The Quadruple Helix Versus Barriers to Local Development: The Example of ‘Dual Municipalities’
31 dic 2024
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Pubblicato online: 31 dic 2024
Pagine: 169 - 178
Ricevuto: 01 mag 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/quageo-2024-0035
Parole chiave
© 2024 Magdalena Cybulska et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Spearman’s correlation results for the co-occurrence of development barriers and the impact of relationships on municipal development_
Relations ((-2)-2) | Local administration – local administration | Local administration – business | Local administration – science / education | Local administration – residents / non-governmental organisations | Business – business | Business – science / education | Business – residents / nongovernmental organisations | Science / education – science / education | Science / education – residents / non-governmental organisations | Residents / non-governmental organisations – residents / nongovernmental organisations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barriers (0–5) | ||||||||||
Difficulties in accessing EU development funds | 0.133 |
0.097 |
0.029 |
0.083 |
0.032 |
−0.008 |
0.039 |
0.047 |
0.069 |
0.058 |
Difficulties in accessing national development funds | 0.073 |
0.064 |
0.040 |
0.069 |
0.014 |
0.042 |
0.072 |
0.049 |
0.083 |
0.086 |
Decline in quality of services provided by municipality | −0.026 |
−0.099 |
−0.081 |
−0.061 |
−0.031 |
0.008 |
0.050 |
0.045 |
0.027 |
0.046 |
Decreasing investment opportunities for local authorities | −0.039 |
−0.040 |
−0.058 |
0.009 |
−0.016 |
0.035 |
0.007 |
0.003 |
−0.024 |
0.024 |
Reducing wealth of population | 0.049 |
0.046 |
0.020 |
0.071 |
0.017 |
0.066 |
0.054 |
0.110 |
0.060 |
0.057 |
Ageing of local community | 0.077 |
0.060 |
0.006 |
0.070 |
0.067 |
0.085 |
0.049 |
0.106 |
0.054 |
0.058 |
Decreasing population in municipality | 0.092 |
0.032 |
0.005 |
0.086 |
−0.063 |
0.002 |
0.040 |
0.127 |
0.069 |
0.095 |
Decreasing number of active NGOs | 0.050 |
0.017 |
−0.024 |
0.043 |
−0.029 |
0.040 |
0.052 |
0.036 |
0.036 |
0.052 |
Decreasing number of businesses | 0.062 |
0.018 |
0.014 |
0.077 |
−0.011 |
0.070 |
0.049 |
0.107 |
0.044 |
0.007 |
Young people moving out of municipality | 0.014 |
0.001 |
−0.032 |
0.023 |
−0.003 |
0.039 |
0.011 |
0.067 |
0.052 |
−0.015 |
Difficulties in accessing knowledge | 0.097 |
0.000 |
−0.032 0.426 | 0.044 |
0.096 |
−0.032 0.450 | 0.019 |
0.057 |
0.054 |
0.045 |
Decreasing transport accessibility/accessibility to municipality | 0.086 |
0.020 |
0.012 |
0.041 |
−0.014 |
−0.008 |
0.080 |
0.103 |
0.119 |
0.100 |
Pandemic effects | 0.141 |
0.066 |
0.066 |
0.070 |
0.020 |
0.090 |
0.125 |
0.164 |
0.190 |
0.152 |
Mann-Whitney U-test results for assessing collaborative relationships (rating the impact of relationships in the municipality on its development – on a scale of -2 to 2, where 2 is definitely positive)_
Collaborative relationships | Mann-Whitney test statistics | Active | Passive | Poor | Prosperous | Central | Peripheral | Imitative | Innovative | Labour-based | Self-employmentbased | Accessible space | Space with limited accessibility |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Local administration – local administration | Average rank | 35.2 | 28.0 | 50.0 | 41.4 | 65.7 | 107.1 | 63.7 | 49.4 | 49.2 | 42.6 | 38.9 | 41.5 |
Z | −1.634 | −1.524 | −5.536 | −2.474 | −1.229 | −0.994 | |||||||
Significance | 0.102 | 0.128 | <0.001 | 0.013 | 0.219 | 0.320 | |||||||
Local administration – business | Average rank | 33.4 | 37.4 | 48.8 | 47.9 | 73.8 | 93.0 | 62.2 | 55.8 | 52.0 | 38.6 | 40.4 | 38.5 |
Z | −0.894 | −0.160 | −2.570 | −1.090 | −2.548 | −0.435 | |||||||
Significance | 0.371 | 0.873 | 0.010 | 0.276 | 0.011 | 0.663 | |||||||
Local administration – science / education | Average rank | 39.0 | 29.2 | 50.9 | 44.2 | 71.1 | 100.0 | 61.1 | 54.9 | 49.7 | 40.9 | 40.9 | 36.8 |
Z | −2.218 | −1.138 | −3.849 | −1.049 | −1.735 | −0.926 | |||||||
Significance | 0.027 | 0.255 | <0.001 | 0.294 | 0.083 | 0.354 | |||||||
Local administration – residents / non-governmental organisations | Average rank | 37.7 | 33.5 | 53.7 | 41.0 | 69.0 | 106.3 | 62.7 | 52.1 | 51.1 | 42.2 | 39.5 | 38.5 |
Z | −0.925 | −2.202 | −4.904 | −1.862 | −1.675 | −0.218 | |||||||
Significance | 0.355 | 0.028 | <0.001 | 0.063 | 0.094 | 0.828 | |||||||
Business – business | Average rank | 30.1 | 37.4 | 43.7 | 54.7 | 76.4 | 70.8 | 46.7 | 59.9 | 45.7 | 40.5 | 38.7 | 36.1 |
Z | −1.662 | −2.001 | −0.749 | −2.343 | −1.012 | −0.553 | |||||||
Significance | 0.096 | 0.045 | 0.454 | 0.019 | 0.311 | 0.580 | |||||||
Business – science / education | Average rank | 32.0 | 30.7 | 45.5 | 47.2 | 73.0 | 88.8 | 49.6 | 55.9 | 42.3 | 44.0 | 36.3 | 34.6 |
Z | −0.290 | −0.287 | −2.163 | −1.099 | −0.341 | −0.390 | |||||||
Significance | 0.772 | 0.774 | 0.031 | 0.272 | 0.733 | 0.696 | |||||||
Business – residents / non-governmental organisations | Average rank | 33.4 | 33.7 | 46.1 | 50.7 | 69.0 | 96.8 | 52.6 | 55.7 | 45.9 | 43.7 | 37.7 | 36.3 |
Z | −0.085 | −0.848 | −3.763 | −0.553 | −0.447 | −0.310 | |||||||
Significance | 0.932 | 0.396 | <0.001 | 0.580 | 0.655 | 0.757 | |||||||
Science / education – science / education | Average rank | 31.4 | 35.6 | 47.0 | 43.1 | 67.2 | 99.5 | 51.9 | 54.5 | 45.1 | 44.9 | 35.2 | 39.1 |
Z | −0.917 | −0.665 | −4.453 | −0.454 | −0.027 | −0.877 | |||||||
Significance | 0.359 | 0.506 | <0.001 | 0.650 | 0.978 | 0.381 | |||||||
Science / education – residents / non-governmental organisations | Average rank | 34.6 | 34.3 | 44.1 | 50.9 | 63.9 | 105.4 | 53.3 | 56.0 | 43.6 | 46.9 | 37.5 | 38.7 |
Z | −0.061 | −1.265 | −5.741 | −0.851 | −0.655 | −0.274 | |||||||
Significance | 0.951 | 0.206 | <0.001 | 0.395 | 0.513 | 0.784 | |||||||
Residents / non-governmental organisations – residents / non-governmental organisations | Average rank | 34.8 | 37.7 | 46.7 | 49.2 | 67.3 | 97.6 | 50.5 | 57.2 | 41.4 | 51.2 | 38.6 | 39.5 |
Z | −0.676 | −0.437 | −4.144 | −1.212 | −1.938 | −0.187 | |||||||
Significance | 0.499 | 0.662 | <0.001 | 0.225 | 0.053 | 0.852 |
Mann-Whitney U-test results for assessing the level of significance of the barrier (rating on a scale of 0 to 5, where 5 means the problem is crucial)_
Barriers | Mann-Whitney test statistics | Active | Passive | Poor | Prosperous | Central | Peripheral | Imitative | Innovative | Labour-based | Self-employmentbased | Accessible space | Space with limited accessibility |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Difficulties in accessing EU development funds | Average rank | 31.9 | 42.9 | 54.6 | 42.6 | 70.2 | 112.2 | 69.3 | 53.0 | 47.5 | 47.4 | 39.1 | 41.1 |
Z | −2.315 | −1.973 | −5.329 | −2.623 | −0.020 | −0.409 | |||||||
Significance | 0.021 | 0.049 | <0.001 | 0.009 | 0.984 | 0.683 | |||||||
Difficulties in accessing national development funds | Average rank | 32.0 | 42.8 | 55.8 | 39.6 | 75.6 | 99.3 | 63.4 | 57.5 | 48.7 | 45.7 | 40.9 | 39.0 |
Z | −2.291 | −2.688 | −3.090 | −0.950 | −0.537 | −0.404 | |||||||
Significance | 0.022 | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0.342 | 0.591 | 0.686 | |||||||
Decline in quality of services provided by municipality | Average rank | 35.1 | 38.5 | 53.0 | 46.3 | 73.6 | 104.1 | 60.0 | 60.0 | 45.1 | 51.0 | 37.0 | 43.5 |
Z | −0.683 | −1.091 | −3.903 | −0.014 | −1.061 | −1.299 | |||||||
Significance | 0.495 | 0.275 | <0.001 | 0.989 | 0.288 | 0.194 | |||||||
Decreasing investment opportunities for local authorities | Average rank | 30.4 | 45.1 | 53.4 | 38.3 | 78.1 | 93.3 | 57.2 | 62.1 | 44.7 | 51.7 | 42.7 | 37.0 |
Z | −3.102 | −3.023 | −2.058 | −0.790 | −1.257 | −1.209 | |||||||
Significance | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.040 | 0.429 | 0.209 | 0.227 | |||||||
Reducing wealth of population | Average rank | 30.0 | 45.6 | 58.0 | 34.5 | 75.9 | 98.4 | 67.6 | 54.3 | 48.8 | 45.6 | 41.4 | 38.5 |
Z | −3.250 | −3.918 | −3.018 | −2.139 | −0.577 | −0.640 | |||||||
Significance | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.032 | 0.564 | 0.522 | |||||||
Ageing of local community | Average rank | 31.2 | 43.9 | 53.5 | 45.2 | 75.8 | 98.7 | 64.3 | 56.8 | 52.9 | 39.5 | 41.2 | 38.7 |
Z | −2.894 | −1.544 | −3.336 | −1.270 | −2.474 | −0.579 | |||||||
Significance | 0.004 | 0.123 | <0.001 | 0.204 | 0.013 | 0.562 | |||||||
Decreasing population in municipality | Average rank | 26.1 | 51.0 | 54.5 | 42.6 | 71.8 | 108.5 | 70.0 | 52.5 | 52.8 | 39.7 | 41.3 | 38.6 |
Z | −5.191 | −2.172 | −4.801 | −2.826 | −2.383 | −0.585 | |||||||
Significance | <0.001 | 0.030 | <0.001 | 0.005 | 0.017 | 0.559 | |||||||
Decreasing number of active NGOs | Average rank | 29.9 | 45.7 | 51.9 | 48.9 | 75.5 | 99.5 | 66.6 | 55.1 | 50.1 | 43.7 | 40.8 | 39.1 |
Z | −3.258 | −0.488 | −3.051 | −1.839 | −1.148 | −0.344 | |||||||
Significance | <0.001 | 0.626 | 0.002 | 0.066 | 0.251 | 0.731 | |||||||
Decreasing number of businesses | Average rank | 31.6 | 43.4 | 57.8 | 34.9 | 75.9 | 98.4 | 66.7 | 55.0 | 54.0 | 37.9 | 39.3 | 40.8 |
Z | −2.445 | −3.862 | −2.959 | −1.874 | −2.916 | −0.292 | |||||||
Significance | 0.014 | <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.061 | 0.004 | 0.771 | |||||||
Young people moving out of municipality | Average rank | 32.5 | 42.1 | 52.7 | 46.9 | 75.9 | 98.4 | 68.3 | 53.8 | 53.5 | 38.7 | 41.2 | 38.6 |
Z | −2.137 | −1.158 | −3.136 | −2.379 | −2.652 | −0.615 | |||||||
Significance | 0.033 | 0.247 | 0.002 | 0.017 | 0.008 | 0.539 | |||||||
Difficulties in accessing knowledge | Average rank | 32.7 | 41.8 | 53.6 | 44.8 | 73.2 | 105.1 | 75.0 | 48.8 | 50.2 | 43.6 | 36.8 | 43.6 |
Z | −1.872 | −1.448 | −4.040 | −4.273 | −1.193 | −1.362 | |||||||
Significance | 0.061 | 0.148 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.233 | 0.173 | |||||||
Decreasing transport accessibility / accessibility to municipality | Average rank | 31.1 | 44.0 | 55.4 | 40.5 | 70.5 | 111.6 | 73.3 | 50.2 | 49.8 | 44.1 | 38.0 | 42.3 |
Z | −2.675 | −2.560 | −5.272 | −3.689 | −1.026 | 0.939 | |||||||
Significance | 0.007 | 0.010 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.305 | 0.348 | |||||||
Pandemic effects | Average rank | 39.8 | 31.8 | 52.5 | 47.5 | 77.0 | 95.8 | 53.0 | 65.3 | 50.2 | 43.5 | 38.7 | 41.5 |
Z | −1.648 | −0.887 | −2.506 | −1.995 | −1.217 | −0.603 | |||||||
Significance | 0.099 | 0.375 | 0.012 | 0.046 | 0.223 | 0.547 |