guidance - the inclusion of many in decision-making - good governance - became a normative goal of planning in itself (Innes and Booher, 2003, Mayntz, 2004). The Netherlands is no exception. As elsewhere in Europe, planning underwent a process of regionalisation in this country from the 1980s onward. Increasing attention to regional spatial development led to new planning agendas that emphasised the importance of places in larger, mostly economic, networks. A shift towards regionalisation coupled with deregulation, and an enhancement of development-led planning practices. Direct investment into strategic projects and area development became a dominant way of planning (Hajer and Zonneveld, 2000, Waterhout et al., 2013, Needham, 1988). Regionalisation liaised with tendencies of decentralisation, which resulted in a more equal distribution of planning power across national, provincial and municipal authorities (Haran, 2010, Salet, 2006, Salet and Woltjer, 2009, Teisman and Klijn, 2002). Regionalisation also coincided with the emergence of new decision-making approaches: “[P]lanners […] began to promote constructive ways into actively developing new perspectives for the future instead of merely relying on protective and prohibitive regulation – hence the emphasis on the word ‘development‘. Development planning refers […] to a more involved and anticipatory activity by collaborating public and private agencies, stimulating the likelihood of implementation, rather than public agencies setting limits by decree” (Salet and Woltjer, 2009, p.236). Among decision-making procedures that emerged in the context of spatial planning in the Netherlands was an array of practices commonly referred to as regional design. Practices that gained this label differed in their spatial scope and scale. They had a varying concern about issues such as: urbanisation, the development of transport, landscape and/or water systems at the city-regional, regional, national and transnational levels of scale. Some shared characteristics justify their common label though. Practices were all anticipatory indeed, concerned with the imagination of desirable spatial development. They all sought for comprehensiveness through considering a multitude of aspects that influence the form and functioning of this development. In all practices, the production of spatial representations, maps and models, was a core activity. Although differing in the composition of engaged parties, all practices knew the involvement of design professionals and a multi-actor setting. A significant shared characteristic was their strong relation with ongoing planning, expressed in their concern about large-scale public works, formal plans and policies, and in the frequent participation of governmental actors in practices. Practices also typically raised high and often varied expectations on their performances in this planning realm. Using design-led approaches in planning decision-making was not new in the Netherlands in the 1980s. On the contrary, such use can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century, when urban planning emerged as a distinguished discipline. By then, the Dutch designer Cornelis van Eesteren became a prominent figure in a European-wide debate on where to take the new discipline in the future (Van Rossem, 2014). In the Netherlands, in collaboration with the more analyticallyminded Theodoor Karel van Lohuizen, he established design as a way to synthesise a deep understanding of spatial development with political aspirations, in the form of simple, and persuasive planning principles and to thus enhance the spatial quality of plans (Van Bergeijk, 2015, Van der Valk, 1990). However, expectations concerning the performances of design-led approaches accumulated from the 1980s onward. When regulatory land-use planning came to be seen as an approach that “stifles entrepreneurial initiative, [and] impedes innovation” (Klosterman, 1985, p.2) regional design came to be seen as an artistic, and creative practice that bears unexpected, inspiring and inventive results; a way to mobilise "thinking capacity" in the realm of planning (Ministeries van OCW et al., 1996, p.18). When decentralisation and regional governance became issues in Dutch planning, regional design became expected to perform not only in discussion on spatial matters, but in political and organisational realms too. When efficiency became a major aspiration of Dutch spatial planning, the use of regional design in planning decision-making gained an efficiency rationale as well. The national government argued that the practice “is crucial in accelerating (administrative) processes by curbing the complexity and uncertainty that characterises contemporary tasks” (Ministeries van I&M et al., 2012, p.9, my translation). It became expected to lead to a “better, faster, and therefore cheaper process” (idem). In parallel to these accumulating expectations (outlined in Table 1.1), the use of regional design in planning decision-making underwent a process of formalisation, in particular within the realm of Dutch national spatial planning. While the national government had first been involved in the practices incidentally from around 2000 and onward its engagement became more structural. The scope of policies aimed at stimulating architectural design practice through dedicated funding mechanisms was enlarged in the period, to include design with a concern about high levels of scale (Ministeries van OCW et al., 1996). During frequent reforms of these policies, fundable design practice became more and more thoroughly tied in with national spatial-planning agendas (Stegmeijer et al., 2012). In 2010, regional design became a mandatory moment in decision-making for large scale infrastructural projects (Enno Zuidema Stedebouw et al., 2011, Ministerie van I&M, 2010). Policy makers who promoted this formalisation assumed that interactive regional-design processes can, when employed at an early stage of implementation processes, explicate interdependencies among planning issues at different scales, facilitate discussions on these and in this way help to avoid conflict, delay and costs at later stages. In 2012, regional-design practice became associated with the set up top sector policy, a national policy aimed at an enhancement of internationally operating economic sectors (Ministeries van I&M et al., 2012). Representatives of the national government started to advertise the practice among an international audience of planners and entrepreneurs in urban development, during trade missions for instance. Under the header ‘a Dutch approach’, regional design came to be seen as a marketable export product

Brauereigewerbe - 2003 trotz Supersommer ein Jahr mit Rückgang des Bierabsatzes

Das deutsche Brauereigewerbe ist zwar eine noch überwiegend mittelständisch geprägte Branche mit regionaler Vielfalt, aber in den letzten Jahren findet auch dort ein starker Konzentrationsprozess statt: Etwa 50 Großbrauereien mit über 500 000 Hektoliter Jahresproduktion halten inzwischen einen Anteil von ca. drei Viertel am Gesamtumsatz der Branche. Der mengenmäßige Bierabsatz insgesamt in Deutschland ist in der vergangenen Dekade um knapp 9% gesunken, 2003 ging er gegenüber dem Vorjahr um 2,1% zurück, der versteuerte Inlandsabsatz sogar um 3,4%

Research approach

Regional design is a collaborative and interactive social practice that includes a broad array of actors with a multiplicity of different interests. It is concerned with the built environment, which is itself a complex system. As noted in the Introduction, regional design triggers multiple expectations but its performances have rarely been evaluated. There are only a few scholarly writings that are dedicated to the topic; these elaborate upon a multitude of theoretically founded interrelations among regional design and spatial planning but draw on a narrow empirical evidence base. In such a context it is important to first detail and stabilise propositions; and exploratory case-study research is an appropriate research methodology to do so (Yin, 2013). Conditions that qualify such research include a well-motivated selection of consistent cases, suited to explore a proposition internally, and to generalise outcomes. These cases should be ones that exist prior to any exploration, be well-documented through a variety of (preferably) publicly accessible sources, and be spread over time. How these conditions were met in this research will be explained briefly below