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

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

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

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

5. 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

6. 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

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

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. The results An overview in printed format (comparative analysis)
an individual exhaustive City Audit per city
a web site:

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

22. 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

23. 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)

24. 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

25. Recommendation of variables

26. Chapter 4
Next steps
September 2001

27. 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

28. 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

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

30. Thanks for listening !
Any Questions ?