Search results

The last enlargements of the European Union (EU) shifted the geographical focus of the periphery from the south to the east, upgrading the position of many southern European countries and regions, which were already in a process of convergence with the EU average. The current financial/economic crisis, however, which has particularly hit southern European countries, revitalized the traditional core-periphery division, known as the North-South divide. In parallel, the relocation of economic activity (industrial production and services) within the EU territory, from western-core countries to the eastern periphery, raised the competitiveness and economic significance of many areas in the new, vis-a-vis the old, periphery, leading to the emergence of a number of new centres in its metropolitan regions. A number of questions are raised in the context of the above development, such as: Which factors underlie the differences in growth paths and ‘resilience’ between the eastern vis-à-vis the southern periphery? How important has the industrial relocation from the West to the East been? And what has been the general impact of the EU’s Cohesion Policy? What would the implications of a possible further expansion towards the EU’s ‘Eastern Neighbours’ be on its core-periphery pattern? This chapter approaches critically some of the above issues, adopting a qualitative methodology with the use of graphical presentations. In its conclusions, the chapter examines the appropriateness of the new economic geography’s theoretical interpretation.

This research aims to develop a model that may be used to determine the effective adaptive measures to implement in a system affected by climate change.

The three primary dimensions of the model were individually investigated and then the linkages among them were developed. Specifically, the nature of climate change was examined and the issues emerging from the changes were analyzed. Next, an intensive study of system vulnerabilities was conducted, and the third factor in the model, risk, is then explored. Afterwards, the conceptual framework, which is the foundation of the climate change vulnerability risk model, was devised and the model created.

The model is a three‐dimensional matrix with the nature of climate change, vulnerabilities, and risks as its chief dimensions. It identifies the four natures of climate change, namely: variability, intensity, frequency, and quantity and the vulnerability types to be socio‐economic, biophysical, technological, and institutional. Meanwhile, risks are classified as income, biodiversity, health, mortality, and infrastructure risks.

The research is the first phase of a three‐stage study on the linkages among climate change, vulnerability, and risks. It is the development stage of the framework that exemplifies the interrelationships among these variables and is the basis of the statistical and econometric analyses in the later stages.

The climate change vulnerability risk model was developed to act as an analytical guide in understanding the effects of climate change to systems. The model may be used to determine the effective adaptive measures to apply in the system, through a comparative analysis of the variables in the matrix.