1. The Urban Audit – measuring the quality of life in European cities
Berthold Feldmann - Unit D2
13-Jul-07

2. Structure of the talk Background
Coverage: cities, spatial units, reference years, variables
The current data collection
The perception surveys
2 / 34
Name of the presentation

3. Chapter 1
A little bit of history
13-Jul-07

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,
Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action, Com(98)605,
4 / 34

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
5 / 34
Name of the presentation

6. Coverage – Cities, spatial units, reference years, variables
Chapter 2
Coverage –
Cities, spatial units, reference years, variables
13-Jul-07

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)
7 / 34
Name of the presentation

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)
8 / 34
Name of the presentation

9. Covered domains 1. DEMOGRAPHY 5. TRAINING AND EDUCATION
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
9 / 34
Name of the presentation

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
10 / 34
Name of the presentation

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
The budget for the 2006 Urban Audit data collection is still in preparation.
12 / 34
Name of the presentation

13. Urban Audit 3 – the current data collection
Chapter 3
Urban Audit 3 – the current data collection
13-Jul-07

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
14 / 34
Name of the presentation

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
16 / 34
Name of the presentation

17. The perception surveys
Chapter 4
The perception surveys
13-Jul-07

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
18 / 34
Name of the presentation

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?)
19 / 34
Name of the presentation

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)
23 / 34
Name of the presentation

24. Satisfied with the cultural facilities (selection of cities)
24 / 34
Name of the presentation

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
As well as using the hard data supplied by statistical institutes throughout the EU, the Commission also decided to carry out a perception survey to see what European citizens think about their cities.
Perceptions can be extremely important – some political leaders choose to base their policies on perceptions rather than statistics! (Mayor of Manchester example)
How citizens feel is important to politicians
The perception survey had been carried out in 31 cities in the EU15 in This time it has been extended to the new Member States and to Turkey and Croatia
Data was collected through telephone interviews – 500 people in each city.
25 / 34
Name of the presentation

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. Correlations: air pollution - noise

31. Weak correlations: unemployment – easy to find a job

32. No correlations: recorded 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%
Concernant l’efficacité des services administratifs tandis que Naples et Marseille ont également des résultats plus mauvais qu’en 2004 avec -10% et -12%. Luxembourg marque un -17% mais le chiffre de 2004 était particulièrement haut (80%)
However, such comparisons raise methodological concerns.
33 / 34
Name of the presentation

34. Thank you for
your attention!
Any questions?