Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Urban Indicators Programme. Why Urban Indicators?. Monitor conflicting policy challenges resulting from: Globalisation Urbanisation Improve efficiency of government through performance management Required by national legislation. Programme Goals. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Urban Indicators Programme
Why Urban Indicators?
Monitor conflicting policy challenges resulting from:
Globalisation Urbanisation
Improve efficiency of government through performance management
Required by national legislation
Programme Goals Co-ordinated and integrated management of
cities through the use of indicators as urban policy and management tools
Information-driven decision making through the use of indicators as tools in strategic planning
Greater transparency and accountability in urban government through the use of indicators as communication and reporting tools
Programme Focus
IDP
Performance Management
Basic ServiceCommunity ServicesRegulatory Services
PlanningEnvironment
Economy
Quality of LifeUrban Management
Indicators policy-
focused, intersectoral and
relate to performance of
different levels of government
Key Issues
Data Sources and Availability Surveys National data Local authority data
Use/value of indicators Intercity and Intracity
comparisons Need for shared learning and
co-operation
Use/Value of Indicators
POLICY DEVELOPMENT CYCLE
POLICY DEVELOPMENT CYCLE
POLICY
STRATEGY
IMPLEMEN-TATION
MONITOR-
ING
EVAL-
UATION
REVIEW
Indicators used to report
progress
Indicators used to review policies
and strategies
Indicators are measured at regular
intervals to monitor the success of the strategy
Indicators are developed to
operationalise goals
Adapted from UNCHS-Habitat
Intercity/Intracity Comparisons
Need for a core set of indicators to allow for comparison between nine cities
Use City Development Index as starting point
Construct a development index that reflects unique characteristics of SA cities
Intracity measurement important because of inequalities
City Development Index Developed in 1997 by Urban Indicators
programme of Un-Habitat
Measures average well-being and access to facilities by urban residents
Based on 5 sub-indices:InfrastructureWasteHealthEducation City product
City Development IndexAll Cities Standard of Living Index CDI
35.13
56.00
75.89
56.30
61.92
56.30
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
Product =
Source: DPLG Poverty Research Project
City Development Index
Joburg Standard of Living Index CDI
89.0
72.0
71.4
100.0
60.0
35.9
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
JOHANNESBURGCape Town Standard of Living Index CDI
99.4
60.0
35.4
91.0
80.0
73.2
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
CAPE TOWN
Source: DPLG Poverty Research Project
City Development Index
Ekurhuleni Standard of Living Index CDI
63.0
62.8
57.0
35.9
89.0
70.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
Source: DPLG Poverty Research Project
Ethekwini Standard of Living Index CDI
58.6
76.8
56.0
34.7
68.0
57.8
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
ETHEKWINI Tshwane Standard of Living Index CDI
71.3
62.0
35.9
74.0
66.8
62.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
TSHWANE
City Development IndexMangaung Standard of Living Index CDI
42.9
14.3
50.0
34.7
70.0
45.3
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
MANGAUNGBuffalo City Municipality Standard of Living Index CDI
13.849.5
41.3
59.0
50.0
34.3
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
BUFFALO CITY
PMB/Msunduzi Standard of Living Index CDI
39.6
11.0
54.0
34.7
49.0
49.3
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
MSUNDUZI
Source:
DPLG Poverty Research Project
Nelson Mandela Standard of Living Index CDI
23.8
55.0
34.3
94.0
66.3
54.7
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0CDI =
Infrastructure =
Waste =
Health =
Education =
City Product =
NELSON MANDELA METRO
Informal Settlement
PublicHousing
Low Income Private
LowerMiddle
HigherMiddle
2.6 %No. of FormalBusinesses
4.7 % 0.3 % 42 % 49 %
Source: OHS, 2000
Economic Development Dept. (CMC)
% Less than Matric (economically active)
% Unemployed
59 %82 %83 %90 % 26 %
42 % 12 %22 %27 % 4 %
City Indicators:
% < Matric : 64%
% Unemployed : 20%
ECONOMIC/EMPLOYMENT INDICATORS CAPE TOWN
Knowledge-sharing
Programme of workshops and seminarsIncrease use of informationShowcase projects of member cities
Placement programmes
Membership of UN-Habitat GUO
Audit and Peer Review
Programme Objectives1. Promoting shared learning and co-operation between the
9 cities.
2. Initiating and developing links with international cities and agencies to share lessons leant and best practices.
3. Liaising with national departments and other agencies to identify areas of co-operation and partnership
between member cities and the relevant departments/agencies
4. Developing a common set of indicators that will allow for intercity and intracity comparisons.
5. Promote and enhancing capacity in the use of indicators in strategic planning
Key Activities Programme of shared learning Set up National Urban Observatory
incl. linking with national agencies Further Develop CDI and Core Set of
Urban Indicators Consultative process to complement technical work
Indicator DatabaseCapacity-Building in compiling and analysing indicators
