Mobility Patterns and Lifestyles in Vienna – Case Study Liesing

The aim of the study is to understand the linkages between housing form, mobility patterns and lifestyle with focus on leisure activities, using the example of Vienna/Liesing. We analyse how mobility behaviour of daily and leisure activities is linked to mobility and leisure orientations as well as the availability of local recreational facilities, private or semi-private green spaces in the neighbourhood. The study shows that the general mobility orientations of residents in the district of Liesing to some degree contradict the reality of their daily transportation. It seems that in the case of trips to work and training the factors location, accessibility and travel time have more influence on mode choice than the factor lifestyle or mobility orientation. For leisure trips the correlation of lifestyle or housing form with mode choice becomes more important and overlays and stratifies the influence of locational factors

TRANSFORM – Governing the Smart City by Projects

With the recent ascendance of a sociology of public policy instruments (Le Gales & Lascoumes 2007), particular interest has been devoted towards understanding the emergence of the project as broadly indicative of wider transformations in strategic urban policy making (Pinson 2007, 2009, Beal 2010). Many Smart Cities are governed by research projects, and these are practically marked by an inherent tension. On one hand, the Smart City research project has the purpose of shaping consensus around acceptable “smart” urban futures, instituting new pluralist political spaces, in which scientific targets are always practically reversible if they do not fit consensus. On the other, the Smart city research project aims to scientifically evaluate what “right” choices have to be made to lead the city towards effective Smart City development in line with supranational targets and climate wisdoms. How can the Smart City research project shape consensus among a multiplicity of institutions, actors and groups while not compromising the scientific validity of the set targets and strategies? Drawing on the experiences of the project TRANSFORM in monitoring and shaping the transition strategies of six European cities, the aim of this paper is to elucidate some of the logics of strategic urban policy processes in their peculiar pathways towards the Smart City. In the course of the paper we would like to show how some of the tensions inherent in the role of Smart city research projects are practically addressed in the local framework of the project TRANSFORM and give a first tentative evaluation whether this has been successful so far. In the context of stagnant growth prospects and increased territorial competition, the urban project has become a primary vehicle for the promotion of local development. Newly build urban districts, such as Hamburg Hafencity or Aspern Seestadt in Vienna, mega events like the London Olympics, large scale revamps of urban public spaces such as the pedestrianization of Times Square, or the proliferation of cultural venues from the London Megadome to the old butcheries of Casablanca are prominent examples for the spread of the project form in urban policy making. Yet, while the urban project has become a preferred instrument of contemporary urban policy, it cannot be conceived of as a mere effect of the strategies it is embedded in but should be seen as a marker of the very advent of a project-based polis (Boltansky 1999) in which urban governance assumes the logic of the project itself. As has been argued elsewhere((Pinson 2005;2006; Brake 2000) it is a form of metropolitan governance whose primary purpose it is to shape consenus to scientificically elaborated urban development goals by substantively linking urban strategy and its implementation through the social mobilization of different actor constellations, thereby flexibly adjusting the strategic environment to changing external and internal circumstances, and monitoring the actions of local actors and their interests where they are generally segregated. Smart Cities are governed by research projects, and these are marked by an inherent tension. On one hand, the Smart City research project has the purpose of shaping consensus around an acceptable “smart” urban future instituting new pluralist political spaces, in which scientific targets are always practically reversible if they do not fit consensus. On the other, the Smart city research project aims to scientifically evaluate what “right” choices have to be made to lead the city towards effective Smart City development in line with supranational targets and climate wisdoms. How can the Smart City research project shape consensus among a multiplicity of institutions, actors and groups while not compromising the scientific validity of the set targets and strategies? Drawing on the experiences of the project TRANSFORM in monitoring and shaping the low-carbon transfromation strategies of six European cities, the aim of this paper is to elucidate some of the logics of strategic urban policy processes in their peculiar pathways towards the Smart City. Drawing on the experiences from the TRANSFORM cities in general and particularly from Vienna in formulating and experimenting their Smart City strategy, we would like to show how some of the tensions inherent in the role of Smart city research projects are practically addressed in the framework of the project TRANSFORM. In the first part we will provide a general theoretical background to the sociological analysis of the urban project, with particular focus on the challenges on the governance of local climate affairs. In the second part, we shall illustrate this by looking at the TRANSFORM project, first form a European perspective, then from the viewpoint of Vienna

The role of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy in creating rural jobs

This study analysed the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy’s role in creating rural jobs. Starting at the EU level, a thorough systematic literature review and a statistical analysis prepare the ground for more detailed Member Stare reviews and Case studies. When discussing the findings the study concludes that the CAP supports the survival of small scale farms and contributes to sustain and develop rural economies. However, Pillar I payments have contradictory effects on employment and its ability in creating jobs appears to be limited. Pillar II is effective in supporting diversification, but concrete evidences of direct effects on employment are difficult to assess due to missing systematic reporting on job creation

The role of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy in creating rural jobs

This study analysed the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy’s role in creating rural jobs. Starting at the EU level, a thorough systematic literature review and a statistical analysis prepare the ground for more detailed Member Stare reviews and Case studies. When discussing the findings the study concludes that the CAP supports the survival of small scale farms and contributes to sustain and develop rural economies. However, Pillar I payments have contradictory effects on employment and its ability in creating jobs appears to be limited. Pillar II is effective in supporting diversification, but concrete evidences of direct effects on employment are difficult to assess due to missing systematic reporting on job creation

Evaluation support study on the impact of the CAP on territorial development of rural areas. Socioeconomic aspects

This study is an evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy’s (CAP) impact on balanced territorial development (BTD) of rural areas across EU-28: socio-economic aspects. The main focus of the study is on territorial development of rural areas, which are investigated through the analysis of socio-economic aspects and social inclusion. The evaluation work starts with a causal analysis which intended to scope and select the CAP measures and instruments considered to have a direct impact on the general objective of BTD in rural areas. The work is then articulated around five evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, European added value. Several methods have been applied to gather and analyse both quantitative and qualitative information. Sixteen evaluation study questions have been answered by using quantitative methods such as input-output analysis, clustering, and statistical regressions, as well as qualitative methods, including case studies, literature review and the observation of development trends over the programming period. According to the evaluation study findings, the issues and needs faced by rural regions in the EU-28 are significant. The evaluation’s quantitative and case study findings indicate that the impact of the CAP in supporting BTD through the improvement of socioeconomic aspects and social inclusion varies according to the characteristics of the rural region and the policy mix applied. Pillar I instruments, in particular direct payments, have been found to positively impact regional employment and reinvestment. Pillar II measures, some of which are specifically designed to address socio-economic issues, demonstrate also positive effects