Eurostat - Working Party on Urban Statistics - 2002 Doc. E4/Urban/2002/2_EN
/ EUROPEAN COMMISSIONEUROSTAT
Directorate F: Agricultural, environmental, food and regional statistics
Unit F-4: Regional accounts and indicators and geographical information system /
Document F4/URBAN/2002/8_EN
Working Party on “Urban Statistics”
Meeting of the working party on 5 + 6 December 2002
in Luxembourg, BECH building, room quetelet
Methodological Issues
- The larger urban zone
1
version 2.1 of 03/12/2002
Urban Audit II
Larger Urban Zones (LUZ)
State of the art
Introduction______
Belgium______
Denmark______
Germany______
Greece______
Spain______
France______
Ireland______
Italy______
Luxembourg______
Netherlands______
Austria______
Portugal______
Finland______
Sweden______
United Kingdom______
Conclusion______
Introduction
This document gives an overview of the state of the art of the definitions of the Larger Urban Zones for the cities in Urban Audit II. The document will be updated when additional information is received. Hence its rather provisional character.
At the Working Party meeting in November 2001 concerning the Urban Audit follow-up, it was decided that the concept of functional urban regions is the target concept for Larger Urban Zone data, which shall be approximated using NUTS level 3 or, if available, NUTS level 4 data. Definitions of the LUZ by NUTS level 5 regions (local administrative units) are also acceptable, provided the data availability for the final statistics is sufficient.
Accordingly, the remainder of the paper examines, country by country, how NUTS level 3, NUTS level 4 or NUTS level 5 regions would fit our purpose.
An advantage of this approximation approach is the wealth of statistical data available for NUTS regions, in particular at NUTS level 3. Another advantage would be that as the NUTS classification is stable over time, statistical time series could be used for the "proxy agglomerations". [1]
An approximation by NUTS level 4 data is preferable to an approximation by NUTS level 3 data, as the shape of the LUZ is more refined. But NUTS level 4 has been defined only in a few EU Member States: Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom. Only in these countries will it be possible to define the functional urban region on the basis of NUTS 4 units. For medium sized cities, it is generally preferable to use NUTS 4, where available, as a proxy for the functional urban region.
Provided that data for the different variables are available at NUTS level 5 (commune/ward/Gemeinde or similar units), a number of NUTS level 5 units can be used to approximate the LUZ.
It is important to bear in mind that the target unit is the functional urban region, not the morphological agglomeration (built-up area). In some Member States this seems still a bit unclear.
Belgium
Original Eurostat proposal
Brussels has a strong influence on the labour market in large parts of Belgium and it is therefore appropriate to include several "arrondissements" (NUTS level 3 units) around “Brussels” political region. In Belgium, towns are located close to each other and, in addition to the large and medium-sized cities, there is a dense network of smaller towns which to some degree are woven into the large functional urban regions, and to some degree constitute independent labour markets of their own.
National proposal
We can agree with the proposal to take into account the NUTS 3 structure, which means for Antwerp-city, Charleroi, Liège, Gent and Brugge the corresponding arrondissement.
For Brussels we will take into account the arrondissements of Halle-Vilvoorde and Leuven (which together comprise the province of Vlaams Brabant, and the arrondissement of Nivelle (i.e. the province of Brabant-Wallon).
Eurostat assessment
Belgium has given a good proposal that is accepted by Eurostat.
Denmark
Original Eurostat proposal
The capital region has been officially delineated to include the two central municipalities (København, Frederiksberg) and three counties (Amter). The influence of the capital reaches beyond the capital region, but its influence on the two additional counties on the island of Sjælland is too weak to justify their inclusion in the LUZ. Aarhus and all other medium-sized cities do not completely occupy the entire county where they are located. In the case of Aarhus, it is not problematic to use NUTS 3 as a proxy for the functional urban zone. For other towns, it will quickly become problematic.
National proposal
LUZ = county. This implies that the LUZ for the cities of København, Århus, Odense and Ålborg include the counties (amter) they are located in).
Greater Copenhagen (Storkøbenhavn) contains 2 NUTS 3 units
DK001 = København og Frederiksberg municipalities and
DK002 = Københavns Amt
Eurostat assessment
To use "amt" (NUTS level 3) as building block is a good idea. For Greater Copenhagen, the capital + three counties (amter) corresponding to "Hovedstadsregionen" (the capital region) have to be used. For the 3 medium-sized cities, one county around each city, as in the proposal, is sufficient.
Germany
Original Eurostat proposal
For most large and medium-sized cities, the Gemeinde is also defined as a NUTS level 3 unit (kreisfreie Stadt). All Kreise (districts) neighbouring a city of type "Kreisfreie Stadt" have been regarded as constituting the functional urban region for this city. This is an oversimplification, in particular for the medium-sized cities. On the other hand, some of the largest cities (München, Frankfurt am Main) have a strong influence that goes beyond the first ring of neighbouring Kreise.
A particular problem is the overlapping of the LUZs in some parts of the country, notably in the Rhein-Ruhr area.
National proposal
The planning regions (Raumordnungsregionen/ Planungsregionen) are proposed as LUZ (large urban zones), as they are the functional urban regions used in regional planning in the Laender and on the federal level. At the level of planning region, the statistical offices of the Länder can provide a particularly wide variety of planning policy data, not all of which are available for individual Kreise (NUTS 3). The list of Kreise (NUTS 3) assigned to the cities in these planning regions is attached.
The use of planning regions as LUZ may lead to problems in densely populated areas and in the functional urban regions of large cities, such as Berlin, the ”Ruhrgebiet” and others. The larger urban zones of big cities may incorporate ”LUZ” of smaller centres. This became inevitable when it was decided to include smaller cities of 50,000 – 250,000 in Urban Audit II, and, in principle, it is independent of the choice of the NUTS level for delineation of the LUZ.
We propose to approach the problem of overlapping LUZ in two steps:
- Collect the data on all NUTS3 units (Kreise) belonging to the LUZ of any of the cities chosen for Urban Audit II.
- Find out about the strength of the relations to the competing centres by looking at commuting and migration between the districts (Kreise) and the central cities to delineate the LUZ of the smaller centres. Whenever it is necessary to have mutually exclusive LUZ, the LUZ of the smaller centres can be deducted from the LUZ of the larger centres.
In general we would suggest permitting common LUZ where they exist in reality.
This solution is proposed for the following Urban Audit cities
-Düsseldorf and Wuppertal
-Essen, Mülheim a.d.Ruhr and Moers
-Köln and Leverkusen,
-Frankfurt and Wiesbanden,
-Berlin and (if this city is eventually included in the UA:) Potsdam
-Erfurt and Weimar
Frankfurt/Oder has its own planning region that can be subtracted from Berlin’s LUZ.
As most data for the LUZ will be provided by district (Kreis), it will be possible to exclude a district after collection of the data. It should not be excluded beforehand.
Eurostat assessment
In many cases, the "Raumordnungsregionen" constitute good approximations of the urban areas. They are all based on NUTS level 3 units (Kreise) as building blocks, so data availability should not be a major problem. However, in several cases the "Raumordnungsregionen" are rather large. This is particularly the case for the medium-sized cities. If the UA city is near a corner of the planning region, any districts in the opposite corner probably have very weak ties with this UA city.
In some cases, the selected urban audit city is only the second largest town in a "Raumordnungsregion" (such as the case of Weimar, where the larger city Erfurt is in the same planning region). The region is then not the urban region of the selected Urban Audit city, but of another city. A similar case is Berlin-Frankfurt an der Oder. Frankfurt/Oder is an Urban Audit city in its own right and the distance between it and Berlin is too large to regard Frankfurt/Oder as a suburb of Berlin. One possible solution is to detach individual districts from the planning region in order to create a LUZ for second-ranking cities within the planning region. Commuting flows will be very useful in this fine-tuning of the delineation of the LUZ.
In the Rhein/Ruhr area, many cities have been chosen for the Urban Audit and it seems very difficult to use the "Raumordnungsregionen" as LUZ.
A more refined proposal should be made by Germany.
Greece
Original Eurostat proposal
For Greater Athens, the region of Attiki minus its outlying islands is a good approximation for the functional urban region. For Thessaloniki, the Nomos with the same name is a good approximation of the urban region, being only slightly too large. An even better option would be to use NUTS level 4, the Eparchia, for Thessaloniki. All medium-sized towns are too small to fill up either a Nomos at NUTS level 3 or an Eparchia at NUTS level 4, the latter being preferable.
National proposal
Concerning the Larger Urban Area the situation in Greece, following the new " Kapodistrias " system is the following:
NUTS 2 is equivalent to the 13 regions (Periferies) into which Greece is divided
NUTS 3 is equivalent to the 52 prefectures (Nomos) into which Greece is divided
NUTS 4 is equivalent to the term DIMOS ie. municipality
NUTS 5 is equivalent to the term ' DimotikoDiamerisma ' .
Therefore, we propose the following:
Large Urban Area will be Nomos (NUTS level 3). In the case of Athens, the Large Urban Area will not cover the islands which belong to Nomos Attikis. An overview of the sizes of the LUZ compared with the cities themselves is given in the following table.
Population Data
Α/Α / NUTS level 3 (LUZ) / NUTS level 4 (Admin.)ΝΟΜΟS / POPULATION / DIMOS / POPULATION
1 / ΑΤΤΙΚIS / 3.761.810 / ATHINA / 745.514
2 / THESSALONIKIS / 1.057.825 / THESSALONIKI / 363.987
3 / ΑHAIAS / 322.789 / PATRA / 163.446
4 / IRAKLEIOY / 292.489 / IRAKLEIO / 137.711
5 / LARISSIS / 279.305 / LARISSA / 126.076
6 / ΜΑGNISSIAS / 206.995 / VOLOS / 82.439
7 / ΜΕSSINIAS / 176.876 / KALAMATA / 57.620
8 / ΙOANNINON / 170.239 / IOANNINA / 70.203
9 / KAVALAS / 145.054 / KAVALA / 63.293
Eurostat assessment
Good proposal for Athens, acceptable for Thessaloniki.
The nomos (NUTS level 3 unit) is quite large as LUZ for the medium-sized cities.
Spain
Original Eurostat proposal
The provincias (NUTS 3) of Spain are only 50 in number and generally too large to serve as proxies for functional urban regions. Only Madrid is close to a good approximation. For Barcelona and Vitoria, it could be justified to use NUTS 3. Severe problems arise with every other large city, not to mention the medium-sized towns. Unfortunately, a NUTS level 4 has not been defined for Spain. If defined properly, a future NUTS level 4 could serve well as a proxy for functional urban regions.
National proposal
Since Eurostat has encouraged the use of NUTS level 3 (or level 4, if available) for defining the Larger Urban Zones, the proposal for Spain should be according to the administrative concept "provincia" (NUTS level 3) as LUZ. Data is available only at this level.
Eurostat assessment
The NUTS 3 units are very large in many cases. In the case of Palma di Mallorca, it means that all Balearic islands are included in the LUZ; in the case of Las Palmas, it means that not only the whole island of Gran Canaria but also adjacent islands are included. If, for reasons of data availability, no other solution is possible, it is better than no LUZ at all.
France
Original Eurostat proposal
Paris can be properly defined in terms of départements (=NUTS 3). Its influence is increasing to ever-growing distances and the limits of Ile-de-France region (NUTS 2) have long since been surpassed. For other large cities, there is in many cases a problem with using the département as building block. It works quite well for cities like Lyon and Marseille, but Lille, Nantes or Strasbourg have functional urban regions that are considerably smaller than their NUTS 3 regions. For medium-sized cities, départements can not be used.
National proposal
The proposal to stick to NUTS level 3 regions in order to approximate LUZ does not improve data availability at all. The administrative power of the «département» is very weak. A good approximation for LUZ is the French concept of ‘Aire Urbaine’, which is built up by aggregating municipalities according to the proportion of commuters working in the city. Paris will be treated separately since the NUTS2 unit Ile-de-France is a good approximation of the ‘Aire Urbaine’.
INSEE has sent a description of all aires urbaines (plus codes) in terms of NUTS level 5 units to Eurostat.
Eurostat assessment
The "aire urbaine" is indeed a concept that has been developed specifically to define urban areas, based on a commuting criterion. Accordingly, it is the best possible approximation of urban zones.
We have concerns about the data availability, since the aire urbaines are defined in terms of communes (NUTS level 5 units), some of which are very small. To get data for aire urbaines, data for all their constituent communes have to be aggregated and for some variables, data may not exist at level 5. It must also be noted that an aire urbaine may stretch across the boundaries of "Départements" (NUTS level 3 units) - it could well be that just one small commune is on the other side of the NUTS 3 boundary. It will not be possible to aggregate aires urbaines to NUTS 3, or to quantify the reminder (non-LUZ) of NUTS 3 units.
The separate solution for Paris is acceptable. LUZ for the cities in the DOM (overseas départements) are missing.
Ireland
Original Eurostat proposal
Only Dublin can be acceptably defined in terms of NUTS 3. Here the problem is how strong the influence in adjoining regions is. At level 4, it is not impossible that another county would be included in the Dublin functional urban region. The other cities in Ireland are rather small from a European perspective and the regions in which they lie cover areas far beyond their functional urban regions. This is also true if NUTS level 4 (county) is used.
National proposal
Larger Urban ZoneThe morphological unit defined in terms of Nuts level 4 (county) and Nuts level 5 (ED).
These definitions have been chosen as they approximate best with (a) the Pilot Survey and (b) Census results.
Eurostat assessment
The proposal is based on a misunderstanding. The target is the concept of functional urban zone, approximated with NUTS level 3 or 4 units, and not the morphological unit. There need not be a link to the pilot study for the LUZ. More important is to try to achieve harmonized definitions across Europe.
Ireland should make a new improved proposal.
Italy
Original Eurostat proposal
Provincie (NUTS3) in Italy number more than 100 and for the largest cities they can serve as an acceptable approximation of functional urban regions. In the cases of Milano and Napoli (possibly other cities as well), the LUZ extends into neighbouring provinces. As a proxy for medium-sized cities, the provinces are too large. A NUTS level 4 would have been useful.
National proposal
Although provinces are often administrative areas without a credible geographical or statistical significance, the national view is that today there is no a credible alternative to adopting the province as the LUZ for Urban Audit II, at least initially in the hope that more credible spatial units will emerge from joint discussions.
For the future, we favour joint action to find territorial entities representative of the way in which society organises itself spatially by localising residential, productive and recreational units in relation to which economic activities and social relationships develop – i.e. an approach similar to the Italian Labour Market Area. However, data production has to be agreed and planned in advance. For the moment there is no data for LMA:s. In addition they will be redefined for the whole country with the new census data. In the long run they will be a better base for LUZ, but only in the long run.
To include for the LUZ Milano also neighbouring provincie will be checked (maybe also for Genova).
Eurostat assessment
For the large cities, the proposal to use NUTS 3 units as LUZ is acceptable in general. In a few cases (such as Milano) it should be discussed if one provincia is sufficient for the LUZ or if a neighbouring province has such strong ties with the central city that it should be included as well.
For most of the medium-sized cities, the provinces are several times larger than the city proper. Because data availability is very poor for other spatial concepts like LMA:s, there is no real alternative to the provinces as approximations for LUZ.
Luxembourg
Original Eurostat proposal
Luxembourg poses two particular problems: the first is that the whole country constitutes only one region at NUTS level 3 and the second is that the influence of the capital city extends beyond the national frontiers into three different countries. The size of NUTS 3 in the neighbouring countries is not uniform. If a "foreign" region should be included with Luxembourg, the first candidate is probably the arrondissement of Arlon in Belgium.
Level 4 has been defined for Luxembourg so within the country it is possible to define the functional urban region of Luxembourg city with good precision. The second town in the country, Esch-sur-Alzette, should constitute a LUZ of its own but it might also be nested within the capital’s zone of influence (note: Esch was later removed from the list of Urban Audit cities).
National proposal
With its 77 965 inhabitants on 1st January 2002, Luxembourg-City is surely smaller than many other Urban Audit cities (even on sub-city level). As a result, the requested LUZ variables do not make much sense: By applying the morphological agglomeration or contiguous built-up area, we detected a very insignificant LUZ with only 22 839 inhabitants.