Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
7. Accessibility, infrastructure and services in mountain
areas
A number of key challenges for people living in mountain areas relate to their
comparative disadvantage with regard to all types of infrastructure and services. This
disadvantage includes two sets of issues: peripherality and constraints to access to
facilities within and close to mountain regions.
In order to assess these disadvantages, different accessibility indicators have been
calculated. Accessibility and peripherality indicators are often used to identify regions
whose geographical position is remote and whose transport infrastructure needs to be
improved. Fundamentally, a peripherality indicator can be interpreted as an inverse
function of accessibility, i.e. the higher the accessibility, the less peripheral is a region
and vice versa. Accessibility indicators can be used to analyse peripherality in several
ways. For instance, regions can be classified into central and peripheral regions,
impacts of different policy measures such as transport investments can be evaluated,
or impacts of accessibility on regional development can be analysed. Accessibility
indicators can be defined to reflect both within-region transport infrastructure and
infrastructure outside the region which affect it. For example, the following indicators
are often used in literature as basic accessibility indicators (starting from simple to
more complex indicators):
• total lengths of motorways, number of railway stations (infrastructure measures);
• travel time to the nearest nodes of interregional networks (travel time indicators);
• accumulated travel cost to a set of activities (travel cost indicators);
• accumulated activities in a given travel time (daily accessibility);
• accumulated activities weighted by a function of travel cost (potential).
All these indicators are used to assess the quality of a transport system, or, with
respect to infrastructure improvement programmes, to assess which regions are likely
to benefit from a certain transport project. By doing this, each indicator has its own
strengths and weaknesses, and focuses on certain aspects of accessibility.
The accessibility indicators used in this study are based on the assumption that the
‘attraction’ of a destination increases with size and declines with distance or travel
time or cost. Therefore both size and distance of destinations are taken into account.
The economic potential of a region is the total of destinations in all regions weighted
by a function of distance from the origin region. The potential for economic activity at
any location is a function of its proximity f(cij) to other economic centres and of its
economic size g(Wj).
Ai = ∑ g (W j ) f (cij )
j
Peripherality is then defined as an inverse function of potential accessibility.
The size of the destination is usually represented by regional population or an
economic indicator such as total regional gross domestic product (GDP) or total
regional income. This is the main idea of the ‘potential accessibility’ (Hansen, 1959;
Keeble et al., 1982; 1988; Schürmann et al., 1997; Schürmann and Talaat, 2000;
Wegener et al., 2000). Potential indicators are frequently expressed in percent of
105
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
average accessibility of all regions or, if changes of accessibility are studied, in
percent of average accessibility of all regions in the base year of the comparison.
For this study, two types of potential indicators have been calculated: national and
European peripherality indicators. The former only consider origin-destination-pairs
where the origin and destination municipality are located in the same country; hence
the averages used to standardise accessibility values are the national averages applied
for each country individually. Such indicators are used to evaluate whether mountain
ranges are located remotely within a national context. In contrast, the European
peripherality indicators evaluate whether a mountain range is located remotely within
an overall European context, which can give a picture that is different from the
national perspectives. It considers all origin-destination-pairs, applying the European
average simultaneously to all municipalities.
Besides the potential accessibility and peripherality indicators, daily accessibility
(number of people living within a radius of 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 4 hours from
an origin), travel time indicators, and infrastructure measures have also been
calculated. Travel time indicators have been calculated to capital cities, regional
cities, universities, and airports. Infrastructure measures are represented by the density
of roads and railways, and the number of airports.
7.1 Peripherality
The first pair of maps (Figures 7.1 and 7.2) contrasts the peripherality by car of
mountain municipalities for the study area as a whole, and for individual countries,
respectively. Figure 7.1 shows a very clear centre-periphery pattern across Europe,
with the highest values in the European core of Germany and neighbouring states.
Figure 7.2 shows the pattern for mountain municipalities in individual countries; it
should be noted that the colour scale is different to that of Figure 7.1 and is based on
national averages, rather than the European average. This pattern is far more complex.
While certain areas, including the mountain municipalities of northern Norway, most
of Sweden and Finland, the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (UK), and the
Mediterranean islands, stand out as being peripheral at both European and national
scales, other municipalities are much more accessible when the national level is
considered. Figure 7.2 also shows the clear contrast between different sides of
individual massifs and mountain ranges, such as the Alps and the Pyrenees.
106
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.1 Peripherality by car to population for mountain municipalities: European
level
107
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.2 Peripherality by car to population for mountain municipalities: national
level
108
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Peripherality involves access not only to facilities, but also to centres of political
power - particularly capital cities (Figure 7.3) - where many policies relating to
mountain areas are made. A number of massifs can be seen to be far from capital
cities - e.g., the Fennoscandian Mountains, the Highlands of Scotland (UK), the
Bavarian Alps, the French Alps and Pyrenees, Corsica (France), the Italian Alps and
Sicily, and Catalunya (Spain). However, such problems of political peripherality may
be counter-balanced by strong regional government, for instance in Bavaria
(Germany), northern Italy, Spain, and Scotland (UK). Another simple method of
measuring peripherality is in terms of airline distance (‘as the crow flies’) to large
cities where diverse services can be found. Figure 7.4 shows the result for
municipalities with respect to distance to the nearest three cities with a population of
100,000 or more. No mountain areas appear to be particularly disadvantaged except
for those in peripheral areas with low population densities, e.g., much of the
Fennoscandian Mountains, the Highlands of Scotland (UK), Corsica (France),
Sardinia (Spain), and Crete and other Greek islands. Again, all of these areas have
‘permanent natural handicaps’ in the context of social and economic cohesion.
The expansion of transport networks is an essential means of decreasing the effects of
peripherality, and is also vital for the development of tourism, a major component of
the economy in many mountain areas. A number of mountain ranges and massifs are
quite well served with motorways: particularly the Alps, the Apennines, and the
middle mountains of Germany (Figure 7.5). The mountains of Germany, Slovakia, the
northern and central Alps, and the Sudety Mountains of the Czech Republic and
neighbouring countries, are also well-served with railways (Figure 7.6).
Differences in motorway infrastructure supply are complemented by data on traffic
volumes on trunk roads. A European-wide census on road traffic on E-roads was
published in 1995 (UN, 1995). This covered almost the entire European continent,
with the exception of Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and
Russia. Another census was conducted in 2003, but the results are not yet available.
Figure 7.7 presents the census results for 1995 in terms of average daily traffic at peak
hour. The map shows that many massifs – e.g., all Nordic massifs, all massifs in
Eastern Europe, and most massifs in Spain and Portugal – have rather low levels of
traffic due to their:
• peripheral location (see Figure 7.1):
• lack of infrastructure (most of the E-roads only touch mountain ranges, but do
not cross them) (see Figure 7.5);
• relatively poor transport demand (low population densities, low car ownership
rates).
Other massifs show rather different pictures. In particular, the Alps have very large
traffic flows, most being through-traffic to/from Italy: not only for the Brenner route,
but also for all transit routes in Switzerland, routes through France, and other routes
through Austria. Linked to this phenomenon, the motorways in the Po lowland and
Apennines (Italy) and southern Bavaria (Germany) also experience high traffic flows.
Most of the German and also English mountains also suffer from high transport
volumes. In other parts of Europe, only mountain areas close to urban agglomerations
show similar high traffic loads (e.g., the areas around Barcelona, Naples, Oslo or
Porto). Only two of the four major routes crossing the Pyrenees show relatively high
transport volumes: these are the two coastal routes.
109
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.3. Airline distance to national capital cities from massifs
110
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.4. Average airline distance from municipalities to next three cities with
population >100,000
111
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.5. Density of motorways per massif
112
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.6. Density of railways per massif
113
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.7. Traffic flows on E-roads in 1995
114
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Traffic flows have become a sensitive issue in mountain areas, in particular because a
significant proportion of this traffic does not originate in or travel to mountain areas,
but is transit traffic. Recent traffic surveys conducted by the Swiss Federal Office for
Spatial Development (ARE 2003) showed that, while some transit traffic through the
Alps comprises flows between distant countries such as Benelux and Italy, a
significant proportion is short-distance traffic, originating and terminating in the same
country: e.g., traffic from France to France through Switzerland. This reflects certain
geographical features, i.e. the spatial configuration of the borders and road
alignments, so that it is often shorter to travel through a neighbouring country rather
than to make a detour. It can be assumed that this characteristic applies to all massifs
along national borders. In the case of Switzerland, such traffic accounts for 1% of
Germany-Germany and Italy-Italy flows, and 2% of France-France flows (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1. Types of traffic and international routes in cross-border passenger traffic
2001 (average daily traffic and distribution) (ARE, 2003)
Type of traffic
Route
Road
Rail
Person trips per %
day
Person trips per %
day
Domestic
CH-CH
15,621
2
527
1
Originating and
terminating traffic
CH-IT
CH-FR
CH-DE
CH-AT
CH-other
196,123
362,463
267,264
74,573
10,716
20
36
27
8
1
9,627
7,773
17,773
1,867
1,570
24
19
42
5
4
Transit traffic
DE-DE
FR-FR
IT-IT
DE-IT
FR-IT
Benelux-IT
Other
12,488
17,921
6,343
13,120
3,402
2,984
10,959
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
3
4
0
1,187
493
363
243
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
993,977
100
40,738
100
Total
With regard to freight transport, it is to be expected that long-distance through-traffic
through not only the Alps, but also other massifs such as the Pyrenees will grow
rapidly. For instance, long-distance through-traffic in Austria accounted for 30% of
overall road freight transport in 1998. A recent study concluded that volumes of longdistance freight transport will increase by about 70% by 2015 (see Table 7.2).
115
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Table 7.2. Average number of heavy vehicles (>3.5t) per day in long-distance traffic
through Austria (after Herry, 2000; Rosinak, 2003)
Corridor
1998
2015
Danube corridor
Brenner corridor
Tauern corridor
South-east corridor
10,400
5,200
3,200
4,800
14,500
8,600
5,900
6,200
These brief spotlights on the situation in Switzerland and Austria can only give hints
about the severe problems caused by transit traffic in mountain ranges, which are
usually very local (e.g., air pollution, noise, land take). As the EU expands, it is to be
expected that transport loads of E-roads in the acceding countries will catch up to the
level experienced along most E-roads in Western Europe. This will put additional
burden on massifs in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
However, at present, there is a clear West-East divide not only in trunk road
infrastructure supply, but also in traffic flows on major arteries in Europe.
To complement existing transport infrastructure, and to overcome some of the
problems addressed above, a number of projects are planned. These include the
projects within the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN) (European
Commission 1995; 1998; 1999; 2002a; 2002b; European Communities 1996) for the
EU member states as well as the TINA networks for the accession countries (TINA
Secretariat 1999; 2002): the priority projects passing through mountain areas are
listed in Annex 5. Only a few of these priority projects involve roads (Portugal/Spain,
Ireland/UK); the majority are railway projects (Figure 7.8), improving access to and
through the Alps, the Apennines, the Pyrenees and other Spanish mountains, and the
lower mountains of England, France, Germany, and Portugal. In addition, the new
tunnels under the Swiss Alps should be mentioned. Recently, the European
Commission proposed new priority projects based on suggestions of the Van Miert
High Level Group, which also took account of the situation in the accession countries
(European Commission 2003; High Level Group 2003).
Most of these projects are dedicated to tackling capacity problems relating to longdistance through-traffic. Although these projects are expected to attract traffic from
other (local) roads and railways, it is doubtful whether they can contribute to solving
local or regional transport bottlenecks within mountain ranges, because the orientation
of regional transport relations within massifs is usually somewhat different from the
orientation of international transport relations.
116
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.8. TEN programme: Railway priority projects
117
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
7.2 Access to services
With regard to access to services within and close to mountain regions, the rough
terrain means that the costs of constructing and maintaining transport infrastructure
are significantly higher than in lowland areas; and costs are often increased by the
need to provide protection against natural hazards such as avalanches and rockfalls.
The lack of flat terrain, and the dangers of flying in mountain areas, limits the
possibilities of constructing airports. With regard to other services - e.g., medical,
education - lack of easy physical access is often compounded by the fact that
populations are small and spread over relatively large areas. Consequently, mountain
people often have to travel far from their homes to gain access to such services,
especially at higher levels (e.g., specialised hospitals, universities).
Indicators to facilities situated at one location were calculated initially at the NUTS 5
level, to obtain measures for each mountain municipality. In a second step, these
statistics were aggregated to the massif level. Data and analyses are presented here
with respect to access to airports, universities, and hospitals, which can be seen as key
facilities. Unfortunately, data to other facilities such as schools was not available.
Airports
There is a balanced spatial distribution of all international, regional and local (or
minor) airports across Europe (Figure 7.9). Almost all regions in the study area have
several airports, except some regions in Spain, the eastern part of Poland and some
regions in the Baltic States. Though mountainous areas have difficult topographic
conditions for constructing airports, most of them are also well equipped with airport
facilities (Annex 6). This is important for both mountain inhabitants and tourists.
Nearly all countries with a significant mountain area have some airports within
mountain ranges; exceptions are Cyprus, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the UK. In
Switzerland, Greece, Norway, and Austria at least half the airports are in mountain
areas (Figure 7.10). However, if the type of airport is differentiated, only one
international airport is located within a massif: Nice Cote d'Azur (France). All other
airports located within mountain areas are regional or minor airports.
118
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.9. Location of airports with in average at least one flight per week
119
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.10. Relative proportion of airports in mountain and lowland areas
Figure 7.11 shows potential accessibility to airports from mountain municipalities.
This potential was calculated using the formula described at the beginning of this
chapter, except that the size of each airport is represented by its annual number of
flights. Most mountain ranges stand out as having relatively low accessibility to
airports of any size i.e., most mountain municipalities are than 60 minutes drive from
an airport (Figure 7.12). In particular, massifs in Scandinavia and in Greece, southern
Italy and the Iberian Peninsula, as well as all massifs in the acceding countries, have
very low accessibilities to airports, i.e., a large proportion of the population lives more
than one hour’s car travel time away from the nearest airport. However, the relative
good access to airports from many mountain municipalities in parts of the Alps, the
German low mountains, and northern Italy is evident.
If airports are grouped by massif (Figure 7.13), the massifs with the highest number of
airports are those in northern Scandinavia, in particular in Norway; and the isolated
massifs located on Spanish, Greek, and Portuguese islands. All these massifs are
remote and isolated, with difficult conditions for road and rail access, hence aviation
networks are of importance to ensure a minimum level of accessibility.
Airports are rather well spread out across Europe. In the British Isles and Scandinavia,
for example, numerous airports with regular traffic can be found in very sparsely
populated areas (Figure 7.9). This illustrates the importance of this mode of
transportation for such peripheral mountain areas, as well as others, such as the
Canary Islands. In these and other mountain areas, many airports are also of critical
importance for tourism. Altogether, airports located in massifs offer at least 18,878
flights per year and attract some 26.4 million passengers per year (Annex 6); these are
underestimates as annual data for numbers of flights are not available for all airports.
120
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.11. Potential accessibility to airports for mountain municipalities
121
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.12. Massif population more than one hour from nearest airport
122
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.13. Number of airports per massif
123
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Universities
Lack of access to higher education has long been identified as a critical constraint to
development in mountain areas. To gain university-level education, the brightest
young people have nearly always had to leave their home region; and many do not
return. New information and communications technologies (ICT), such as the internet
and video-conferencing, are mitigating against this aspect of peripherality, for
instance with the ongoing development of a university for the Highlands and Islands
of Scotland (UK), linking 11 colleges, three research centres, and ‘learning centres’ in
over 60 communities. Such initiatives, however, require major investments in
telecommunications infrastructure - which can have other benefits for business and
other purposes in mountain areas - and in the development of new university courses
for remote delivery.
The present distribution of universities in relation to mountain areas, transition zones,
and lowland areas is shown in Figure 7.14. This shows that the number of universities
in a country varies considerably, with 102 in France, 75 in the UK, 72 in Germany, 48
in Spain, and 42 in Italy among the EU Member States; and lower numbers in the
acceding countries, where the countries with the most universities are Poland (23) and
Romania (22). A number of EU Member States have a significant proportion of
universities within their mountains, notably Greece (60%) Austria (38%), Portugal
(29%), Italy (29%), and Spain (27%). Of the acceding countries, 75% of Slovenia’s
universities are in mountain areas, 40% in Bulgaria and Slovakia, and 23% in
Romania. Most (80%) of Switzerland’s universities are within mountains as defined
in this study; and half of Norway’s (see Annex 7).
At the scale of the study area, an even greater proportion of universities is in transition
zones, particularly in the Member States of Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy, and
France; and the acceding countries of the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary,
Slovakia, and Bulgaria (Figure 7.15).
When looking at the potential accessibility to universities (Figure 7.16; calculated
using the formula at the beginning of this chapter, using the number of students to
represent the size of the destination), the well-known centre-periphery picture
appears: mountain ranges in Germany, (eastern) France, the Czech Republic, Austria
and northern Switzerland show highest potential accessibilities, whereas mountain
ranges in Scandinavia, in Romania, Bulgaria and Greece, on the Italian and French
islands and in southern Spain have levels significantly below the European average.
This translates into high proportions of the populations of these massifs living more
than one hour by car from the nearest university (Figure 7.17). The worst situation in
this respect can be found in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and parts of Spain. Although
this proportion is also high for massifs in Scandinavia, the situation is somewhat
different from the other countries, because the absolute number of persons is
relatively low.
124
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.14. Universities in mountain areas, transition zones, and lowland areas
125
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.15. National distribution of universities in mountain areas, transition zones,
and lowland areas
In summary, all major mountain ranges appear to be relatively well-served with
universities; though access to them is quite different, and a further critical question is
whether they deliver courses that are relevant for the needs of mountain people.
Nevertheless, more detailed investigation shows two trends: first, that many
universities within mountain areas are close to their edges and, second, that many
universities in transition zones are quite close to the mountains. This is illustrated in
Figure 7.18 for an area including much of the Alps and the northern Apennines. These
trends mean that access to higher education remains difficult for many mountain
people unless they live close to the edges of their respective mountain ranges; and
again emphasises the importance of transition zones as functional extensions of
mountain areas.
126
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.16 Potential accessibility to universities by mountain municipality
127
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.17. Massif population more than one hour from the nearest university
128
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.18. Location of universities in parts of the Alps and northern Apennines
129
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Hospitals
As hospitals are a further type of major public infrastructure, access to hospitals has
been analysed as being crucial for public health care. Figure 7.19 shows the location
of hospitals with more than 300 beds in Europe. Unfortunately, data for the UK, the
Czech Republic and the three Baltic states were not available; and for Cyprus only the
location of hospitals but not the numbers of beds were available. Nevertheless, in
general, the distribution of major hospitals across Europe is rather even. Particularly
France and Germany, but also some of acceding countries, such as Poland or
Romania, have a rather good supply of hospitals. However, the number of hospitals in
mountain areas is significantly lower than in lowlands as shown, for instance by the
Nordic massifs, as well as the Alps and Iberian massifs.
This finding is reinforced by Figure 7.20, which shows the number of hospitals (left)
and the number of hospital beds (right) per inhabitant by massifs. The highest
densities of hospitals and hospital beds are in eastern Germany, Poland, Italy and
some of the Spanish massifs. Surprisingly, the density is rather low in Switzerland,
western Germany, parts of Spain and most of the massifs in Scandinavia. There could
be two reasons for this. Either countries such as Switzerland apply different standards
with respect to the hospital/inhabitant ratio, or the medical health facilities in such
mountain ranges are usually smaller in size (below 300 beds). Nevertheless, a number
of massifs have no major hospital (i.e. hospital with more than 300 beds):
• Austria: Austrian Bohemian mountains;
• Belgium: Belgian Ardennes;
• Finland: Mountain Lappland;
• France: French Ardennes, Northern Vosges, Cotes bourguignonne;
• Greece: mountains and isolated mountain areas, i.e. Olympos and Central
Greece, Crete, Aegean island mountains;
• Ireland: all isolated mountain areas (Connacht mountains, Cumbria, Donegal
mountains, Kerry mountains, Mourne mountains, Slieve Bloom mountains,
Waterford mountains, Wicklow);
• Luxembourg: Luxembourg Ardennes;
• Norway: Finmark and Northern Troms, Trondelag (Border area),
Jotunheimen-Rondane-Dovre massif, Hardangervidda (Southern mountain
areas);
• Portugal: isolated mountain areas, such as Complexo estremenho, Serra
Algarvia and other non-massif mountain areas;
• Spain: Balearic Islands, Sierra Morena;
• Sweden: Lappland massif, Vasterbotten, Aangermanland, Vaermland.
At the European scale, these include both peripheral massifs and some centrally
located ones, such as the Vosges and the Ardennes in France, Belgium, and
Luxembourg. This finding should be given due attention in the policy arena, given
that hospital infrastructure is a fundamental public service.
130
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.19. Location of hospitals with more than 300 beds
131
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.20. Number of hospitals per inhabitant (left) and number of hospital beds
per inhabitant (right) by massif
Figure 7.21 shows the number of hospitals in mountain areas, the three buffer zones
and in the remaining lowland area. It shows that, in some smaller countries (e.g.
Austria, Switzerland, and Slovakia), a significant proportion of hospitals are located
in mountain areas, due to their typically mountainous characteristics. To some extent,
this also holds true for some larger countries such as Italy or Spain. Looking at the
transition areas, for Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Romania and some other
countries, almost all hospitals are located either in mountain areas or in the buffer
zones. Even in Germany three-fourths of the hospitals are located in these areas; in
France, about one-third.
Although the spatial distribution of hospitals looks very even at a first glance, there
are considerable differences in terms of average driving time by car to the next
hospital (Figure 7.22). While for some countries, such as Germany, Poland, Hungary
or Slovakia, almost all mountain municipalities fall within one hour’s driving time,
the opposite is true for Sweden, Finland, Norway, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and
large parts of Spain. Average driving times of more than one hour to the nearest major
hospital also characterise the central parts of the Alps in Austria, Switzerland and
France, many parts of the Apennines, and the Massif Central (France). Further detail
is provided by Figure 7.23, which shows the significant numbers of mountain
inhabitants more than one hour's driving time from the nearest major hospital. Even
where the proportion of the massif population in this category is relatively low, the
absolute numbers can be rather large, as in the mountains of Italy, Romania, and
much of Spain and the Alps. Particularly in the mountains of most of Greece and
Fennoscandia, both the proportion and absolute numbers are rather high.
132
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.21. Number of hospitals by spatial category
Number of hospitals by spatial category
500
Remaining lowland
450
50 km buffer
400
10 km buffer
20 km buffer
Number of hospitals
Mountains
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
SI
SK
PL
RO
MT
NO
CY
HU
BG
CH
PT
SE
NL
IT
LU
IE
GR
FI
FR
ES
DK
DE
AT
BE
0
Country
The relatively short travel times from some parts of the massifs can again be
explained by the specific role of the transition areas. Figure 7.24 shows parts of the
Alps and the Northern Apennines. Similar to the spatial distribution of universities
shown in Figure 7.18, while the density of large hospitals in the massifs itself is low,
hospitals are located at regular intervals along the fringes of the massifs, providing
medical care for the inhabitants of both mountainous areas and neighbouring
lowlands.
Synthesis
This analysis of accessibility of major public services from a mountain perspective
reveals the following preliminary findings:
• the overall spatial distribution of services such as airports, universities and
hospitals across Europe can be considered balanced;
• all major mountain ranges are well served with such facilities;
• however, the number and density of such services within mountains is lower than
in the lowland areas, which leads to distinct travel time and accessibility patterns;
• transition areas play crucial roles in providing access to such services. In many
parts of Europe, facilities located in transition areas compensate for missing
facilities within mountain ranges;
• there are clear differences in infrastructure service supply between northern
Europe, central Europe, and southern Europe, and also between current EU
Member States and the acceding countries.
133
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.22. Average driving time to next hospital from mountain municipalities
134
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.23. Number of persons at more than one hour from the nearest hospital
135
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.24. Location of hospitals in parts of the Alps and northern Apennines
7.3. Tourism facilities
As noted in Chapters 1 and 6, tourism is an increasingly important element of the
economy of many of Europe’s mountain areas, but its importance varies greatly at
every scale. Given the current and potential importance of this sector, considerable
effort was made to obtain comparable statistics for the mountain areas of the study
area. However, while national-level tourism statistics are available from national
agencies and through international organisations such as the World Tourism
Organisation and the World Travel and Tourism Council, disaggregated statistics that
relate specifically to tourism in mountain areas are not available for many countries.
In addition, there are considerable differences in definitions and types of statistics
collected – for instance, with regard to domestic and international tourists,
136
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
accommodation capacity, and length of stay – and these are collected at various
spatial scales.
The only indicators of tourism facilities that could be obtained in a consistent way
across most of the mountain areas of the study area relate to downhill skiing. It should
be recognised that, in most massifs, this activity is concentrated in a relatively small
number of ski resorts. Figure 7.25 shows the density of ski slopes in different massifs.
The dominance of the Alps is clear, but there are also many ski areas in the Pyrenees.
Figure 7.27 shows the density of all ski lifts (cable cars, chair lifts, pull-lifts etc.). The
data on which this map is based are somewhat crude, in that they record only the
number of lifts, and not their length or uphill transport capacity. Again, the Alps are
particularly well-supplied; but the density of facilities in the Sudetes of the Czech
Republic, the Carpathians of Slovakia and French Pyrenees and Vosges is also
notable. These two maps reveal the interaction of two factors which have driven the
development of downhill skiing within Europe: the scale of the topography, and
accessibility to major centres of population. The Alps are high mountains and
accessible to a large proportion of the European population (see Figure 7.1). Similar
statements can be made about the Pyrenees, particularly on the French side.
Conversely, high mountains such as those of Norway and Sweden are far from major
centres of population, and ski facilities are relatively sparse; though there are more
lifts in the southern mountain regions near the main centres of population in these
countries (see Figure 7.2). The relatively high density of ski lifts in the lower ranges
of the Sudetes and Carpathians may reflect good accessibility to national populations;
but possibly also relatively large numbers of lifts with relatively low capacity in the
ski resorts of these mountain ranges.
Despite its high visibility, this form of winter tourism is only one pillar of economic
development in mountain ranges. Recent studies suggest that this form of tourism is
more and more concentrated at very few ski resorts, while the number of ski tourists
in other municipalities is decreasing. For instance, Maier (2003), analysing the
number of overnight stays in the Bavarian Alps between 1995 and 2000, found an
increase in overnight stays only at resorts with an international reputation, such as
Oberstdorf, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, and Berchtesgaden, while other resorts
experienced quite the opposite phenomenon. Moreover, there seems go be another
underlying tendency: Maier (2003) also compared overnight stays in Northern Tyrol
and Eastern Tyrol between 1990 and 1998, and found that the quality of the hotels
chosen slightly changed. While the total number of stays decreased, and the number
of overnight stays in private accommodation and low-level hotels decreased, the
number of overnight stays at high-quality hotels increased.
Both phenomena together challenge many (former) skiing resorts and municipalities
when thinking about tourist development. Very few municipalities will be able to
successfully concentrate on winter skiing tourism – if climate change does not lead to
major changes in the availability of snow and temperatures that are low enough for
snowmaking. Many other resorts will have to develop different approaches to attract
people, many of them now focussing on so-called ‘sustainable tourism’ or
‘ecotourism’ (Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour, 2002). Alternative forms of
tourism include summer tourism (e.g. rafting, mountain biking, climbing, walking),
other forms of winter tourism, event-based, or culture tourism.
137
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.25. Density of ski slopes per massif
138
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.27. Density of ski lifts per massif
139
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
7.4 Energy production
Power stations are usually located in rural areas, supplying urban agglomerations with
electricity and power. A key question, therefore, is the role played by mountain areas
in producing energy.
Table 7.3 is based on more detailed data included in Annex 8. It contrasts the number
of power stations in massifs (differentiated by type) with the total number of power
stations by country (Figure 7.27), and shows that mountain areas play a crucial role
for power supply, particularly with respect to water power stations, but in some
countries also for other types of power stations. In Austria, Belgium, Switzerland,
Greece, and Sweden all water power stations are located in massifs; and the
proportion is also significant for other countries (Germany and Romania, 80%; Italy,
60%). This tendency is not surprising since mountain ranges offer topographic
conditions necessary to operate such stations. However, looking at other forms of
power generation, some 50% of all Austrian gas, oil and coal power stations are
located in mountain areas; in Greece the proportion increases to about 75%, and in
Bulgaria to about 80%. Nuclear power stations are also located in mountain areas: two
out of three in Switzerland, six out of ten in Spain. While one reason might be
political – remotely located mountain ranges with sparse populations – another relates
to the availability of cooling water. In total, 26.5% of existing power stations in
Europe are located in mountain areas (also considering countries that have no
mountain areas: the Netherlands, Denmark, the Baltic countries, and Malta). Analysis
of planned power stations shows that almost 50% are proposed for mountain areas.
Clearly, the supply of electricity is a major role of mountain areas across Europe.
Table 7.3. Distribution and types of power stations
in use
planned
Number of power
stations located in
mountain areas
in use
planned
in use
planned
Austria
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
5
0
4
1
0
0
5
0
2
1
0
0
100.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
Belgium
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
1
7
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Denmark
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Finland
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
France
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
5
25
16
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
80.0
4.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
Germany
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
5
19
22
0
3
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
80.0
0.0
18.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Greece
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
1
0
8
0
1
0
1
0
6
0
1
0
100.0
0.0
75.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
Ireland
Water
Nuclear
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Country
Type of power
station
Total number of power
stations
140
Percent of power stations in
mountain areas
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Gas, oil, coal
4
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
Italy
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
5
3
23
2
0
1
3
0
9
2
0
0
60.0
0.0
39.1
100.0
0.0
0.0
Luxembourg
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Netherlands
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
2
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Portugal
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0.0
0.0
25.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
Spain
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
4
10
15
0
1
0
1
6
8
0
1
0
25.0
60.0
53.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
Sweden
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
4
4
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
UK
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
2
16
33
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
50.0
12.5
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bulgaria
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
1
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Czech
Republic
Water
2
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
1
8
1
0
0
3
1
0
0.0
37.5
100.0
0.0
Estonia
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hungary
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Latvia
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lithuania
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Poland
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
2
0
17
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
50.0
0.0
11.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Romania
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
5
0
13
0
2
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
80.0
0.0
30.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Slovakia
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Slovenia
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Norway
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
6
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Switzerland
Water
Nuclear
Gas, oil, coal
1
3
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
100.0
66.7
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
362
17
96
8
26.5
47.1
Totals
141
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.27. Location of power stations
142
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
7.5 Overview on infrastructure supply
Lack of infrastructure
As shown in the previous sections, although there is generally a well-balanced and
almost even supply of important infrastructure, some massifs lack important
infrastructure, such as universities, airports, or large hospitals. Therefore, the
following paragraphs provide insight into those massifs that are missing important
infrastructure features, giving special attention is given to these three key types of
public infrastructure.
As a synthesis, Figure 7.28 shows the availability of airports, large hospitals, and
universities by massif. Many massifs have all three types of infrastructure: the central
Alps, parts of the Apennines, and some of the Nordic massifs. However, even parts of
the Alps lack one of these facilities. The worst situation in this respect can be found in
mountain areas where none of these facilities is located in mountain areas: in Ireland
and, apparently, the UK and the Czech Republic (however, data on hospitals for the
latter countries were not available). A difficult situation can also be found in some
Spanish massifs or in some massifs in Scandinavia, where two out of three types of
facilities is missing. Annex 9 provides a comprehensive list of all massifs, indicating
in detail the availability of each type of facility.
Density of infrastructure
When analysing the supply of different types of infrastructure, one approach is to
combine them into a single aggregated indicator, recognising that the lack of one type
of infrastructure is often compensated by an over-supply of another. One way to
aggregate these measures is to calculate infrastructure densities per square kilometre.
This composite indicator constructed here combines the following measures:
• size and location of airports (see Figure 7.9);
• size and location of universities (see Figure 7.14);
• size and location of hospitals (see Figure 7.19);
• size and location of power stations (see Figure 7.27);
• location of railway stations;
• location of motorway exits;
• location of ports.
This indicator is calculated as the density of facilities per km² on a grid basis, i.e. on a
raster system of 10 x 10 km. Figure 7.29 presents the result of this exercise. The high
density of infrastructure in the Benelux countries, Germany, northern France, and
Switzerland is clear. In addition, there are north-south corridors in France, a corridor
from Munich to Vienna, corridors crossing the Alps (e.g., Brenner), areas with higher
densities in southern Poland and England, and some minor hotspots around capital
cities (e.g., Dublin, Helsinki, Prague, Stockholm, Warsaw). In this respect, some
massifs can be considered as real barriers. For example, the Pyrenees clearly divide
Spain from France; the northern Apennines subdivide Italy, and the German
Bohemian mountains separate Germany from the Czech Republic. The overall
picture is very similar to the accessibility maps presented earlier in this chapter.
Accessibility is highest where the density of infrastructure supply is highest, which in
turn correlates to population distribution.
143
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.28. Availability of airports, hospitals and universities in massifs
144
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
Figure 7.29. Infrastructure density
145
Mountain Areas in Europe – Final Report
7.6 Synthesis
In summary, the analysis of accessibility of major public services from a mountain
perspective reveals the following findings:
• the overall spatial distribution of services such as airports, universities and
hospitals across Europe can be considered balanced;
• all major mountain ranges are well served with such facilities;
• massifs play a crucial role in power generation and power supply for lowland
areas;
• the number and density of such services within mountain areas is lower than in
lowland areas, leading to distinct travel time and accessibility patterns;
• transition areas play crucial roles in providing access to such services. In many
parts of Europe, facilities located in transition areas compensate for missing
facilities within mountain ranges
• there are corridors through mountain ranges where infrastructure is concentrated
(e.g. the Brenner corridor). To some extent, this reflects topographic conditions
and historic developments, but is also an outcome of distinct spatial policies and
spatial planning;
• while the well-known centre-periphery picture emerges with regard to accessibility
to the different types of infrastructure, there is also a great variety within massifs,
and this is sometimes greater than the variety between massifs;
• the lack of one type of infrastructure in a massif may be compensated by an oversupply of another type of infrastructure;
• there is a clear divide in infrastructure service supply between northern Europe,
central Europe, and southern Europe, and between current EU Member States and
acceding countries.
Taking all these findings together, it is not possible to state that, in general, mountain
ranges are handicapped by poor accessibility or lack of infrastructure. In contrast, one
must look into each massif individually to find out the specific handicaps, and thus
identify needs for action. As an exception, a comparison of population development
with the lack of infrastructure suggests that the infrastructure provision in Romania,
Bulgaria, and Greece must be improved, to counteract negative population trends (see
Figure 5.10). These issues are further addressed in Chapter 10.
146