RESULTS D2.1 May 2014 Lead WP2: TU WIEN EUROPEAN SMART CITY PROFILES TURKU

Transcription

1

2 RESULTS D2.1 May 2014 Lead WP2: TU WIEN EUROPEAN SMART CITY PROFILES TURKU

3 Evidence based understanding of Smart City Smart City Key fields: Smart Economy Smart People Smart Governance Smart Mobility Smart Environment Smart Living Endowments Activities (Local conditions) (Application) A Smart City is a city well performing in these 6 key fields, built on the smart combination of endowments and activities of selfdecisive, independent and aware citizens. it is not the potential but its activation and use through stakeholders, customers and residents and transformation into an asset what makes a city smart integrative understanding for planning purpose 3

4 D 2.1 Smart City Profiles strengths and weaknesses of the partner cities in comparison to other medium-sized cities in Europe revealing the potentials for challenging other cities in an increasing competitive situation Positioning, Benchmarking Impulses for detailed analysis and strategic recommendations! Steps: Definition of data base and indicators (define a set of indicators for maximize group of cities, based on European Smart Cities approach, about 77 medium-sized cities including 6 partner cities) Operationalization ( to feed with data ) Illustration of results

5 City sample Austria: Graz, Linz, Salzburg, Innsbruck. Belgium: Gent, Brugge. Bulgaria: Pleven, Ruse. Czech republic: Plzen, Usti nad Labem. Germany: Regensburg, Rostock, Göttingen, Trier, Magedburg, Kiel, Erfurt. Denmark: Odense, Aarhus, Aalborg. Estonia: Tartu. Greek: Larisa, Patrai. Spain: Santiago de Compostela, Oviedo, Pamplona, Valladolid. Finland: Jyväskylä, Tampere, Turku, Oulu. France: Dijon, Nancy, Poitiers, Clermont- Ferrand, Montpellier. Italy: Trento, Verona, Venevzia, Padova, Trieste, Perugia, Ancona. Lithuania: Kaunas. Luxemburg: Luxembourg. Latvia: Liepaja. The Netherlands: Groningen, Enschede, Nijmegen, Eindhoven. Poland: Rzeszow, Kielce, Bialystok, Suwalki, Szczecin, Bydgoszcz. Portugal: Coimbra. Romania: Sibiu, Craiova, Timisoara. Sweden: Eskilstuna, Joenkoeping, Umeaa. Slovenia: Maribor, Ljubljana. Slovakia: Nitra, Banska Bystrica, Kosice. Hungary: Györ, Pécs, Miskolc. Ireland: Cork. UK: Leicester, Stoke-on-Trent, Portsmouth, Cardiff, Aberdeen.

6 City sample Based on projects SC1.0 & SC2.0 important group of cities in Europe often neglected cities besides metropolis Transparency in meaning, positioning and challenges Criteria of selection Functional Urban Area (FUA) as defined in ESPON About inhabitants Agglomeration < inhabitants At least 1 university Availability of data in Urban Audit Availability of raw data in total >75% Either way: PLEEC partner city! International experience Analogue European Smart Cities 1.0 (2007): Medium-sized cities: Graz, Linz, Ljubljana, Aarhus Major cities: Praque, Budapest, Bratislava, Vienna

7 Different sources Eurostat (Base of 14 indicators): in particular economie and technic, mostly recent data o 3 indicators NUTS3 level ( small regions / larger cities ) o 11 indicators NUTS2 level ( larger areas / states ) Urban Audit (Base of 34 indicators): Core City level, completly different topics, different actuality (most data from period ). o 33 indicators by query from Eurostat web database o 1 indicator recalculated as described in Urband Audit Methodological Handbook based on official CORINE LANDCOVER data. Eurobarometer (Base of 26 indicators): National level, personal interviews on different topics, e.g. lifestyle, different actualty, (like Urban Audit). Espon (Base of 5 indicators): Indicators calculated in other recent published projects. MastersPortal.eu (Base of 2 indikators): Information about courses of studies in specific cities Additional information provided by PLEEC partner cities and city of Graz. 81 indicators!

8 Spatial reference European data NUTS 2 NUTS 3 Sources of basemap: TUWIEN 2013 based on Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Geonames.org and other contributors; EuroGeographics

9 Data collection by partners

10 Timeline Total: 20% 2010 or younger 38% % 2008 or anterior

11 Smart City Model a hierarchical approach SC 3.0 PLEEC Rank Positioning 28 Smart City Key fields Domains Positioning Benchmarking SC 1.0 year Components Data SC 2.0 year 2012/13 Data Data

12 Smart City profile Turku The persistant work for the better future in the city of Turku is shown in these results. Smart Economy: Turku is the center of pharmaseutical industry and has also lot of business related to information technology. Turku has also an important harbour. Smart people: Finland is famous of people s high level of education. There is three universities and two university of applied sciences in Turku. Smart Gov: Turku is quite democratic and equal. Smart Mobility: Finnish people are very well connected to the internet. The public transport network is good, but the meaning of private cars is still important to the citizens. Smart environment: Air quality is quite good most of the year. The recycling and waste collection is in excellent level as well as the waste water collection and treatment. Turku has lot of green space and the environment is clean. Smart living: Educational possibilities as well as medical healthcare is good in Turku. The city doesn t attract tourists all year-round even though it s beautiful archipelago.

13 Performance of cities Turku: Good position in Europe Jyväskylä Eskilstuna Karte folgt Turku Tartu Stoke-on-Trent Santiago de Compostela Performance of cities far above average average far below average Sources of basemap: TUWIEN 2013 based on Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Geonames.org and other contributors; EuroGeographics

14 Positioning Turku is a quite typical nordic city. The people is well educated and the governance is democratic.

15 Benchmarking I Turku in comparision to selected cities in Europe One of the most succesful cities

16 Benchmarking II

17 Benchmarking III

18 Performance Turku

19 Performance Turku domains far below average Mob_2: (Inter-)national accessibility Multimodal potential accessibility Env_3: Ecological awareness Importance of protecting the environment Individual efforts on protecting nature Paying more for environmentally friendly products Eco_3: Economic image & trademarks Importance as decision-making centre Eco_6: International embeddedness Air transport of freight Air transport of passengers Liv_6: Touristic attractiveness Importance as tourist location

20 Performance Turku domains far above average Eco_5: Flexibility of labour market Long-term unemployment Gov_3: Transparent governance Personal attitude against corruption Satisfaction with fight against corruption Satisfaction with transparency of bureaucracy Perception of getting a new job Personal flexibility Peo_2: Lifelong learning Participation in life-long-learning in % Participation in training courses Total book loans and other media per resident Mob_3: Availability of IT- Infrastructure Internet access Internet infrastructure Personal internet use Peo_1: Level of qualification Importance as knowledge centre Population qualified at levels 5-6 ISCED

21 Performance Turku: context for energy efficient urban development Smart Environment weaknesses The people take the clean environment too granted. Smart People Could be more international. Smart Living Tourist attraction could be much better. Smart Governance Involving citizens to the decicion making could be much better. Smart Economy Economy is based on only a few fields of industry. strengths Smart Environment District heating helps to keep the air clean, good waste collection and recycling rate Smart People People is into life-long-learning Smart Living Good health care and cultural life. Smart Governance Good democracy. Smart Economy Big universities and lot of scientific research.

22 Smart City Profiles support an integrated urban development make urban development measurable and transparent presume explicitely political will for pro-active behaviour integrate all relevant actors and stakeholders promote the exchange of good practice and production of knowledge through analysis and discussion of strengths and weaknesses evidence-based decision-making indicate potential need of action in certain fields of urban development support strategic objectives and concepts and corresponding activities in view of various components communicate need of activities and makes success visible