1. PRESENTATION TO EU WORKING PARTY ON URBAN STATISTICS
9th December 1999
OUTLINE OF THE URBAN AUDIT NICK BOZEAT - ECOTEC - ERECO

2. OBJECTIVES OF PRESENTATION
To discuss methodological challenges
To describe principles and practices adopted to address challenges
To describe the ‘Products’

3. THE PROPOSAL
Purpose :
To respond to needs of a ‘pilot project’ - (Outputs and expectations not defined precisely in terms of reference)
Key Features :
use of ERECO eeig umbrella
Strong multi-national core team for co-ordination
Independent network of correspondents
Liaison but no obligatory co-operation of cities
Ideas for improvement to indicators and ‘products’

4. THE APPROACH AND TIME TABLE
Phase 0 Feb-May 98
Detailed negotiation of work programme
Phase 1 May - Sept 98
Refinement of indicators and variables, assessment of availability, method for sub-city analysis, adjustments of WTU
Phase II Oct - Jan 99
Collection of information and design and development of presentation products
Phase III Feb-July 99
Quality assurance, processing of information, refinement of method, generation of products, advice to EC on future options
Phase III + Agreement on products and deliverables

5. EXPERIENCE OF KEY CONCEPTS
CITY (administrative level)
Two revisions to terms of reference required (Brussels and Vienna)
Nearly all cases city level, reliable source and intuitive level for analysis
All inter city comparisons in products made at city level
Users can however, compare key city level scores with WTU/conurbation scores

6. EXPERIENCE OF KEY CONCEPTS
CONURBATIONS AND WIDER TERRITORIAL UNITS
‘Administrative’ conurbations straightforward (e.g. French cities)
Other criteria
building blocks ‘administrative areas’
population density
extent of built up area
Some refinements necessary where :
physical definition crosses ‘Regional’ boundary
Some weaknesses in concept where:
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
Concept ‘expensive’ to operationalise

7. EXPERIENCE OF KEY CONCEPTS
DISPARITIES WITHIN CITIES
Approach : Define sub city areas (ideally 10, population)
Generate selected (common) indicators
Select two contrasting areas
Generate selected (common) indicators for two areas
Generate additional indicators for two areas
Issues : ‘Standard’ definitions of sub-city areas vary
Results depend on how boundaries are drawn
Considerable further scope to map and to analyse data to reveal contrasts in city structures

8. EXPERIENCE OF KEY CONCEPTS
INDICATORS
List of indicators in terms of reference refined and lengthened(!)
Emphasis on so called ‘outcome’ indicators
preferred definitions of variables were given but some flexibility allowed
Issues : Data sometimes available for ‘non standard’ boundaries
Method (mainly) required variables - sometimes indicators were given (!)
No attempt to add indicator scores
Scores not presented as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and no explicit rankings given in products

9. EXPERIENCE OF KEY CONCEPTS
TIME SERIES
Only required for one indicator in terms of reference
Collected (where possible) for all indicators and variables at city and WTU/conurbation level for 1996, 1991 and 1981 or nearest available date
Issues : Some boundary changes over time affect validity of some indicators (population/employment etc)
Some definition changes
Most of detailed information only presented city by city

10. EXPERIENCE OF KEY CONCEPTS
CITY/NATIONAL COMPARISONS
Not a requirement of the Terms of Reference
Issues : Not applicable for some indicators
Allows for interesting comparisons of relative position of cities
‘Ordinal’ comparisons more valid than ratio comparisons, because of differences in scale of ‘city level’ urban areas and absence of London and Paris

11. THE AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Key Factors
National Variations
Between City Variations
presence of statistical departments/responsibilities
level of co-operation
willingness to publish

12. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - DESIGN
Icons and symbols have been used to :
Identify domains
Illustrate quality of data

13. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - DESIGN
Icons and symbols have been used to :
Identify Domains
Illustrate quality of data

14. Population
Crime
Water
Nationality
Employment
Waste Management
Household Structure
Economic Activity
Land Use
Unemployment and Labour Market
Civic Involvement
Travel Patterns
Income, Disparities and Poverty
Training and Education Provision
Energy Use
Housing
Training and Education (Qualification)
Climate
Air Quality
and Noise
Health
Recreation and Culture

15. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - DESIGN
Icons and symbols have been used to :
Identify Domains
Illustrate quality of data

17. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - RESULTS
Information within each domain has been analysed
Results from each city are contextualised
Comparative results of scores for each city shown by :
indicating which ‘fifth’ city scores belong
Relative city and WTU/conurbation level score
Divergence between selected sub-city areas
Comparisons of specific indicators at national, city and WTU levels

18. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - RESULTS
Information within each domain has been analysed
Results from each city are contextualised
Comparative results of scores for each city shown by :
indicating which ‘fifth’ city scores belong
Relative city and WTU/conurbation level score
Divergence between selected sub-city areas
Comparisons of specific indicators at national, city and WTU levels

20. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - RESULTS
Information within each domain has been analysed
Results from each city are contextualised
Comparative results of scores for each city shown by :
indicating which ‘fifth’ city scores belong
Relative city and WTU/conurbation level score
Divergence between selected sub-city areas
Comparisons of specific indicators at national, city and WTU levels

22. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - RESULTS
Information within each domain has been analysed
Results from each city are contextualised
Comparative results of scores for each city shown by :
indicating which ‘fifth’ city scores belong
Relative city and WTU/conurbation level score
Divergence between selected sub-city areas
Comparisons of specific indicators at national, city and WTU levels

24. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - RESULTS
Information within each domain has been analysed
Results from each city are contextualised
Comparative results of scores for each city shown by :
indicating which ‘fifth’ city scores belong
Relative city and WTU/conurbation level score
Divergence between selected sub-city areas
Comparisons of specific indicators at national, city and WTU levels

26. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - RESULTS
Information within each domain has been analysed
Results from each city are contextualised
Comparative results of scores for each city shown by :
indicating which ‘fifth’ city scores belong
Relative city and WTU/conurbation level score
Divergence between selected sub-city areas
Comparisons of specific indicators at national, city and WTU levels

29. THE PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS - RESULTS
Information within each domain has been analysed
Results from each city are contextualised
Comparative results of scores for each city shown by :
indicating which ‘fifth’ city scores belong
Relative city and WTU/conurbation level score
Divergence between selected sub-city areas
Comparisons of specific indicators at national, city and WTU levels

31. THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PRODUCTS
YEARBOOK
Part 1 Overview - brief domain by domain analysis
Part II Comparative Tables
Part III Summary Results from each city
(published by Commission in English/French)

32. THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PRODUCTS
URBAN AUDIT MANUAL
Guide for existing and prospective cities
‘Tested’ during pilot phase
Includes explanation of method
Datafiles
List of datasources used in pilot phase

33. THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PRODUCTS
THE WEB SITE

34. FURTHER RESULTS SUPPLIED TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Survey of participating cities - varying inputs, strong continuing interest
Interview survey of perceptions
Legitimises choice of indicators
Perceptions don’t coincide with objective indicators(!)
Review of Indicators (including those not included)
Detailed results of feasibility work
Data base
‘Business plan, with recommendations to the Commission