Developing indicators for

local and regional

development

Professor Cecilia Wong

Director of Centre for Urban Policy Studies (CUPS)

School of Environment & Development
The University of Manchester
 Monitoring local/regional policies:
conceptual challenges

challenges posed by the wicked policy problems (Rittel and
Webber, 1973)?

conceptual complexity: multiple objectives & interlocking

activities – explicit tensions and trade offs

horizontal interactions: policy delivery is reliant upon the

actions of a plurality of actors and agencies across
different policy sectors

vertical interactions: across different tiers of government -

the coordinating role of central government and the higher
spatial plans + local discretion over the interpretation of
such policy guidance
 Monitoring local/regional policies:
methodological challenges

Easier to measure inputs and processes than about
outcomes and effectiveness

impossible to establish general non-contextual laws

Difficult to ascertain the spatial effects (when an activity

in one area affects the characteristics of another)

appropriate timeframe to ascertain the performance and

impact

How to analyse/synthesise the data?

 Monitoring local/regional policies:
data challenges
• selecting relevant information, arranging and organising
that information and disseminating it to the appropriate
user

• sources of information: administrative records, surveys,

observations and questionnaires

• data problems: data availability, accessibility and quality;

consistency and comparability of information; spatial scales
and coverage; time series and updatedness

• cannot measure factors that are intangible and qualitative

in nature easily: institutional capacity
 Local/Regional Policy Monitoring
Framework: (1)

the structure-performance model

the complex social, economic and environmental conditions
in the wider spatial context (i.e. structure)

the objective-oriented policies are making an effect (i.e.
performance)

the objectives-targets-indicators approach

develop clear objectives, policies, targets and indicators as
a means of ensuring effective policy implementation,
monitoring and review

a nested hierarchy of indicators

Headline/core indicators to reflect strategic issues

develop other relevant output and outcome indicators to
reflect more specific local issues/circumstances

builds upon a spatial hierarchical concept: local to region
 Local/Regional Policy Monitoring
Framework: (2)

a framework of indicators
• contextual indicators: to highlight the current disparities,
gaps and development potential of different areas concerned
• output indicators: both core and local output indicators are
used to measure a series of quantifiable physical outputs
• outcome indicators: the impacts of policies on achieving the
spatial planning objectives of sustainable development and
on the wider process of socio-economic change

the use of analytical indicator bundles

• appropriate to tease out the key signals or messages that
emerge from the analysis of the indicator set and to
disseminate the findings in a clear and direct manner to offer
ideas and insights for future policy-making
 Indicator Bundle: an example
Journey to Work Indicators

(a) % with journey to work of under 5 km – residence based, 1991

(b) % with journey to work of over 10 km – residence based, 1991
(c) % with journey to work of under 5 km – workplace based, 1991
(d) % with journey to work of over 10 km – workplace based, 1991

Case Study Urban Areas

(a) (b) (c) (d)
Gr. London 44.5% 30.7% 38.2% 40.1%
New Addington 25.4% 19.3% 51.1% 23.2%
Prestbury/Macclesfield 60.0% 28.2% 67.0% 24.1%
Sheffield 52.3% 14.7% 49.3% 20.0%
Swindon 78.2% 11.1% 65.6% 20.1%
Sunderland 64.9% 18.1% 62.7% 15.0%
Washington 43.5% 24.7% 52.8% 22.4%
West Midlands 53.9% 18.0% 49.0% 24.2%
England 52.1% 27.1% 52.1% 27.1%
 Short (under 5 km) distance journey to work
– home versus workplace based values

100

Large cities/urban areas 90

Self-contained areas
80

70

60
Residence-based (a)

50

40

30

20
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Diverse & complex Domicile hinterland
commuting areas Work-based (c)
 Local/Regional Policy Monitoring
Framework: (3)

the analytical principles: to develop institutional
analytical capacity

setting the context and establishing baselines;

articulating the role and function of different types of
indicator and their targets at different stages of the
policy-making process;

using qualitative and quantitative information to enrich
interpretation and to value different forms of
knowledge and experience in policy monitoring;

developing analysis over time to analyse both spatial
and temporal changes;

comparing broader contextual trends against changes
in the output indicators and outcome indicators; and

making interpretative commentaries.
Spatial Effects in Action
(PhD Research for NWDA by Alasdair Rae)

+
1. Positive Impacts in Targeted Area
2. Negative Impacts in Targeted Area -
3. No Impact in Target Area o

In reality, a lot more complicated

Interactions with adjacent areas

In theory, 9 possible outcomes…
 Positive Neutral
Model Explanation
1 ‘Multiple Additionality’

Area Additionality

Regional Additionality
2
‘In-situ Additionality’

Area Additionality

Regional Neutrality
3 ‘Inward Additionality’

Area Additionality

Regional Displacement
Negative
Strategic
Assessment
Good Result: There
has been a positive
‘spread effect’.
Good Result: No
positive spread effect,
but target has been hit.
Bad Result: At a
regional level, this is a
failure. Costly success.
 Positive Neutral Negative

Model Explanation Strategic

Assessment
4 ‘Displaced Additionality’ Good Result: Lack of

Area Neutrality success in area, but

Regional Additionality good regional result.

5 ‘Multiple Neutrality’ Bad Result : Despite

Area Neutrality resources invested, lack

Regional Neutrality of additionality.

6 ‘Displaced Displacement’ Bad Result: Negative

Area Neutrality regional dynamics, no

Regional Displacement improvement in area.
 Positive Neutral Negative

Model Explanation Strategic

Assessment
7 ‘Outward Additionality’ Bad Result : Target

Area Displacement area still in decline,

Regional Additionality despite investment.

‘In-situ Displacement’ Bad Result : Negative

8

Area Displacement dynamics in target

Regional Neutrality area, region stagnant.

9 ‘Multiple Displacement’ Bad Result: Worst

Area Displacement case scenario. Deep-

Regional Displacement rooted problems here.