Urban Audit Revision of regions Fereshtah Faqiri Tom van Venrooij Statistics Netherlands E-mail: NUAC@CBS.NL NUAC-meeting, Brussels 10-05-2017

Agenda Introduction Situation <2015 Situation ≥2015 Issues New Cities New FUAs Issues Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Introduction Two reasons for revising the regions in the UA: New Degree of Urbanisation (DEGRUBA) based on 2011 population figures New Methodological Manual Urban Audit The revised regions will be used for data deliveries for the reporting year 2015 and onwards Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Situation before 2015 2014: LAU: 403 Cities: 51 LUZ: 31 LAU in LUZ: 238 (59%) Greater City: 2 Sub City Districts: 45 Amsterdam: 15 Rotterdam: 13 The Hague: 10 Utrecht: 7 Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Old LUZ-regions Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

New cities and FUAs Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

From DEGURBA to UA-cities Start at grid-level: Classification of grid cells as High Density or Urban Density Define DEGURBA per LAU2 Population data of 2011 used to ensure comparability with other countries Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

New Cities LAU2 is a city if: Results for 2015: DEGURBA = 1 AND population > 50 000 Results for 2015: LAU: 393 Cities: 57 FUA: 38 Data-driven or adjustments at national level? 2014: LAU: 403 Cities: 51 LUZ: 31 Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Special Case: Vaals 9 805 inhabitants 7 052 in High Density cluster (>50%): if the ‘German’-grid cells are included in the calculation then ‘Vaals’-grid cells are part of high density cluster Aachen (>50 000) DEGURBA = 1, but no city because LAU < 50 000 inhabitants Include LAU in FUA German city Aachen? Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

New Functional Urban Areas Based on 2015 commuting data Definition: Step 1. If 15% living in one city work in another city, these cities are treated as a single city Step 2. All municipalities with at least 15% of residents working in city are identified Step 3. Include surrounded municipalities and exclude non-contiguous municipalities Number of LAU in FUA could have been higher: LAU: 393 FUA: 38 LAU in FUA: 238 (61%) Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Special Case: ‘Randstad’ Almost all municipalities in western part of the Netherlands are included in a FUA Separate step 1 and 2 to prevent one big FUA. “Step 2. All municipalities with at least 15% of residents working in city are identified.” At least 15% working in the main city of the FUA. Relevant for FUAs with several cities, like Amsterdam. Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Several issues How to handle future boundary changes at LAU-level? Sub City Districts and Greater Cities Coding new (and old) regions Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Boundary changes at LAU-level LAU Gooise Meren formed in 2016 by a merger of three LAUs. Since all included in FUA Amsterdam, the new LAU is also included in that FUA. What if just two were included? Recalculation based on what reference year: most recent or 2015 like other FUAs? How to ensure FUAs are up-to-date? Population figures (Cities) are relatively constant, but commuting patterns (FUAs) are more volatile. Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

GC and SCD Greater Cities: Sub City Districts: Definition ambiguous: which LAUs to include and exclude? See ‘Randstad’ example. Sub City Districts: Difficult to maintain due to lack of responsibility for sub-LAU boundaries for Statistics Netherlands Frequent boundary changes No clear definition, only guidelines available (population between 5 000 and 40 000) Uniform delineation sub city level dominant difference with ISO 37120 standard “Indicators for city services and quality of life”, which has just one level Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Coding Coding of new cities and FUAs Obligatory changes to old code ‘CityCode+L3’ to indicate revision of FUA Obligatory changes to old code Preferred option: keep old FUA codes (most obvious indicator to users that FUAs are revised as of 2015) Option chosen: ‘old FUA’ codes changed to the new codes and flag the data with a B as of 2015 Usual practice Statistics Netherlands: Change in region implies change in code: Change in boundary or name of region should lead to change in code Do we want (to suggest) temporal comparison of data between data collection rounds? Introduction <2015 New Cities New FUAs Issues

Question? Thank you for your attention!