Inner peripheries: dealing with peripherality and marginality issues within the European policy framework


Abstract: Inner Peripheries is a complex and often misinterpreted concept, as demonstrated by current scientific evidence. Such complexity derives from the intrinsic peripherality and marginality characteristics of the Inner Peripheries. Despite Inner Peripheries suffer from geographical and socio-economic disparities, their environmental, social and economic potentialities are not fully expressed, and thus can be further strengthened by both the EU Cohesion and Rural Development Policies. However, there is currently a lack of knowledge about the linkages between the Inner Peripheries and both Cohesion and Rural Development Policies, which could limit the effectiveness of planning strategies in these territories. Therefore, through a structured review, we explore the linkages between Inner Peripheries and peripherality and marginality concepts and related criticalities and opportunities. Moreover, we consider the relationships between Inner Peripheries and Cohesion Policy Thematic Objectives and Rural Development Policy Priorities. The main findings show that the Inner Peripheries concept needs to be further explored, especially concerning the environmental aspects. Accordingly, we suggest that great challenges and opportunities currently exist in these territories, and combined policies efforts need to be oriented to strengthen the future sustainable development in the Inner Peripheries..


Key words: Review, Rural Development Policy, Cohesion Policy, Inner Areas. 


Resumen: Inner Peripheries es un concepto complejo y a menudo mal interpretado, como lo demuestran las pruebas científicas actuales. Tal complejidad deriva de sus intrínsecas características de periferia y marginalidad. A pesar de que las Inner Peripheries sufren de disparidades geográficas y socioeconómicas, sus potencialidades ambientales, sociales y económicas no se expresan completamente y, por lo tanto, pueden ser reforzadas por las Políticas de Cohesión y Desarrollo Rural de la UE. Sin embargo, actualmente existe una falta de conocimiento sobre los vínculos entre las Periferia Interior y las Políticas de Cohesión y Desarrollo Rural, lo que podría limitar la efectividad de las estrategias de planificación en estos territorios. A través de una revisión estructurada, exploramos los vínculos entre las Inner Peripheries y los conceptos de periferia y marginalidad y las críticas y oportunidades relacionadas. Además, consideramos las relaciones entre las Inner Peripheries y los objetivos temáticos de la Política de Cohesión y las Prioridades de la Política de Desarrollo Rural. Los principales hallazgos muestran que el concepto de Inner Peripheries necesita ser explorado más a fondo, especialmente en relación con los aspectos ambientales. Sugerimos que actualmente existen grandes desafíos y oportunidades en estos territorios, y que los esfuerzos de políticas combinadas deben orientarse para fortalecer el desarrollo sostenible futuro en las Inner Peripheries.


Palabras clave: Revisión; Política De Desarrollo Rural; Política De Cohesión; Áreas Internas.

Texto completo:

PDF (English)


Anđelković-Stoilković, M., Devedžić, M., & Vojković, G. (2018). The border regions of Serbia: Peripheral or marginal areas. Trames, 22 (2), 211-227.


Balestrieri, E., Boldi, F., Colavita, A. R., De Vito, L., Laudato, G., Oliveto, R., … Tudosa, I. (2019). The architecture of an innovative smart T-shirt based on the Internet of Medical Things paradigm. International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA). Retrieved from: (21/04/2020).


Barca, F. (2009). Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. European Communities. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Barca, F. (2012). Metodi e obiettivi per un uso efficace dei Fondi comunitari 2014-2020. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Barca, F., Casavola, P., & Lucatelli, S. (2014). A Strategy for Inner Areas in Italy: definition, objectives, tools and governance. Materiali UVAL Series, (31). 66 pp. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Bertaglia, M., Joost, S., & Roosen, J. (2007). Identifying European marginal areas in the context of local sheep and goat breeds conservation: A geographic information system approach. Agricultural Systems, 94 (3), 657-670.


Bock, B. (2016). Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation; a turn towards nexogenous development and rural reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis, 56 (4), 552-573.


Böhme, K. (2016). Territorial evidence supporting policy-making in Europe: How ESPON came, saw and conquered. disP-The Planning Review, 52 (2), 62-67. Retrieved from: (21/04/2020).


Boniface, P. (2000). Behind the scenes: Tourism, and heritage, in the periphery to the French Mediterranean coast. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6 (2), 129-144.


Brezzi, M., Dijkstra, L., & Ruiz, V. (2011). OECD Extended Regional Typology: The Economic Performance of Remote Rural Regions. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Burton, R. J. F., & Riley, M. (2018). Traditional Ecological Knowledge from the internet? The case of hay meadows in Europe. Land Use Policy, (70), 334-346.


Cañete, J., Navarro, F. and Cejudo, E. (2018). Territorially unequal rural development: the cases of the LEADER Initiative and the PRODER Programme in Andalusia (Spain). European Planning Studies, 27 (2), 396-414.


Carrosio, G. (2016). A place-based perspective for welfare recalibration in the Italian inner peripheries: the case of the Italian Strategy for Inner Areas. Sociologia e Politiche Sociali, 19 (3), 50-64.


Cecchi, C., & Basile, E. (2006). Public action and social capital in rural areas. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, (99), 137-146.


Cesaro, L., & Marongiu, S. (2017). Economic performance and profitability of agricultural holdings in Inner Areas. Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 7 (1), 100-124. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., … Turner, N. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 (6), 1462-1465.


Che, D. (2007). Agritourism and its potential contribution to the agricultural economy. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, (2).


Copus, A., Mantino, F., & Noguera, J. (2017). Inner peripheries: An oxymoron or a real challenge for territorial cohesion? Italian Journal of Planning Practice, VII (1), 24-49. Retrieved from: (15/04/2020).


Cortes-Vazquez, J. A. (2017). The end of the idyll? Post-crisis conservation and amenity migration in natural protected areas. Journal of Rural Studies, (51), 115-124.


Dax, T., & Copus, A. (2018). Towards vibrant, inclusive and sustainable rural regions: orientations for a future Rural Cohesion Policy. European Structural and Investments Funds Journal, 6 (3), 198-209. Retrieved from: (13/04/2020).


Dax, T., & Fischer, M. (2018). An alternative policy approach to rural development in regions facing population decline. European Planning Studies, (26), 297-315. (13/04/2020).


De Filippi, F., Coscia, C., Boella, G., Antonini, A., Calafiore, A., Cantini, A., … Schifanella, C. (2016). MiraMap: A We-Government Tool for Smart Peripheries in Smart Cities. IEEE Access, (4), 3824-3843.


Duquenne, M.-N., & Hadjou, L. (2011). A theoretical and methodological approach of “Fragile” Areas: the cases of Greek Regions crossed by the Egnetia road. Regional Science Inquiry, 0 (2), 45-58. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


ESPON (2013a). Inner Peripheries: a socio-economic territorial specifity. GEOSPECS (ESPON Project). Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


ESPON (2013b). Final Report. EDORA - European development opportunities for rural areas. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


ESPON (2017). Final Report. PROFECY - Processes, Features and Cycles of Inner Peripheries in Europe. Inner Peripheries: National territories facing challenges of access to basic services of general interest. Luxembourg. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


ESPON (2018). Inner Peripheries in Europe. Possible development strategies to overcome their marginalising effects. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


European Commission. (2015). Scenarios for Integrated Territorial Investments. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Fitjar, R.D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2011). Innovating in the periphery: Firms, values and innovation in Southwest Norway. European Planning Studies, 19 (4), 555-574.


Forleo, M. B., Giaccio, V., Giannelli, A., Mastronardi, L., & Palmieri, N. (2017). Socio-economic drivers, land cover changes and the dynamics of rural settlements: Mt. Matese area (Italy). European Countryside, 9 (3), 435-457.


Francini, M., Palermo, A., & Viapiana, M. F. (2017). Inland areas: An important territorial “slant” for the definition of integrated regional cohesion policies [Aree interne: Un’importante “inclinazione” territoriale per integrate politiche di coesione]. Territorio, (80), 132-139.


Friedmann, J. (1966). Regional development policy: a case study of Venezuela. Massachusetts. M.I.T. Press. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Garrod, B., & Wilson, J. C. (2004). Nature on the edge? marine ecotourism in peripheral coastal areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 (2), 95-120.  


Gripaios, P., Bishop, P., Gripaios, R., & Herbert, C. (1989). High Technology Industry in a Peripheral Area: The Case of Plymouth. Regional Studies, 23 (2), 151-157.


Hall, D., Birtwistle, M., & Gladstone, J. (2011). Semi-rural marginal areas, ‘lnbetween-ness’ and tourism integration in South-West Scotland. Tourism Recreation Research, 36 (1), 3-14. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Jacobs-Crisioni, C., Batista e Silva, F., Lavalle, C., Baranzelli, C., Barbosa, A., & Perpiña Castillo, C. (2016). Accessibility and territorial cohesion in a case of transport infrastructure improvements with changing population distributions. European Transport Research Review, 8 (1), 1-16.


Kebza, M. (2018). The development of peripheral areas: The case of West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland. Moravian Geographical Reports, 26 (1), 69-81.


Koloszko-Chomentowska, Z., & Sieczko, L. (2018). Peripheral rural areas in face of challenges of sustainable development. Engineering for Rural Development, (17), 1160-1165.


Kouřilová, J., & Pělucha, M. (2017). Economic and Social Impacts of Promoting Cultural Heritage Protection by the Czech Rural Development Programme 2007-2013. European Countryside, 9 (3), 486-503.


Kühn, M. (2015). Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio-Spatial Inequalities. European Planning Studies, 23 (2), 367-378.


Kvernflaten, B. (2019). Reinforcing marginality? Maternal health interventions in rural Nicaragua. Anthropology and Medicine, 26 (1), 87-103.


Labianca, M., & Navarro, F. (2019). Depopulation and aging in rural areas in the European Union: practices starting from the LEADER approach. In E. Cejudo and F. Navarro (eds.), Despoblación y transformaciones sociodemográficas de los territorios rurales: los casos de España, Italia y Francia. Perspectives on rural development, 3 (pp. 223-252), University of Salento.


Lapka, M., Cudlínová, E., Rikoon, S., & Bohác, J. (2001). Use of linear and non-linear approaches to solving the problems of marginal areas. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 4 (2), 157-176. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Las Casas, G., Murgante, B., & Scorza, F. (2016). Regional local development strategies benefiting from open data and open tools and an outlook on the renewable energy sources contribution. Green Energy and Technology, 275–290.


Leco, F., & Pérez, A. (2019). Desajustes territoriales en la distribución del Pago Básico de la PAC en España. Cuadernos Geográficos, 58 (3), 57-82.


Lotze-Campen, H., Verburg, P.H., Popp, A., Lindner, M., Verkerk, P.J., Moiseyev, A., … Bodirsky, B. (2018). A cross-scale impact assessment of European nature protection policies under contrasting future socio-economic pathways. Regional Environmental Change, 18 (3), 751-762.


Lucatelli, S., Carlucci, C., & Guerrizio, M. A. (2013). A Strategy for the “Inner Areas” of Italy. In M. Gather, A. Lüttmerding, J. Berding, & G. Pablos Villarroel (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd EURUFU (Education, Local Economy and Job Opportunities in Rural Areas) Scientific Conference. Asti (Italy), 8 October. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Mackenzie, R. H., & McEldowney, J. J. (1990). Reducing the effects of peripherality within the European Community. Planner, 76 (30), 9-13. ISSN: 0309-1384 Retrieved from


Máliková, L., & Klobučník, M. (2017). Differences in the rural structure of Slovakia in the context of socio-spatial polarisation. Quaestiones Geographicae, 36 (2), 125-140.


Mann, C., & Plieninger, T. (2017). The potential of landscape labelling approaches for integrated landscape management in Europe. Landscape Research, 42 (8), 904-920.


Mantino, F., & De Fano, G. (2015). New concepts for territorial rural development in Europe: the case of Inner Areas in Italy. In K. Brown, M. Currie, R. do Carmo, J. Duncan, M. Kohe, A. Koutsouris, … M. Woods (eds.), European Society for Rural Sociology Congress. Proceedings of Proceedings of the XXVI Congress. Places of Possibility? Rural Societies in a Neoliberal World, (pp. 101-102). Scotland. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Marchetti, M., De Toni, A., Sallustio, L., & Tognetti, R. (2017). Criticità e opportunità di sviluppo per le aree interne. In M. Marchetti, A. De Toni, L. Sallustio,  & R. Tognetti (eds.), Aree interne. Per una rinascita dei territori rurali e montani (pp. 27–37), Rubbettino Editore.


Marchetti, M., Vizzarri, M., Lasserre, B., Sallustio, L., & Tavone, A. (2014). Natural capital and bioeconomy: Challenges and opportunities for forestry. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 38 (2), 62-73.


Marino, D., & Pellegrino, D. (2018). Can payments for ecosystem services improve the management of natura 2000 sites? A contribution to explore their role in Italy. Sustainability, 10 (3), 665.


Matthews, A. (2016). Research for AGRI Committee, CAP Reform Post-2020, Challenges in Agriculture. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Ministry of National Development and VÁTI Nonprofit Ltd. (2011). The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union. Background document of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Nagy, E., Timár, J., Nagy, G., & Velkey, G. (2015). The Everyday Practices of the Reproduction of Peripherality and Marginality in Hungary. In T. Lang, S. Henn, W. Sgibnev, & K. Ehrlich (eds.), Understanding Geographies of Polarization and Peripheralization: Perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe and Beyond, (pp. 135-155). Palgrave Macmillan UK.


Noguera, J., & Copus, A. (2016). Inner Peripheries: What are they? What policies do they need? Agriregionieuropa, (45). Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Osti, G. (2016). The Unbalanced Welfare of Italian Fragile Rural Areas. In U. Grabski-Kieron, I. Mose, A. Reichert-Schick, & Steinfurher (eds.), A European Rural Peripheries Revalued, Governance, Actors, Impacts (pp. 64-88), Ed. Lit Verlag.


Pagano, G., & Losco, S. (2016). EU Cohesion-Policies and Metropolitan Areas. In F. Calabrò & L. Della Spina (eds.), Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Intern, Vol. 223 (pp. 422-428). Ed. Reggio Calabria, Italy.


Pezzi, M. G., & Urso, G. (2017). Coping with peripherality: Local resilience between policies and practices. Editorial note. Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 7 (1), 1-23. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Pileček, J., & Jančák, V. (2011). Theoretical and methodological aspects of the identification and delimitation of peripheral areas. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica, 46 (1), 43-52.


Rosina, K., & Hurbánek, P. (2013). Internet availability as an indicator of peripherality in Slovakia [Dostupnost internetu jako indikátor perifernosti na Slovensku]. Moravian Geographical Reports, 21 (1), 16-24. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Saccomani, S. (2014). Torino: a Metropolitan City of 315 Municipalities. Urbanistica, (153), 102-105. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Sallustio, L., Pettenella, D., Merlini, P., Romano, R., Salvati, L., Marchetti, M., & Corona, P. (2018). Assessing the economic marginality of agricultural lands in Italy to support land use planning. Land Use Policy, (76), 526-534.


Salvatore, R., Chiodo, E., & Fantini, A. (2018). Tourism transition in peripheral rural areas: Theories, issues and strategies. Annals of Tourism Research, (68), 41-51.


Scrofani, L., & Novembre, C. (2015). The inland areas of Sicily. From rural development to territorial reorganization. Semestrale Di Studi e Ricerche Di Geografia, 1. Retrieved from: (19/04/2020).


Sutherland, L.-A., & Huttunen, S. (2018). Linking practices of multifunctional forestry to policy objectives: Case studies in Finland and the UK. Forest Policy and Economics, (86), 35-44.


Těšitel, J., Kušová, D., & Bartoš, M. (1999). Non-marginal parameters of marginal areas. Ekologia Bratislava, 18 (1), 39-46. Retrieved from:  (19/04/2020).


Townsend, L., Wallace, C., & Fairhurst, G. (2015). ‘Stuck Out Here’: The Critical Role of Broadband for Remote Rural Places. Scottish Geographical Journal, 131 (3-4), 171-180.


Tregear, A., & Cooper, S. (2016). Embeddedness, social capital and learning in rural areas: The case of producer cooperatives. Journal of Rural Studies, (44), 101-110.


Vaishar, A., & Pavlu, A. (2018). Outmigration intentions of secondary school students from a rural micro-region in the Czech inner periphery: A case study of the Bystřice nad Pernštejnem area in the Vysočina Region. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica, 53 (1), 49-57.


Whitacre, B. E., Wheeler, D., & Landgraf, C. (2017). What Can the National Broadband Map Tell Us About the Health Care Connectivity Gap? Journal of Rural Health, 33 (3), 284-289.


Wójcik, M., Dmochowska-Dudek, K., Jeziorska-Biel, P., & Tobiasz-Lis, P. (2018). Understanding strategies for overcoming peripherality: A Polish experience of transition. Bulletin of Geography, 40 (40), 173-192.

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.

TERRA: Revista de Desarrollo Local. ISSN: 2386-9968.