The Urban Audit follow-up Berthold Feldmann Eurostat Luxembourg September 2001

Structure of this presentation The need for comparable urban statistics Urban Audit pilot phase (1999) Urban Audit follow-up Next steps

Objectives of this presentation URBAN STATISTICS: Present the achievements reached so far Give some ideas about the future development

The growing need for information CHAPTER 1 The growing need for information September 2001

Need for information Rational and efficient political actions need as a base the quantification of social and economic phenomena More and more people live in cities Hence: The development in cities should be monitored and analysed more rigorously

Need for information Detect negative trends in the cities in order to counteract Compare problems and chances internationally in order to learn from each other Harmonised urban statistics are the base for well-founded urban policy at all levels: The European Commission The national government The cities themselves

Urban Audit pilot phase CHAPTER 2 Urban Audit pilot phase September 2001

Preparation 1997: a thorough study by an external expert Conclusions: There is a growing demand Use already available data Importance of Comparability

a new survey ? High costs of new surveys in money terms burden on surveyed institutions no specific legal base exists at Community level currently no friendly climate for new legislation

Conclusion 1997 The demand exists Existing approaches have clear limitations A new survey is quite impossible Hence: the Urban Audit pilot phase Use existing data sets only for a selection of cities

The Pilot project Call for tender of the Commission (DG REGIO) in 1997 Selection of contractor in May 1998 limited project for 1 year designed as a “pilot study” (feasibility study) Target: to collect data on the quality of life for 58 European cities

The cities 58 cities were selected About 15% of national population London and Paris were excluded (too difficult for a pilot study)

The cities Spain Madrid Barcelona Valencia Seville Belgium Antwerp Saragossa Malaga France Marseilles Lyon Toulouse Nice Strasburg Bordeaux Nantes Lille Ireland Dublin Cork Belgium Antwerp Brussels Denmark Copenhagen Germany Berlin Hamburg Munich Cologne Frankfurt Essen Stuttgart Leipzig Dresden Greece Athens Thessaloniki Patras

The cities Portugal Lisbon Oporto Braga Finland Helsinki Sweden Stockholm Gothenburg United Kingdom Birmingham Leeds Glasgow Bradford Liverpool Edinburgh Manchester Cardiff Italy Rome Milan Naples Turin Palermo Genoa Florence Bari Luxembourg Luxembourg Netherlands Amsterdam Rotterdam Austria Graz Vienna

Geographical Area 3 Levels : the administrative city the “Wider Territorial Unit” the sub-city level

WIDER TERRITORIAL UNITS criteria building blocks = “administrative areas” population density extent of built up area Some weaknesses in concept when: large sub-urban administrative area includes only small part of built up area definition is similar to an administrative area which includes relatively low density unit

DISPARITIES WITHIN CITIES Approach: Define sub city areas (ideally 10,000 population) Generate selected (common) indicators Select two contrasting areas Generate selected (common) indicators for the two areas Issues: “Standard” definitions of sub-city areas vary Results depend on how boundaries are drawn

Covered domains Population and nationality Household structure Labour market (incl. unemployment) Income and poverty Housing Health Crime Civic involvement Education and training Air and water quality Waste management Travel patterns Energy Use Recreation and culture

Time series Whenever possible data for 1981, 1991 and 1996 Problem: boundary changes over time affect validity Problem: definition of surveyed variables may change over time

The results An overview in printed format (comparative analysis) an individual exhaustive City Audit per city a web site: www.inforegio.org/urban/audit/index.html

The Urban Audit follow-up CHAPTER 3 The Urban Audit follow-up September 2001

Preparations (2000) August 2000: a call for tender concerning the evaluation of the Urban Audit pilot project is published Lot 1: Thorough analysis of the variables of the pilot phase Lot 2: Creation of a statistical database with the results of the pilot phase October 2000: selection of the contractors by Eurostat

Actions 2001 May 2001: The contractors sign and can start to work June 2001: A new classification of the Urban Audit variables is created July/August 2001: two work shop meetings to look through the list of 482 variables of the pilot phase September 2001: Decision on the new list of considerably less variables (around 300)

The new Structure (classification) 5. TRAINING AND EDUCATION 5.1 Education and Training (Provision) 5.2 Attainment of Education & Training 6. ENVIRONMENT 6.1 Climate/ Geography 6.2 Air Quality and Noise 6.3 Water 6.4 Waste Management 6.5 Land Use 6.6 Energy Use 7. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT 8. INFORMATION SOCIETY 9. CULTURE AND RECREATION 9.1 Culture and Recreation 9.2 Tourism 1. DEMOGRAPHY 1.1 Population 1.2 Nationality 1.3 Household Structure 2. SOCIAL ASPECTS 2.1 Housing 2.2 Health 2.3 Crime 3. ECONOMIC ASPECTS 3.1 Labour Market 3.2 Economic Activity 3.3 Income, Disparities and Poverty 4. CIVIC INVOLVEMENT 4.1 Civic Involvement 4.2 Local Administration

Recommendation of variables

Chapter 4 Next steps September 2001

Next steps More reflections on territorial unit Wider territorial unit (pilot phase) ? Functional urban regions ? Decision on list of participating cities November 2001: Working Party with National Statistical Offices

Working party (Nov 01) Discussion on the list of variables Discussion on territorial unit Decision on organisational set-up supervising contractor at EU level national co-ordinators close co-operation of National statistical offices and cities concerned

Then …... Organise a call for tender concerning the next round of Urban Audit data collection 2002: Start Urban Audit II

Thanks for listening ! Any Questions ?