Urban Benchmarking
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 11

Urban Benchmarking PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Urban Benchmarking. Urban Benchmarking in practice – a few examples 6 XI 2013 | Warsaw| Jakub Rok. Aim of the presentation. To present the process of results ’ benchmarking, basing on examples applying Polish databases and ESPON tools . . Introductory remarks.

Download Presentation

Urban Benchmarking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Urban benchmarking

Urban Benchmarking

Urban Benchmarking inpractice – a fewexamples

6 XI 2013 | Warsaw| Jakub Rok


Urban benchmarking

Aim of thepresentation

  • To presenttheprocess of results’ benchmarking, basing on examplesapplyingPolishdatabases and ESPON tools.


Urban benchmarking

Introductoryremarks

  • Examplespresentedhereshould be treated as excersisesonly - theyare not a full-fledged benchmarking process. Whatdoestitmean?

    • We focused on resultsassessment; tappingthefull learning potential of UB requiresanalysingtheprocesses as well.

    • We employedonlyquantitative data; qualitative data wouldallowus to deepentheanalysis

    • Eachexampleisbased on one chosen data source; usingvariousdatabasesallows to selectmoreappropriateindicators

    • We didn’tincludethecivicparticipationintheexamples. However, thisprocessiscrucial for shapingtheresearch agenda and collectiveinterpretation of results. Feedbacksobtainedin a consultationprocessallow for an on-goingrefinement of thewhole benchmarking activity.


Urban benchmarking

Ourframework


Urban benchmarking

UB: the central administration’sperspective I

  • AIM: Comparingsocio-economic performance incoal-based industrial regions whichundergorestructuration withSlaskievoivodeship

  • Strategiccontext: Europe 2020

  • Thematic field: labour market, demography, strength of theeconomy

    • Reference group: similareconomicbackground + comparable role inthe national economy + Central and Eastern Europe

      • Ruhr area and Saararea (Germany), Ostravaarea (Czech Republic), Jiu Valley (Romania)

    • Selectingindicators – ESPON HyperAtlas


Urban benchmarking

UB: the central administration’sperspective II

  • INDICATORS

  • Labour market

    • Economicallyactivepopulation (15-64 y.o.)

    • Unemploymentrate

  • Demography

    • Share of youngpeople (15-29 y.o.) intheeconomicallyactivepopulation

  • Strength of theeconomy

    • GDP per capita PPP

    • Labourproductivity PPP

  • Referencelevel: adjacent regions

    Source: ownelaboration, based on ESPON HyperAtlas


    Urban benchmarking

    UB: the central administration’sperspective II

    GDP per capita:

    typology

    Source: ownelaborationbased on ESPON HyperAtlas

    Threespatiallevels of deviation

    Relative to contry average

    Indicator’svalue


    Urban benchmarking

    UB: theregionaladministration’sperspective I

    • AIM: Evaluation of theenvironment protection performanceinmajor cities of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship

      • Drawing on thechallnegesidentifiedintheNational Strategy for Energy Security and Environment andRegional Development Strategy

      • Thematicfields: land management, energetics, air quality, waterquality, waste management, ecologicalawareness

      • Reference: average performance of 4 major cities

        • Bydgoszcz, Toruń, Grudziądz, Włocławek

      • Selection of indicators – BDL database


    Urban benchmarking

    UB: thelocaladministration’sperspective I

    • And now, thereal UB example – Łódź city 2011

    • AIM: Provideevidence-basedarguments for themunicipal, long-term strategy of development

      • Thematicfields:

        • Attractinginvestors, Public transportation system, Civicparticipation, Communal services, Metropolitanareacooperation, Labour market, Municipally-ownedcompanies

      • Reference group: competetivecities

        • Białystok, Gdynia, Kraków, Poznań, Rzeszów, Warszawa, Wrocław

      • Data sources: quantitative data fromvarioussources + qualitative data fromownresearch


    Urban benchmarking

    Conclusion

    • 3 BASIC MODES OF BENCHMARKING

    • Universal comparisons (e.g. major cities of a given region)

      • Comparisonsbased on a specificfeature (e.g. coal-based industry)

      • Distance to top performer

      • WHAT TO THINK OF WHEN PLANNING URBAN BENCHMARKING?

      • Thematic field: doesitmatchtheaim? Doesitincludethestrategiccontext?

      • Reference group: doesitmatchtheaim? Doesitallow for effectivecomparison?

    • Data: do variableshave a discrimatorypower? Aretheyreliable?

      • Calculations: how to improvetheindicators’ appropriateness? How to increasetheirexplanatorypower?


    Urban benchmarking

    Thankyou for yourattention

    Jakub Rok

    [email protected]

    Center for EuropeanRegional and LocalStudies (EUROREG)

    Universityof Warsaw

    www.euroreg.uw.edu.pl


  • Login