150 likes | 329 Views
Urban Benchmarking step-by-step USESPON workshop on Urban Benchmarking. 6.11.2013 Dorota Celińska-Janowicz. Urban Benchmarking step-by-step. Urban Benchmarking step-by-step. Step 1: Aim and scope. Aim Diagnosis ( assessment )
E N D
Urban Benchmarkingstep-by-step USESPON workshop on Urban Benchmarking 6.11.2013 Dorota Celińska-Janowicz
Step 1: Aim and scope • Aim • Diagnosis (assessment) • Development goals (strategicdocuments, consultations) • Communicationaboutachievements • Scope • Type of analysis: processesvsresults • Type of reference group – othercities, externalstandards • Thematicscope • Reference group – selectioncriteria, finalchoice TRAP: Startinganalysiswithoutdefining an aim ESPON FOCI, SGPTD, ESPON typologies
Identification of cities for a reference group ESPON FOCI: Typology of metropoltanareas,based on GDP dynamic 1995-2004
Step 2: Data and visualisation ESPON Database, Hyperatlas, CityBench • Gathering data • Sources: national, Eurostat, ESPON • Completeness - time, territorial • Comparability - methodology of indicators (important also during interpretation) • Final selection of indicators (accurate, understandable, interpretable, adequate number) • Qualitative elements – yes/no • Preliminary database • Calculations • relativisation– per capita, density, percentages, • combining categiories, standarisation of units, currencies • Final database • Visualisation: maps, graphs • TRAPS: • Concentration on easilymeasurablefactors • Outdatedindicators
Visualisation ESPON Best Metropolises Benchmarking of Warsaw, Berlin and Parismetropolitanareas Source: www.mojapolis.pl • TRAPS: • Map: choice of presentationmethod(cartogram, diagrams), adequateintervals • Informationoversupply – lack of readability
Visualisation Aim of theanalysis – diagnosis made by experts (specialists) Aim of theanalysis – communication to public audience Source: Eurostat
Visualisation Source: www.fastcoexist.com/
Step 3: Interpretation and discussion • Unusualresults(outliers) • Calculationmistakes • Data quality • Comparison to thereference group • Whichvaluesaregood – high, low, medium • Our city compared to others – strenghts and weaknesses >> causes>> ways of improvement • Qualitativeaspects – nowtheycan be includedintoanalysis • Trends (historical data) • Postive/negative/neutral • Possiblecauses – universal, specific for our city • Theaim • Diagnosis >> improvement plan >> benchmarking • as monitoring • Development goals • Identification of the lider – source of goodpractices • Communication – broaderdiscussion • TRAPS: • Misinterpretation • Ranking ratherthanBenchmarking • Best practicescopy-pasteapproach
Useful links • ESPON FOCI http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_AppliedResearch/foci.html • ESPON SGPTD http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_AppliedResearch/SGPTD.html • ESPON BEST METROPOLISES http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_TargetedAnalyses/bestmetropolises.html • ESPON CityBenchhttp://espon.geodan.nl/citybench/# • ESPON Databasedatabase.espon.eu/db2 • ESPON Hyperatlashttp://hypercarte.espon.eu/HyperCarte/initLicense.action • EUROSTAT – Metropolitan Regions http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/metropolitan_regions • OECD Regional Statistics and Indicators • www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/regionalstatisticsandindicators.htm Źródło: Eurostat