1. Evolution of Urban Audit
Gunter Schäfer (Eurostat)
Regional Statistics and Geographic Information

2. Urban Audit background
Urban Audit has been started more than 10 years ago
Ambitious objective to provide a comprehensive statistical picture of urban life
Voluntary data collection largely based on existing or ‘easily’ estimatable data
The Urban Audit data intensively used in EU Policy contexts and analyses (5th Cohesion Report, State of European Cities Report)
Urban Audit has been very useful in defining harmonised concepts for core cities, larger urban zones and sub-city districts
Currently the 4th data collection is ongoing. Data dissemination to be expected by end 2011.
New round of data collection in 2012/13 based on grants in preparation

3. Urban Audit Data Collection (until now)
More than 300 variables collected from Member States
Cover many demographic, economic and social aspects in European cities
Data collections
Exhaustive collection every three years – 2004, 2007, 2010
Annual data collection of 38 variables since 2010
Three spatial units
369 core cities
larger urban zones (=including the city hinterland)
sub-city information (reduced dataset)

4. Many issues related to Urban Audit
Low general data availability (< 60%)
Large heterogeneity of the availability across countries
Heterogeneous origin of data
Methodology of the data not always clear
Need for estimation of data (not generally implemented)
Comparability of indicators across cities and countries
Quality of the data
Complex structure of data collection in Europe (different set up of partners in Member States)
Communication of results and use by national bodies, cities and citizens

5. Difficult context
Severe resource constraints in Member States and Eurostat
Recent re-focusing of priorities in statistics (Economic governance, Europe 2020, etc.)
The importance of Urban Audit for EU policy making and national policy is not fully accepted in the ESS governing boards
Need to fit Urban Audit better into the ESS strategy

6. Position of Eurostat management
Clear signs that of low level of support from Member States
Need for putting the subject of Urban Audit into a larger statistical and policy context
Larger effort for revising the Urban Audit (programme of 10 points)
Broad discussions with Member States and Commission bodies prior to consultation of ESSC

7. Programme for a revision of Urban Audit
Consistent list of cities
Consistent spatial definition of cities
Revised frequency of data collections
Focused list of indicators
Reach an overall 80% response rate
Improve the data validation process
Increase direct cooperation with cities
Improve communication with users
Increase awareness of urban statistics
Exploit synergies with other statistical data collections

8. Consistent list of cities
The list of cities was over-complex: standard list, additional list for some countries, Large City Audit etc.
New target: include all European cities above a threshold in the Urban Audit:
All cities > inhabitants
Advantage: Revision of the Degree of Urbanisation” will create country values for all cities in LFS and EU-SILC
Country values can be used in combination with other information (administrative data), to improve the quality of the city estimates

9. Consistent spatial definition of cities
Comprehensive analysis of all European Core Cities and Larger Urban Zones (LUZ)
Cooperation DG REGIO and Eurostat
Basis is the newly developed urban-intermediate-rural typology
Objective criteria, will significantly increase the comparability of Urban Audit statistics
List of European core cities (urban centres) and LUZ (agglomerations) on harmonised methodology

10. Copenhagen as example

11. Revised frequency of data collections
Timeliness of data is critical quality aspect for many indicators
Stronger focus on annual data collection (= timely data)
Decreased frequency of more exhaustive data collection to every five years

12. Focused list of annual indicators
Detailed analysis to find good compromise between:
Policy relevance
Availability
Quality
Measures to reduce the burden on NSIs
Less diversity of indicators
Reduced list of sources
Urban Audit included (since 2010) about 40 annual variables and 330 variables every three years
Starting from 2012 a focused list of annual variables and an enlarged list of variables every five years

13. Where are we now?
Need for a consolidated consistent and convincing concept/strategy to sub-national statistics
Need to show clearly the added value of Urban Audit within the larger context of statistics, EU policy and national policy
Need to implicate National Statistical Offices in the debate on sub-national statistics
Data collection round 2012/13 is assured and preparation is well under way
Development programme will take about 2 years as approximate timeframe

14. Revision of the technical and dissemination system
Closer contact to users with feedback possibilities, ideally cities themselves
Strengthened validation system
Attractive information on cities
geographic information
some background information
statistical data
Complementarity to public data (general Wikipedia)
Revised publication strategy of urban data

15. Action plan
2012/13 data collection via grant system in preparation based on existing concept but with new indicators
Until early 2012: Concept for a reworked system (with external assistance)
During 2012 Discussions with Member States (consultation of ESSC)
Checking for possibility of written agreement with Member States
During 2013 Preparation and running in of new system

16. Thank you for your attention