The Urban Audit measuring the quality of life in European cities

1
The Urban Audit measuring the quality of life
in European cities

• Berthold Feldmann - Unit D2

2
Structure of the talk

• Background
• Coverage cities, spatial units, reference years,
  variables
• The current data collection
• The perception surveys

3
Chapter 1

• A little bit of history

4
The Commission need for information

• Need to incorporate urban considerations into EU
  policies
• Need to increase information at urban level
• Need to improve monitoring of urban policies
• Two Policy Papers in 1997 and 1998
• Towards an urban agenda in the European Union,
  Com(97)197, 06.05.1997
• Sustainable urban development in the European
  Union a framework for action, Com(98)605,
  28.10.1998

5
The pilot project

• Call for tender of the Commission (DG REGIO) in
  1997 selection of contractor in May 1998
• designed as a pilot study , i.e. feasibility
  study
• Target to collect data on the quality of life
  for 58 European cities
• London and Paris were excluded as being too
  difficult for a pilot study
• In 2000 evaluation and decision to continue, in
  close cooperation with Eurostat and national
  Statistical Offices

6
Chapter 2

• Coverage
• Cities, spatial units, reference years, variables

7
The Urban Audit data collection 2003/2004

• Over 300 variables collected, covering all
  aspects of economic and social life
• 258 European cities in 28 countries involved
• 15 Member States at the time
• 10 candidate countries
• Bulgaria, Romania
• Later also Turkey (partial coverage)

8
The Urban Audit data collection 2003/2004

• Data collection for three spatial units
• Core city (Commune / Municipality / Ward /
  Gemeinde)
• Larger urban zone (LUZ) functional city region
• Sub-city districts (reduced dataset)
• Reference years
• 2001 (complete dataset),
• 1991 and 1996 (reduced dataset)

9
Covered domains

• 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 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

10
Examples of Indicators

• Obvious indicators
• Population
• Income
• GDP
• Unemployment
• Poverty

• Unusual indicators
• Crime rate
• Days of sunshine
• Cinema places
• Noise level
• Mode of transport to work

11
Data coverage by country(core city reference
year 2001)
12
Decision in 2005

• Collecting urban statistics - a core task of
  Eurostat in support of Cohesion Policy
  initiatives on urban development
• Hence included in the Eurostat Financing Decision
  and
• Included in the DG Regio budget

13
Chapter 3

• Urban Audit 3 the current data collection

14
Increased geographical coverage

• 63 new UA cities in EU-25 ? 300 UA cities in
  EU-25
• Plus 14 UA cities in RO, 7 UA cities in BG
• ? 321 UA cities in EU-27
• 5 new UA cities in HR
• 9 new UA cities in CH
• 6 new UA cities in NO

15
(No Transcript)
16
Changes in the variables

• The basic idea was to deviate as little as
  possible from the concepts used in the 2003/2004
  data collection
• Why did we need to change the variable list?
• improve comparability
• Increase data availability
• enhance quality
• new policy needs

17
Chapter 4

• The perception surveys

18
The perception survey 2004

• In addition perception survey in 31 cities of
  old MS, January 2004
• Complementary to hard facts citizens perception
  of schools, health service, safety, housing,
  labour market etc. (safety ? small number of
  recorded crimes)
• Telephone survey with 22 questions
• EOS-Gallup conducted the survey (from the
  Eurobarometer frame)
• 300 respondents per city

19
The perception survey 2006

• Repeated in December 2006 for 75 cities in 29
  countries
• Exactly the same questions asked
• Sample size increased to 500 telephone interviews
  per city
• Again use of fixed telephones only (? bias of
  respondents?)

20
People are satisfied to live in this city
21
It is easy to find a good job
22
Air pollution is a big problem
23
It is easy to find good housing at a reasonable
price (only the capitals)
24
Satisfied with the cultural facilities (selection
of cities)
25
The synthetic index (SI)

• In order to express the perception in the cities
  by 1 single figure, a simplified index was
  calculated

• This index is between -1 (all are unsatisfied)
  and 1 (all are satisfied). To make it more
  readable, it was multiplied by 50, then 50 added
• Hence the SI can have values between 0 and 100.
  At the value of 50 half are satisfied, half are
  unsatisfied

26
Foreigners are well integrated
27
Foreigners are well integrated(worst and best
cases)
28
People feel safe in the city
29
People feel safe in this city(worst and best
cases)
30
Correlationsair pollution - noise
31
Weak correlationsunemployment easy to find a
job
32
No correlationsrecorded crime feeling safe
33
Comparison 2006 to 2004

• On average, opinions remained stable from January
  2004 to December 2006
• There are however some significant changes of
  opinion in individual cities
• For two questions, also the average opinion
  moved
• it is easy to find a good job 32 to 41
• this is a clean city 42 to 49

34

• Thank you for
• your attention!

Any questions?