1. Urban Audit 2006
POLAND

2. Overview
1998 – setting up the Urban Audit project (pilot phase). Up to now there have been 3 phases of the project.
Poland joined the second phase of the project Polish cities were included.
December third phase of the project, covering 28 Polish cities (5 new and 17 LCA’s).

4. Organisational set-up
28 city halls
16 Regional Statistical Offices
NUAC
CSO
RSO Poznań
Poznań
Konin
Kalisz
RSO …
City
CSCC

5. Resources
1. Planned budget - almost Euro (almost 89% = cost of personnel).
2. Tasks were realised within the planned timetable framework:
22 February 2007 – identification of variables;
22 June 2007 – compilation of maps for spatial units;
22 September – compilation of variables for UA and LCA cities;
by 22 June 2008 the final report will be sent to Eurostat.
3. Total number of persons engaged in the project = 178, of which 113 work in regional statistical offices.

6. Results Urban Audit 2003 Urban Audit 2006
288 variables at the city level (about 87% of required data);
157 variables at LUZ level (92% of required data);
25 variables at the SCD level (about 76% of required data).
Urban Audit 2006
193 variables at the city level (about 60% of required data);
102 variables at the LUZ level (about 56% of required data)
13 variables at the SCD level (25% of required data);
194 variables at the national level (about 80% of required data);
25 variables for LCA (about 53% of required data).

7. Response rate in Poland (%)

8. User’s satisfaction
Growing interest in Urban Audit results among local authorities, central administration, scientists and students.
UA data is used to:
analyse diversity of Polish cities;
compare the quality of life in Polish cities with EU cities;
create strategies for urban and agglomeration development;
prepare analytical reports that compare metropolitan regions.

9. Success factors and obstacles
popularisation of UA project among various groups of statistical data users
widening data coverage for cities by using different data sources
developing close cooperation with local authorities
Obstacles
lack of data sources
unreliable data
in some cases lack of detailed definition of variables

10. Cooperation with Eurostat
Good practises
exchange experiences
methodological assistance
Areas for improvement
definitions and variables should not be changed during the project
control algorithm included in UA Glossary
corrected or confirmed variables in the 1st round of quality control should not be included in 2nd round –> significant reduction of burden
FAQ – direct exchange of meta information

11. Thank you for attention Dominika Rogalińska d.rogalinska@stat.gov.pl