1. The Urban Audit project

2. Structure of my talk Why urban statistics ?
The Urban Audit pilot phase and the lessons learned from it
Urban Audit II – the concept organisational set-up, variables, choice of cities, spatial units
Tight timetable
Some conclusions

3. AIM OF THIS TALK:
Inform about a challenging project of new statistics
Highlight possible bottlenecks

4. Chapter 1
Why urban statistics ?

5. The European Union is highly urbanised
“Cohesion” is the basis of Regional Policy, aiming at fewer disparities between European regions
Cities (urban agglomerations) play a specific and important role in this policy goal
Existing Union policies have an important influence on urban areas, but coherent urban policies are still very limited
Hence: In the mid 90s, the Commission saw a growing need for reliable quantitative urban data

6. Growing needs
Comparability would be a key issue of such urban statistics
So far no urban statistics at European level are available
In its discussion paper "Towards an urban Policy of the European Union" of 1997, the Commission defined the urgent need for comparable data about cities, so that a base for common decisions in the area of urban development could be created

7. Urban Audit pilot phase
Chapter 2
Urban Audit pilot phase

8. Contractor chosen was no statistical expert;
1998: 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
Hence: the Urban Audit pilot phase
Call for tender by DG REGIO
Use existing data sets
Only for a selection of cities
Test feasibility within 1 year
Contractor chosen was no statistical expert;
NSOs little involved

9. The 58 cities (excluding London and Paris)
Spain Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Seville
Saragossa
Malaga
France Marseilles
Lyon
Toulouse
Nice
Strasbourg
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
Portugal Lisbon
Oporto
Braga
Finland Helsinki
Sweden Stockholm
Gothenburg
UK 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

10. Concept: Geographical Area
3 Levels :
the administrative city
= core spatial unit
the “Wider Territorial Unit”
to catch phenomena in the urban agglomeration including “hinterland”
the sub-city level
to measure intra-urban disparities

11. Fields covered 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

12. The collected data set
Nearly 500 basic variables collected, more than 100 indicators (derived series) calculated
Very diverging response rate, partly very low
Serious doubts about comparability of data
Whenever possible data for 1981, 1991 and 1996
Results published on the DG REGIO web
Intensive use by the Commission (incl. Commissioner)

13. The Urban Audit follow-up
Chapter 3
The Urban Audit follow-up

14. Improvement of all Quality Aspects
The challenge:
Improvement of all Quality Aspects
Relevance:
closer to users
Comparability:
harmonised definitions &
involvement of NSOs
Accuracy:
check the results
of pilot project
Timeliness:
data no more
than 3 years old
Coherence:
definitions close to international standards
Clarity:
more stringent
definition of variables

15. Evaluation of the pilot project
Creation of a proper statistical database
Thorough analysis of the variables of the pilot phase
New classification of variables
Decision on the new variable list with considerably fewer variables (330)

16. The new Structure (classification)
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
5. TRAINING AND EDUCATION
5.1 Education and Training (Provision)
5.2 Attainment of Educ. & 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

17. Variables: Comparison to pilot phase

18. Variables: Comparison 1999 - 2002
Biggest clean-up
new

19. Medium-sized cities: some statistics
62 million people (more than 17% of the EU population) live in medium-sized cities (census data of 1990)

20. Selection of cities
Specific focus on medium-sized cities (50 000 to 250 000 inhabitants)
Enlarge the choice of large cities
Include London and Paris
Candidate countries are invited to participate on a voluntary basis (PHARE project under way)
Result: the number of cities increased from 58 to 189

21. Spatial units Administrative unit Larger Urban Zone (LUZ)
Commune / Municipality / Ward / Gemeinde
Corresponds to the empowerment of the city administration
Larger Urban Zone (LUZ)
Industrial development, infrastructure, environmental impact, commuting, new residential areas
Sub-city districts
“… information on intra city disparities indispensable for further political action”
“… enable city authorities to gather precise information on possible ‘pockets of concern’ ”
“… pinpoint major disparities in terms of social cohesion ”

22. The challenge of co-operation
Many partners involved
DG REGIO (the major user)
Eurostat
a contractor for Europe-wide co-ordination and methodological advice
National Statistical Offices (= national co-ordinator)
Regional Statistical Offices / other agencies
the cities
Quality is best fostered by intensive co-operation and partnership relations

23. supported by a contractor
Proposed set-up
Commission
Eurostat
supported by a contractor
NSO
City
Other
source
city
National
Statistical Office
(sometimes aided
by subcontractors)
City
Other source

24. Chapter 4
Timetable

25. European level Call for tender in 2002
Three contractors are available since mid February 2003
Europe-wide co-ordination of the data flow
Methodological advice, including at least one workshop
Preparation of internet and paper publication

26. Next steps
Step 1: Classify the variables into three categories (for each country)
Variable is at hand and can be supplied (A)
Variable is not available, but similar quantitative data is at hand, so that the variable can be estimated (B)
The required variable is not available and cannot be estimated. Hence, a fresh survey is necessary in order to obtain this variable (C)
Deadline for classification: mid January 2003

27. Work to be done in 2003 Step 2: send existing data to Eurostat
deadline: end of March 2003
Step 3: estimate 85 key variables
use as much as possible the expertise of Eurostat contractors
deadline: end of June 2003
Step 4: estimate standard variables
deadline: end of December 2003
Launch the new surveys for missing variables

28. Tentative conclusions
Chapter 5
Tentative conclusions

29. Conclusions Statistical Political
Challenging project with many partners involved
Tight timetable
Comparability probably lower than usual
Conceptual challenge of “spatial unit” in face of diverging national realities
Political
The concept of partnership with those involved is crucial for the success
Complex in co-ordination tasks
Non-NUTS data gain in importance for the next Structural Funds round

30. Thanks for listening !
Any Questions ?