slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Urban Benchmarking

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 11

Urban Benchmarking - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 125 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Urban Benchmarking' - linnea


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
slide1

Urban Benchmarking

Urban Benchmarking inpractice – a fewexamples

6 XI 2013 | Warsaw| Jakub Rok

slide2

Aim of thepresentation

  • To presenttheprocess of results’ benchmarking, basing on examplesapplyingPolishdatabases and ESPON tools.
slide3

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.
slide5

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
slide6

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

slide7

UB: the central administration’sperspective II

GDP per capita:

typology

Source: ownelaborationbased on ESPON HyperAtlas

Threespatiallevels of deviation

Relative to contry average

Indicator’svalue

slide8

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
slide9

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
slide10

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?
slide11

Thankyou for yourattention

Jakub Rok

[email protected]

Center for EuropeanRegional and LocalStudies (EUROREG)

Universityof Warsaw

www.euroreg.uw.edu.pl

ad