1. Urban Audit Revision of regions Fereshtah Faqiri Tom van Venrooij
Statistics Netherlands
NUAC-meeting, Brussels

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

3. 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

4. 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

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

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

7. 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

8. New Cities LAU2 is a city if: Results for 2015:
DEGURBA = 1 AND population >
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

9. 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 < inhabitants
Include LAU in FUA German city Aachen?
Introduction
<2015
New Cities
New FUAs
Issues

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 and )
Uniform delineation sub city level dominant difference with ISO standard “Indicators for city services and quality of life”, which has just one level
Introduction
<2015
New Cities
New FUAs
Issues

15. 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

16. Question? Thank you for your attention!