1 / 11

Urban Benchmarking

Explore urban benchmarking in practice with examples utilizing Polish databases and ESPON tools. Learn about the process of assessing results, selecting indicators, and enhancing the learning potential of benchmarking. Discover the central administration and local perspectives in evaluating socio-economic performance and environmental protection in urban areas.

lcorbitt
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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Urban Benchmarking Urban Benchmarking inpractice – a fewexamples 6 XI 2013 | Warsaw| Jakub Rok

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

  3. 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.

  4. Ourframework

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. UB: the central administration’sperspective II GDP per capita: typology Source: ownelaborationbased on ESPON HyperAtlas Threespatiallevels of deviation Relative to contry average Indicator’svalue

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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?

  11. Thankyou for yourattention Jakub Rok j.rok@uw.edu.pl Center for EuropeanRegional and LocalStudies (EUROREG) Universityof Warsaw www.euroreg.uw.edu.pl

More Related