Identifying Clusters of Regions in the European South, based on their Economic, Social and Environmental Characteristics


  • Vasilis Angelis University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece
  • Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis School of Applied Sciences University of Huddersfield
  • Katerina Dimaki Department of Statistics Athens University of Economics and Business



Regional Development, Cluster Analysis, South Europe


Regional development has been in the centre of interest among both academics but also decision makers in the central and local governments of many European countries. Identifying the key problems that regions face and considering how these findings could be effectively used as a basis for planning their development process are essential in order to improve the conditions in the European Union regions. For a long period of time a country’s or a region’s development has been synonymous with its economic growth. Over the last years, however, economies and societies have been undergoing dramatic changes. These changes have led to the concept of sustainable development, which refers to the ability of our societies to meet the needs of the present without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Measuring sustainable development means going beyond a purely economic description of human activities; requires integration of economic, social and environmental concerns. New techniques are required in order to benchmark performance, highlight leaders and laggards on various aspects of development and facilitate efforts to identify best practices. Furthermore, new tools have to be designed so as to make sustainability decision-making more objective, systematic and rigorous. The growth or decline of a country or region depends on its power to pull and retain both business and the right blend of people to run them. Working in this context, we have so far defined a variable which is called the Image of a region and quantifies this pulling power. The region’s Image is a function of a multitude of factors physical, economic, social and environmental, some common for all potential movers and some specific for particular groups of them and expresses its present state of development and future prospects. The paper examines a number of south European countries and focuses on their NUTS 2 level regions. Its objective is to:

  • Estimate the Basic Image values of those regions.
  • Group those regions into different clusters on the basis of the values of the various factors used to define their respective Basic Images.
  • Present and discuss the results.

Author Biographies

Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis, School of Applied Sciences University of Huddersfield

Lecturer in Chemical Engineering

School of Applied Sciences

Katerina Dimaki, Department of Statistics Athens University of Economics and Business

Associate Professor, Department of Statistics


Angelis, V. and Dimaki, K. (2011). A Region’s Basic Image as a Measure of its Attractiveness, International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 4(2):7-33.

Ashworth, C. J., Voogd, H., (1990). Selling the City, London: Belhaven.

Boschma, R. and Lambooy J. (1999). Why do old industrial regions decline? An exploration of potential adjustment strategies. European RSA Congress, Proceedings, August 23-27, Dublin, Ireland.

Bramwell, B., Rawding, L., (1996). Tourism Marketing Images of Industrial Cities, Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1): 201-221.

Bristow, G., (2005). Everyone’s a winner: problematising the discourse of regional competitiveness, Journal of Economic Geography, 5(3): 285-304.

Bristow, G., (2010). Critical Reflections on Regional Competitiveness: Theory, policy and practice, Routledge, London and New York.

Bryson, J. R. and Daniels, P. H. (2007). The Handbook of Services Industries, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Burgess, J. A., (1982). Selling places: Environmental Images for the Executive, Regional Studies, 16 (1): 1-17.

Dichter, E., (1985). What’s An Image, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2(1): 75-81.

Dowling, G. R., (1998). Measuring Corporate Images: A Review of Alternative Approaches, Journal of Business Research, 17(1): 27-37.

Gartner, W., (1993). Image Formation Process, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(2-3): 191-215.

Gilmore, R. (1993). Catastrophe Theory for scientists and engineers. Wiley, New York.

Handy, S. L. and Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives, Environment and Planning A’, 29(7): 1175-1194.

Kotler, P., Haider, D. H. and Irving, R. (1993). Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations, Free Press, New York.

Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I., Haider, D. H., (1999). Marketing Places Europe, Prentice Hall, London.

Llewellyn, J. (1996). Tackling Europe’s competitiveness, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 12(3): 87-96.

Lovering, J., (2001). The Coming Regional Crisis (And How To Avoid It), Regional Studies, 35(4): 349-354.

Malecki, E., (2004). Jockeying for Position: What It Means and Why It Matters to Regional Development Policy When Places Compete, Regional Studies, 38(9): 1101-1120.

Markusen, A., (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts, Economic Geography, 72(3): 293-313.

Poston, T. and Stewart, I. (1996). Catastrophe Theory and its Applications, Dover, New York.

Schneider, B. and White, S. E. (2004). Service Quality: Research Perspective, Sage, London.

Thom, R. (1975). Structural Stability and Morphogenesis: An Outline of a General Theory of Models. Addison-Wesley, Reading M.A.

Zeeman, E.C. (1973). Applications of Catastrophe Theory, Manifolds, Tokyo.




How to Cite

Angelis, V., Angelis-Dimakis, A. and Dimaki, K. (2016) “Identifying Clusters of Regions in the European South, based on their Economic, Social and Environmental Characteristics”, REGION, 3(2), pp. 71–102. doi: 10.18335/region.v3i2.81.