1. The Choice of Spatial Units
Working Party on Urban Statistics Luxembourg 19th November 2001
E4/URBAN/2001/08_EN
Knut Utvik
Eurogramme – assisted Eurostat in assessing the Urban Audit pilot phase 
Knut Utvik eurogramme

2. Outline The pilot phase The administrative unit
The functional definition
Sub-city levels
Recommendations

3. The Urban Audit pilot phase
Three spatial levels for the data collected:
The administrative city
the core city
The functional city
the urban agglomeration
Sub-city areas

4. The central spatial unit: The administrative city
Administrative unit
Commune / Municipality / Ward / Gemeinde
In general equivalent to NUTS 5 regions
Corresponds to the empowerment of the city administration
Corresponds to spatial availability of data
No change …
… but adaptation for some cities ?

5. The importance of measuring the functional city
Industrial development
Logistical needs / infrastructure
Property prices
Environmental impacts
Commuting
Development of new residential areas
Work, education, specialised services
Regional co-operation and solutions

6. Definition of the functional city in the Urban Audit pilot phase
Wider Territorial Unit (WTU)
Also called settlement or morphological area
Technical definition:
Uses data on built-up areas (100 meter ‘buffer’ around the polygon)
Uses data on population density (More than 500 inhabitants per km2)
Problem when ‘green belts’ or strips of water goes through the urban area
Does not consider functional aspects, for example commuting over longer distances

7. An ‘ideal’ definition of the functional city ?
Functional Urban Regions (FUR)
Already in use in several Member States
Functional definition:
An integrated labour market
An integrated housing market
A business location area
A common regional traffic system
Common regional services
Regional cooperation
Currently no harmonised definition

8. A practical solution for the functional city ?
NUTS level 3 regions
Created for statistical purposes
Generally based on administrative units
Therefore, data availability good
Reflect the urban regions relatively well
NUTS level 4 regions
Can be a better approximation than NUTS 3
Only defined in six Member States

9. A long-term solution for the functional city
Functional Urban Regions
Provides the most realistic picture of the functional city
Requires common principles and a harmonised definition
Establish a Task Force

10. A short-term solution for the functional city
NUTS level 3 regions
Data often available through the national statistical offices
Reflect the urban regions well in most Member States
NUTS level 4 regions where this is a better approximation
NUTS 4 on a case-by-case basis

11. The need for information on sub-city areas
“… information on intra city disparities indispensable for further political action”
“… enable city authorities to gather precise information on possible ‘pockets of concern’ ”
“… pinpoint major disparities in terms of social cohesion ”

12. Definition of sub-city areas in the Urban Audit pilot phase
The Urban Audit pilot phase foresaw
At least 20 sub-city areas for each city
Average population size 10,000
Actual result
Number of sub-city areas spanned from 4 to 215
Average population size spanned from 2,269 to 426,812
Thus substantial comparability problems

13. Data requested for all sub-city areas in the Urban Audit pilot phase
Data collection was limited to the main areas:
Population size
Population under 16 years of age
Population over national retirement age
Unemployment
Green space
Income
‘… and other variables for which information is available at this level ’

14. Social disparities in the Urban Audit pilot phase
Two sub-city areas were selected:
One typifying relatively ‘poor’ areas
One typifying relatively ‘prosperous’ areas
For these two areas information was collected on:
Health
Crime
Education level
Housing
Accessibility

15. Recommendations … Task Force:
Harmonised definition of the Functional Urban Region (FUR)
Feasibility of defining sub-city areas which provide comparable results between cities
Measurement of social disparities within the participating cities

16. Recommendations … Main level for data collection:
The administrative city
Defined as the NUTS 5 region
In special cases:
NUTS 4 region (Ireland, Portugal, United Kingdom?)
Other practical solutions (Brussels?)
All of the requested variables

17. Recommendations …
Data collection for the functional city (urban conglomeration)
In the short term:
Defined as the NUTS 3 region
NUTS 4 region where appropriate
In the long term:
Functional Urban Region
Based on principles agreed in the Task Force

18. Recommendations …
Need for information on urban socio-economic structures
Need for information on social disparities
Continued data collection at sub-city level
Limited number of variables
No selection of ‘poor’ / ‘prosperous’ areas?
Results of the Task Force