22
Table 3: Selected dynamic and lagging regions in mountain areas (Austria)
|
district/type of area |
population change |
employment change |
|
Imst |
1.06 |
1.36 |
|
Kufstein |
0.99 |
1.22 |
|
Kitzbühel |
0.88 |
1.18 |
|
Feldkirch____________ |
_________1.06_________ |
_________1.10_________ |
|
Voitsberg |
- 0.22 |
- 1.59 |
|
Leoben |
- 0.88 |
- 1.54 |
|
Mürzzuschlag |
- 0.34 |
- 1.12 |
|
Murau |
- 0.52 |
- 0.87 |
|
Lilienfeld |
- 0.22_________ |
- 0.61__________ |
|
~PR* |
0.28 |
0.17 |
|
SR*) |
0.45 |
0.72 |
|
PU*)_______________ |
_________0.12_________ |
_________0.36_________ |
|
Austria_______________ |
_________0.31_________ |
_________0.44_________ |
*) OECD-Classification established by OECD-Rural Indicators:
PR - predominantly rural areas (more than 50% of population in “rural” communities;
i.e. density lower than 150 inh./km2)
SR - significantly rural areas (15 - 50% rural population)
PU - predominantly urban areas (less than 15% rural population)
Source: OSTAT, OECD-Rural Indicators, Dax 1998b.
Table 4: Concentration of tourism in Austria’s communities (1981 - 1991)
|
Communities____________________________________ |
1981 |
1991 |
|
with dominant tourism employment (> 25%)*) |
5.7 |
7.6 |
|
with significant tourism employment (10 - 25%)*) |
23.9 |
24.4 |
|
with insignificant tourism employment (< 10%) *)______ |
70.4 |
68.0 |
|
all communities_______________________________________ |
100.0 |
100.0 |
*) of total labour force, at place of labour
remark: Austria’s average is 5.6% (1991)
Source: Schindegger et al. 1997, p. 96