We use the experience – Swiss benchmark in Lublin

Transkrypt

Survey on Lublin inhabitants satisfaction
Analytical Report
Project
We use the experience –
Swiss benchmark in Lublin
Lublin, February 2014
Projekt realizowany przy wsparciu Szwajcarii w ramach szwajcarskiego programu współpracy z nowymi krajami
członkowskimi Unii Europejskiej
p. 1
Project Team „We use the experience – Swiss Benchmark in Lublin”
Krzysztof Łątka – Chairman of the Standing Committee
Mariusz Sagan – Member of the Standing Committee
Tetyana Myrovych – Chef of the Project Management Office
Jacek Jakubowski – Assistant of the Project Management Office
Jacek Warda – Member of the Project Management Office
Monika Kłos i Tomasz Tkaczyk – Project Supervision
Władysław Grasza – Senior Consultant
Monika Hermanowicz-Górny – Project Manager
Dariusz Wadowski - Researcher
Interviewers:
Jabłońska Iwona
Kępka Ewelina
Majewska Agnieszka
Olejarz Agnieszka
Panasiuk Katarzyna
Poniatowska Anna
Reszka Justyna
Rzewuska Aleksandra
Stanowski Adam
Starek Anna
Szulińska Agnieszka
Tomczyk Monika
Zubczyńska Monika
Report’s Author:
Contact:
Dariusz Wadowski
Lublin City Hall
Non-investment Projects Department
11 Okopowa Str., 20-022 Lublin, Poland
Tel. 81-466-28-50
[email protected]
p. 2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 3
List of charts ............................................................................................................................................ 4
1
2
Instruction of reading of the report .................................................................................................. 5
1.1
Diagonal charts ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.2
Histograms.................................................................................................................................. 6
Report ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Field 1. City authorities, administration, communication/information ................................................ 10
Field 2. Public transport, traffic .......................................................................................................... 12
Field 3. Culture, recreation, infrastructure ......................................................................................... 14
Field 4. Waste disposal ..................................................................................................................... 16
Field 5. Schools ................................................................................................................................. 18
Field 6. Other ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents .................................................................... 22
Recapitulation.................................................................................................................................... 27
Setting priorities................................................................................................................................. 28
3
Benchmark .................................................................................................................................... 39
p. 3
List of charts
Chart 1: Example of a diagonal graph ..................................................................................................... 5
Graph 2: Example of a histogram ............................................................................................................ 6
Chart 3: City authorities, administration, communication/information (Importance and Satisfaction) ... 10
Chart 4: City authorities, administration, communication/information (Satisfaction) ............................. 11
Chart 5: Public transport, traffic (Importance and Satisfaction) ............................................................. 12
Chart 6: Public transport, traffic (Satisfaction) ....................................................................................... 13
Chart 7: Culture, recreation, infrastructure (Importance and Satisfaction) ............................................ 14
Chart 8: Culture, recreation, infrastructure (Satisfaction) ...................................................................... 15
Chart 9: Waste disposal (Importance and Satisfaction) ........................................................................ 16
Chart 10: Waste disposal (Satisfaction) ................................................................................................ 17
Chart 11: Schools (Importance and Satisfaction) .................................................................................. 18
Chart 12: Schools (Satisfaction) ............................................................................................................ 19
Chart 13: Other (Importance and Satisfaction) ...................................................................................... 20
Chart 14: Other (Satisfaction) ................................................................................................................ 21
Chart 15: Sex of the respondents .......................................................................................................... 22
Chart 16: Age of the respondents ......................................................................................................... 22
Chart 17: Residence time in Lublin ....................................................................................................... 23
Chart 18: Educational degree of the respondents ................................................................................. 23
Chart 19: Types of households of the respondents............................................................................... 24
Chart 20: Size of households of the respondents ................................................................................. 24
Chart 21: Sources of income of households of the respondents .......................................................... 25
Chart 22: Means of communication ....................................................................................................... 25
Chart 23: Employment situation of the respondents ............................................................................. 26
Chart 24: District of residence of the respondents ................................................................................ 26
Chart 25: General results (Average satisfaction and importance) ....................................................... 27
Chart 26: Ranking of specific areas ...................................................................................................... 38
Chart 27: Benchmark (Fields)................................................................................................................ 39
p. 4
1
Instruction of reading of the report
1.1
Diagonal charts
The interpretation of the graphs containing diagonal lines is as follows:
Location of the point exactly on diagonal line means that satisfaction and importance assessments are
equal. Location of the point beneath diagonal line means that importance of the matter is more valid
than satisfaction level. In turn, when points are located above the line represents situation when
satisfaction is higher than importance of the matters. The greater distance between the points and the
line, the discrepancy between satisfaction and importance ranks.
Horizontal location of the points indicates the level of importance of the matter, therefore the larger
shift to the right of the point, the more priority is given to this matter. On the other hand, vertical
location of the point indicates the level of satisfaction: the higher location, the more contented
respondents.
On this basis it can be concluded about the priorities of the activities of municipality authorities. The
lower and more to the right is located a selected point, the more urgent actions are required. But if it is
high located on the chart and the same time is shifted to the left, it means that the case is not a
priority, while the respondents are satisfied with it.
5,0
3
4
Satisfaction
4,0
2
3,0
1
5
2,0
1,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
Importance
Chart 1: Example of a diagonal graph
Scaling
Scaling satisfaction (axis Y) and importance (axis X) ranks is analogous to the scales used in the
questionnaire: in all cases from 1 to 5. But since the most of average ratings have been placed very
close to each other so that it was difficult to spot differences in the chart, the chart scales were
shortened and start from 2,5.
p. 5
1.2
Histograms
The interpretation of histograms is as follows:
Histograms show entirely the degree of the respondent’s satisfaction of the issues placed in the
questions of the questionnaire. Their height represents the average amount of ratings on a scale of 1
to 5. Green columns show results from Lublin and blue columns show results from St. Gallen.
Because in St. Gallen not all the questions from Lublin questionnaire have been applied, not
everywhere it was possible to make comparisons.
4,8
5
4,5
4,5
4
3,0
3
Lublin
2,7
2,5
St.Gallen
2
1,5
1
Question
1.1
Question
1.2
Question
1.3
Question
1.4
Question
1.5
Graph 2: Example of a histogram
p. 6
2
Report
Introduction
Lublin City Hall in cooperation with St. Gallen Municipality and Institute for Quality Management and
Business from University of Applied Science in St. Gallen (IQB-FHS) conducted a survey of
inhabitants in November and December 2013. This was undertaken under the mutual project „We use
the experience – Swiss Benchmark in Lublin”. The survey project consists preparing the questionnaire,
sampling, collecting data and statistical analysis of the results. The entire Project establish the
following steps:
Study visit of representatives of IQB-FHS in Lublin, recruitment
of the Research Team
July 2013
Study visit in St. Gallen
September 2013
Preparing draft version of the questionnaire
September/October 2013
Consultation of the questionnaire: Lublin City Hall, IQB-FHS
October/November 2013
Preparing finished version of the questionnaire
November 2013
Survey in Lublin
November/December 2013
Coding and data verification
December 2013/January 2014
Preparation of the report, benchmark
January/February 2014
Consulting of the report: Lublin City Hall, IQB-FHS
February 2014
Interviews with stakeholders on priorities and best practices
February/March 2014
Study visits in some cities in Poland
March/April 2014
Promoting and informing conference in Lublin
April 2014
The subjects of the survey were following fields:

City authorities, administration, communication/information

Public transport, traffic

Culture, recreation, infrastructure

Waste disposal

Schools

Other
As a research tool there was the questionnaire based on a Swiss template developed by IQB-FHS and
used in many municipal surveys in Switzerland in the years of 2001-2013. Overall, there were
conducted 29 surveys using this method.
For field studied a few questions (6 to 14) were formulated on matters focusing attention of municipal
authorities and city inhabitants. The respondents were asked to express their views on these subjects
in terms of two criteria: degree of satisfaction and importance. They used the rank scale proposed in
the questionnaire, which was then converted into points (1 to 5). Based on this responses arithmetic
means were calculated for each question and the entire fields. In addition, the respondents had the
opportunity to formulate their own opinions on various topics. The questionnaire used in the survey is
given at the end of this report.
p. 7
The survey sample. Initially it was assumed sample size on 1,000 respondents. On the basis of
official data on the number of inhabitants in particular districts of the city the proportions of
respondents from every district were established. In order to all ages of inhabitants counting 18 and
more years were proportionally represented, age distribution of the inhabitants was also taken into
account in the sample. As an additional criterion of the sample sex of inhabitant was adopted,
establishing that half of the respondents would were male and half female.
During the survey it was found that some districts are overrepresented and others underrepresented.
In order to reduce these disparities the sample was supplemented by the necessary number of
respondents in some districts. As a result, 1,058 respondents aged 18 and older from every district of
Lublin were interviewed.
District
Expected sample
Realized sample
5
45
76
52
60
86
68
21
6
6
73
26
41
37
96
32
22
8
9
65
39
12
11
40
44
12
9
15
50
81
53
64
86
72
20
7
6
76
26
43
39
97
33
28
9
9
70
40
14
10
41
48
11
10
Abramowice
Bronowice
Czechów Południowy
Czechów Północny
Czuby Południowe
Czuby Północne
Dziesiąta
Felin
Głusk
Hajdów-Zadębie
Kalinowszczyzna
Konstantynów
Kośminek
Ponikwoda
Rury
Sławin
Sławinek
Stare Miasto
Szerokie
Śródmieście
Tatary
Węglin Południowy
Węglin Północny
Wieniawa
Wrotków
Za Cukrownią
Zemborzyce
Age
up to 24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and more
110
210
166
155
181
178
10,9%
21,1%
16,7%
14,9%
18,2%
18,2%
111
244
179
145
186
193
10,5%
23,1%
16,9%
13,7%
17,6%
18,2%
Female
500
50,0%
560
52,9%
Male
500
50,0%
498
47,1%
Total
1000
100,0%
1058
100,0%
Sex
In light of the above data the survey sample should be considered as representative of Lublin.
The survey procedure. The survey was carried out on November 12 – December 10, 2013. The
places of collecting data were Citizens Service Offices of the City of Lublin (BOM). The respondents
were selected from among visitors of BOM. Specially trained interviewers were selecting respondents
p. 8
according to two criteria: the place of residence and age, following the previously developed
guidelines on the rules of sampling. Before the interview each respondent was informed about the
purpose of survey and asked to agree to participate in the survey. Most of the respondents filled the
questionnaire by themselves, but some need help of the interviewer.
The collected data were coded, verified, and then statistically analyzed. The results are presented in
this report.
p. 9
Field 1. City authorities, administration, communication/information
5,0
4,5
Satisfaction
1.7
1.8
4,0
1.3
1.12
3,5
1.11
1.1
1.2 1.10
1.9
1.6
1.4
3,0
1.5
2,5
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
Importance
Chart 3: City authorities, administration, communication/information (Importance and Satisfaction)
Legend
1.1
1.2.
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
Mayor of Lublin efficiently manages the city
Mayor of Lublin cares for the people interest
I support the actions of the Mayor, Mr Krzysztof Żuk
The local council represents the interests of the municipality well
The contact with the local council is uncomplicated
I am sufficiently informed by the existing channels of information
The website of the municipality is informative
The locations of the municipal administration are quickly and easily accessible
My requests are promptly taken care of
If I have questions, I receive helpful information from the municipal administration
The local council responds to concerns of the people with cooperation of NGO
Promotional activities for the city of Lublin are adequate
p. 10
5
4,43
4
3,98
3,83
3,69
3,76 3,76
4,09
4,05 4,06
3,79
3,61
3,61
3,21
3,3
4,11
3,91
3,79
3,71
3,53
3,32
3,26
3
2,67
2
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
Chart 4: City authorities, administration, communication/information (Satisfaction)
p. 11
Field 2. Public transport, traffic
5,0
Satisfaction
4,5
4,0
2.9
2.10
3,5
2.11
3,0
2.7
2.8
2.6 2.2
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.4
2,5
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
Importance
Chart 5: Public transport, traffic (Importance and Satisfaction)
Legend
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
The roads and streets are well maintained
Pavements, squares and cycling paths are well maintained
The winter service of the street is conducted in time
The winter service of the walking zones and cycling paths is conducted in time
The streets of the city ensure easy flow of traffic between districts
The measures taken to ensure a calm traffic are adequate
The offer of public parking space is adequate
The amount and length of cycling paths is adequate
The offer of public transportation in the municipality corresponds to my needs
The security for pedestrians is given
The security for cyclists is given
p. 12
5
4,5
4,26
4,21
4,1
4,04
4,1
3,93
4
3,77
3,74
3,69
3,53
3,14
3,10
3
2,96
2,88
3,1
3,01
2,81
2,71
2,58
2,55
2
1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
Chart 6: Public transport, traffic (Satisfaction)
p. 13
Field 3. Culture, recreation, infrastructure
5,0
4,5
3.9
Satisfaction
3.7
3.10
4,0
3.11
3.8
3.4
3,5
3.5
3.6 3.3 3.1
3.2
3,0
2,5
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
Importance
Chart 7: Culture, recreation, infrastructure (Importance and Satisfaction)
Legend
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
The offer of recreational space is satisfactory
The recreational offer is family-friendly
There are various opportunities for sport activities within the municipality
The offer of cultural events is adequate
The offer of recreational activities for the elderly population is adequate
The recreational offer for teenagers is adequate
The Arts in the city are well provided (museums, theatres, libraries, etc.)
I consider the municipality an attractive place of residence
The shopping facilities of the municipality are sufficient to my needs
The citizens have easy access to chemists, hospitals and clinics
The citizens have easy access to preschools and kindergartens
p. 14
5
4,56
4,4
4,26
4,23
4,13
4,01
3,93
4
4,30
4,02
3,86
4,66
3,99
3,79
4,11
3,89
3,53
3,23
3,11
3,21
3,11
3,23
3
2
1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
Chart 8: Culture, recreation, infrastructure (Satisfaction)
p. 15
Field 4. Waste disposal
5,0
Satisfaction
4,5
4,0
4.2
4.4
3,5
4.3
4.5
4.1 4.6
3,0
2,5
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
Importance
Chart 9: Waste disposal (Importance and Satisfaction)
Legend
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
There are enough collection points available
I am being sufficiently informed about the possibilities of waste disposal in my municipality
I am well informed about the collection points of disposable appliances
The offer of garbage collection corresponds to my needs
The streets, walking zones and cycling paths are clean
Parks and green zones are clean
p. 16
5
4,4
4,31
4,4
4,27
4,01
4
3,76
3,76
3,19
3,06
3
2,92
2,93
2
1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Chart 10: Waste disposal (Satisfaction)
p. 17
Field 5. Schools
5,0
Satisfaction
4,5
4,0
5.1
5.105.6
5.8 5.11
5.7
5.9
5.3
5.5
5.12
5.4 5.2
3,5
3,0
5.14
5.13
2,5
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
Importance
Chart 11: Schools (Importance and Satisfaction)
Legend
5.1
The school cultivates an open information policy
5.2
Children with learning difficulties are aptly supported
5.3
Gifted children are supported adequately
5.4
The offer of special activities (school camp, special event weeks) is adequate
5.5
The infrastructure of the school (way to school, schoolyard, classrooms etc.) is adequate
5.6
Routes from my home district to school are secure
5.7
The teachers in the school are competent and friendly
5.8
The employees of the school office are competent
5.9
The employees of the school office are friendly
5.10
The children feel secure in their schools
5.11
The transfer to further and higher education institutions (grammar school, university) is well
prepared
5.12
The quality of teaching in the school is high
5.13
The availability of places in pre-schools is adequate
5.14
The availability of places in kinder gartens is adequate
p. 18
5
4
3,90
3,56
3,66
3,64
3,76
3,67
3,73
3,74
3,78
3,67
3,50
3,61
3
2,68
2,62
5.13
5.14
2
1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
Chart 12: Schools (Satisfaction)
p. 19
Field 6. Other
5,0
4,5
6.2
Satisfaction
6.11
6.4
4,0
6.5
6.1
6.6
3,5
6.3
3,0
6.12
6.8
6.7
6.9
6.10
2,5
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
Importance
Chart 13: Other (Importance and Satisfaction)
Legend
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
Lublin is a city of inspiration
Personally I have a strong bond to my city
In my city I have opportunities for personal development
Personally I am proud of my city
The quality of the drinking water corresponds to my needs
Local authority provides efficient support to new residential building development
The entrepreneurs of the city are adequately supported
Activities undertaken by the local authority for economic development are adequate
The amount of old people homes is sufficient
The offer of social services is adequate
During the day, I feel secure in my municipality
During the night, I feel secure in my municipality
p. 20
5
4,31
4,15
4,41
4,06
4
4,08 4,10
4,04
3,92
3,86
3,72
3,70
3,69
3,63
3,67
3,42
3,37
3,39 3,39
3,12
3,06
2,88
3
2,60
2,72
2
1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
Chart 14: Other (Satisfaction)
p. 21
Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
7.1. Sex of the respondents
47,1%
Female
52,9%
Male
Chart 15: Sex of the respondents
7.2. Age of the respondents
10,5%
18,2%
up to 24
25-34
23,1%
35-44
45-54
17,6%
55-64
65 and more
13,7%
16,9%
Chart 16: Age of the respondents
p. 22
7.3. How long have you been living in Lublin?
3,4%
2,6%
4,4%
6,1%
less than 1 year
1-3 years
4-6 years
7-10 years
more than 10 years
83,3%
Chart 17: Residence time in Lublin
7.4. What is your educational degree?
4,2%
10,0%
elementary
vocational
50,7%
secondary
35,1%
university degree
Chart 18: Educational degree of the respondents
p. 23
7.5. What is the type of your household?
5,4%
15,3%
single
14,4%
multipersonal without any
children
multipersonal with children in
preschool age
multipersonal with children in
school age
13,9%
multipersonal with adult
children
42,7%
other
8,3%
Chart 19: Types of households of the respondents
7.6. How many persons (including you) live in your household?
13,8%
14,9%
1 person
15,6%
2 persons
3 persons
4 persons
34,7%
5 and more persons
21,0%
Chart 20: Size of households of the respondents
p. 24
7.7. What are the main sources of income of your household?
60,0%
55,4%
50,0%
40,0%
31,2%
30,0%
20,0%
14,1%
10,0%
6,6%
3,6%
other
pension
social welfare payments
temporary wages
permanent wages
0,0%
self employed
2,6%
Note: Percentages do not sum up to 100.0% because respondents could point several sources of income.
Chart 21: Sources of income of households of the respondents
7.8. How do you move around the city most often?
0,1%
2,6%
6,2%
public transport
own car
bicycle
51,3%
39,9%
on foot
other
Chart 22: Means of communication
p. 25
7.9. What is your employment situation?
0,4%
0,5%
permanent employment
26,8%
temporary employment
37,6%
casual work
self employment
house keeping
pupil/student
unemployed
5,9%
pension
unable to work
8,1%
other
5,8%
11,4%
1,1%
2,5%
Chart 23: Employment situation of the respondents
7.10. In which district of Lublin do you live?
Bronowice, Stare Miasto,
Śródmieście, Wieniawa
17,3%
15,8%
Konstantynów, Rury, Szerokie,
Węglin Północny, Za
Cukrownią
15,4%
17,6%
Czuby Północne, Czuby
Południowe, Węglin
Południowy
Czechów Południowy, Czechów
Północny, Sławin, Sławinek
Felin, Hajdów-Zadębie,
Kalinowszczyzna, Ponikwoda,
Tatary
15,8%
18,2%
Abramowice, Dziesiąta, Głusk,
Kośminek, Wrotków,
Zemborzyce
Chart 24: District of residence of the respondents
p. 26
Recapitulation
5
4,68
4,75
4,79
4,65
4,70
4,52
4
3,61
3,55
3,54
3,49
3,27
3,00
Satisfaction
3
Importance
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Chart 25: General results (Average satisfaction and importance)
Legend
1 – Field 1. City authorities, administration, communication/information
2 – Field 2. Public transport, traffic
3 – Field 3. Culture, recreation, infrastructure
4 – Field 4. Waste disposal
5 – Field 5. Schools
6 – Field 6. Other
p. 27
Setting priorities
Below is a list of all the specific issues/questions arranged in order form the most demanding urgent
attention to those where intervention may be undertaken later. This table was developed based on the
diagonal charts, from which the smallest distances between the points and the diagonal lines were
calculated. The greater the distance between the diagonal and the particular item, the more urgent
intervention is needed. Green colour means the top rated issues, orange colour means the worst rated
issues.
No
Question
Distance
2.4
1,5728
2.3
1,5307
6.9
1,3959
2.5
1,3908
2.8
1,3772
2.1
1,3694
4.6
1,3628
4.1
1,3530
6.10
1,3451
1.5
1,3369
5.14
1,2928
5.13
1,2870
4.5
1,2702
2.2
1,2359
2.7
1,2268
6.7
1,2074
6.8
Activities undertaken by the local authority for economic development are
adequate
1,1816
2.6
1,1808
2.11
1,1494
6.3
1,1290
3.2
1,0627
6.12
1,0597
1.4
1,0486
4.3
1,0446
3.1
1,0095
p. 28
3.3
0,9848
1.6
0,9693
3.6
0,9080
2.10
0,9044
3.5
0,8847
1.9
0,8813
1.11
0,8545
6.6
Local authority provides efficient support to new residential building
development
0,8444
1.2
0,8032
6.5
0,7905
1.10
If I have questions, I receive helpful information from the municipal
administration
0,7895
4.4
0,7616
3.4
0,7566
3.8
0,7055
5.4
0,7030
1.1
0,7020
2.9
0,6888
1.12
0,6862
5.2
0,6743
4.2
I am being sufficiently informed about the possibilities of waste disposal in my
municipality
0,6661
5.12
0,6495
5.5
The infrastructure of the school (way to school, schoolyard, classrooms etc.) is
adequate
0,6414
5.6
0,6246
5.11
The transfer to further and higher education institutions (grammar school,
university) is well prepared
0,6193
5.7
0,6148
1.3
0,6117
5.3
0,6108
3.10
0,6022
6.1
0,5759
1.8
The locations of the municipal administration is/are quickly and easily
accessible
0,5728
p. 29
5.10
0,5653
6.11
0,5627
6.4
0,5474
3.11
0,5458
5.8
0,5223
5.9
0,4869
5.1
0,4466
3.7
0,4332
3.9
0,3615
1.7
0,3593
6.2
0,2617
Below is a list of all the specific issues ordered by the percentage of extremely negative responses
(„strongly disagree”). Colours highlights 10 issues where there were most (orange) and least (green)
such responses.
No
Question
%
2.8
29,93%
5.14
26,47%
2.7
26,05%
5.13
25,24%
6.9
24,32%
2.4
22,92%
6.10
22,70%
4.1
21,75%
1.5
21,68%
2.5
20,72%
2.3
19,77%
4.3
18,45%
6.7
17,49%
2.11
17,25%
6.3
16,93%
4.6
16,63%
p. 30
2.1
16,22%
6.8
adequate
15,20%
4.5
14,38%
6.12
14,36%
2.6
13,59%
2.2
13,22%
3.5
13,14%
3.2
11,55%
3.3
11,26%
6.5
10,97%
3.1
10,91%
1.6
10,48%
6.6
development
10,18%
3.6
10,05%
4.2
municipality
9,84%
2.10
8,73%
4.4
8,37%
2.9
8,27%
1.4
8,01%
5.4
7,61%
1.11
7,49%
5.6
7,15%
1.3
6,91%
3.4
6,82%
1.9
6,76%
5.2
6,65%
1.10
administration
6,51%
6.1
6,37%
3.11
6,24%
1.2
6,17%
3.8
6,02%
p. 31
5.5
adequate
6,01%
1.12
5,85%
6.11
5,38%
5.7
5,10%
5.10
4,96%
5.12
4,94%
1.1
4,65%
3.10
4,22%
5.11
1.8
accessible
4,13%
4,02%
6.4
3,91%
5.1
3,67%
5.8
3,63%
5.9
3,48%
6.2
3,46%
5.3
3,44%
1.7
2,88%
3.9
2,88%
3.7
2,87%
p. 32
Based on the above statements it is possible to identify priority issues that require urgent attention and
those that do not require such intervention. The following list contains issues of the best and worst
rated occurring in both rankings.
Matters requiring urgent attention
2.4
6.9
2.5
2.8
4.1
The winter service of the walking zones
and cycling paths is conducted in time
The amount of old people homes is
sufficient
The streets of the city ensure easy flow
of traffic between districts
The amount and length of cycling paths
is adequate
There are enough collection points
available
Matters not requiring urgent attention
6.4
5.8
5.9
5.1
3.7
6.10
3.9
1.5
The contact with the local council is
uncomplicated
1.7
6.2
The employees of the school office are
competent
The employees of the school office are
friendly
The school cultivates an open
information policy
The Arts in the city are well provided
(museums, theatres, libraries, etc.)
The shopping facilities of the
municipality are sufficient to my needs
The website of the municipality is
informative
Personally I have a strong bond to my
city
p. 33
In order to provide the most useful information from the survey, the questions of the questionnaire
were assigned in the specific areas. Based on this assignment the average results for each areas
were counted. Accordingly the Best and the worst rated issues were received.
1
Availability of service points
1.8
accessible
3.9
3.10
3.11
2
Local bonds/local identification
6.2
6.3
6.4
3.8
3
5.7
5.8
5.9
1.2
1.3
3,76
Security of the inhabitants
6.11
6.12
5.6
6
3,76
Mayor of Lublin
1.1
5
3,79
Openness school to parents and quality of service
5.1
4
4,03
3,75
The quality of the drinking water
3,72
6.5
7
Public transport
3,69
2.9
8
Quality of service residents
3,66
p. 34
1.9
1.10
administration
9
Informed citizens/informations of the City Hall
1.6
1.7
10
Schools – infrastructure and equipment
5.5
adequate
11
Quality of education and care in schools
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.10
5.11
5.12
12
3,65
3,64
3,63
Promotion of the city
1.12
6.1
13
Culture
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
14
Ecological knowledge
4.2
municipality
4.3
15
Waste collection
4.1
4.4
16
Security of pedestrians and cyclits
3,62
3,51
3,48
3,34
3,29
p. 35
2.10
2.11
17
Cooperation with NGO
3,26
1.11
18
Conditions of leisure and recreation
3.1
3.2
3.3
19
Support of the City for the economy
6.6
development
6.7
6.8
adequate
20
Cleanness of the streets
4.5
4.6
21
Traffic flow
2.5
2.6
22
City Council
1.4
1.5
23
Transport infrastructure maintenance
2.1
2.2
2.7
2.8
24
Actions for the excluded/social care
6.9
6.10
3,18
3,14
3,00
3,00
2,94
2,87
2,66
p. 36
25
Availability of education and care for preschool children
5.13
5.14
26
Winter service
2.3
2.4
2,65
2,65
p. 37
1
2
3
4
Availability of service points
5
4,03
Local bonds/local identification
3,79
Openess school to parents and quality service
3,76
Mayor of Lublin
3,76
Security of inhabitants
3,75
The quality of drinking water
3,72
Public transport
3,69
Quality of service residents
3,66
Informed citizens/informations of the City Hall
3,65
Schools - infrastructure and equipment
3,64
Quality of education and care in schools
3,63
Promotion of the city
3,62
Culture
3,51
Ecological knowledge
3,48
Waste collection
3,34
Security of pedestrians and cyclists
3,29
Cooperation with NGO
3,26
Conditions of leisure and recreation
3,18
Support of the City for the economy
3,14
Cleanness of the streets
3,00
Traffic flow
3,00
City Council
Transport infrastructure maintenance
2,94
2,87
Actions for excluded/social care
2,66
Availability of education and care for preschool children
2,65
Winter service
2,65
Chart 26: Ranking of specific areas
p. 38
3
Benchmark
City authorities,
administration,
communication/information
Other
3,85
3,45
5,0
4,5
3,89
4,0
3,5
3,0
3,55
2,5
2,0
1,5
3,00
1,0
3,58
3,49
3,98 Public transport, traffic
4,21
3,24
Culture, recreation,
infrastructure
Schools
4,28
Waste disposal
Lublin
St. Gallen
Chart 27: Benchmark (Fields)
p. 39
Field 1. City authorities, administration,
Lublin
St.
Gallen
1.1 Mayor of Lublin efficiently manages the city
3,83
-
-
-
1.2 Mayor of Lublin cares for the people interest*
3,69
3,61
2,2%

1.3 I support the actions of the Mayor, Mr Krzysztof Żuk **
3,76
3,76
0,0%

3,21
3,79
-18,1%

2,67
3,30
-23,6%

3,32
3,98
-19,9%

4,05
4,06
-0,2%

3,91
4,43
-13,3%

3,61
4,09
-13,3%

3,71
4,11
-10,8%

3,26
-
-
-
1.12 Promotional activities for the city of Lublin are adequate
3,53
3,79
-7,4%

Average for the Field 1. City authorities, administration,
3,55
3,89
-10,5%

1.4
The local council represents the interests of the municipality
well
1.5 The contact with the local council is uncomplicated
1.6
I am sufficiently informed by the existing channels of
information
1.7 The website of the municipality is informative
1.8
The locations of the municipal administration is/are quickly and
easily accessible
1.9 My requests are promptly taken care of
If I have questions, I receive helpful information from the
municipal administration
The local council responds to concerns of the people with
1.11
cooperation of NGO
1.10
Difference
Note:
* In St. Gallen questionnaire the word "City Council" instead of “Mayor” was taken
** In St. Gallen questionnaire the word "City Council" instead of “Mayor Mr Krzysztof Żuk” was taken
p. 40
Lublin
St.
Gallen
2.1 The roads and streets are well maintained
2,96
4,21
-42,2%

2.2 Pavements, squares and cycling paths are well maintained
3,10
4,04
-30,3%

2.3 The winter service of the street is conducted in time
2,71
4,26
-57,2%

2,58
3,93
-52,3%

2,88
4,10
-42,4%

2.6 The measures taken to ensure a calm traffic are adequate
3,14
3,77
-20,1%

2.7 The offer of public parking space is adequate
2,81
3,10
-10,3%

2.8 The amount and length of cycling paths is adequate
2,55
-
-
-
The offer of public transportation in the municipality
corresponds to my needs
3,69
4,50
-22,0%

2.10 The security for pedestrians is given
3,53
4,10
-16,1%

2.11 The security for cyclists is given
3,01
3,74
-24,3%

Average for the Field 2. Public transport, traffic
3,00
3,98
-33,1%

Field 2. Public transport, traffic
The winter service of the walking zones and cycling paths is
conducted in time
The streets of the city ensure easy flow of traffic between
2.5
districts
2.4
2.9
Difference
p. 41
Lublin
St.
Gallen
3.1 The offer of recreational space is satisfactory
3,23
4,23
-31,0%

3.2 The recreational offer is family-friendly
3,11
4,01
-28,9%

3,21
4,26
-32,7%

3,53
4,13
-17,0%

3,11
3,93
-26,4%

3,23
3,86
-19,5%

The Arts in the city are well provided (museums, theatres,
libraries, etc.)
4,02
-
-
-
3.8 I consider the municipality an attractive place of residence
3,79
4,40
-16,1%

4,30
4,56
-6,0%

3,99
4,66
-16,8%

3.11 The citizens have easy access to preschools and kindergartens
3,89
4,11
-5,7%

Average for the Field 3. Culture, recreation, infrastructure
3,58
4,21
-17,6%

Field 3. Culture, recreation, infrastructure
3.3
There are various opportunities for sport activities within the
municipality
3.4 The offer of cultural events is adequate
3.5
The offer of recreational activities for the elderly population is
adequate
3.6 The recreational offer for teenagers is adequate
3.7
The shopping facilities of the municipality are sufficient to my
needs
The citizens have easy access to chemists, hospitals and
3.10
clinics
3.9
Difference
p. 42
Lublin
St.
Gallen
2,92
4,01
-37,3%

3,76
4,31
-14,6%

3,19
-
-
-
4.4 The offer of garbage collection corresponds to my needs
3,76
4,40
-17,0%

4.5 The streets, walking zones and cycling paths are clean
3,06
4,40
-43,8%

4.6 Parks and green zones are clean
2,93
4,27
-45,7%

Average for the Field 4. Waste disposal
3,24
4,28
-32,1%

Field 4. Waste disposal
4.1 There are enough collection points available
I am being sufficiently informed about the possibilities of waste
disposal in my municipality
I am well informed about the collection points of disposable
4.3
appliances
4.2
Difference
p. 43
Lublin
St.
Gallen
5.1 The school cultivates an open information policy
3,90
-
-
-
5.2 Children with learning difficulties are aptly supported
3,56
-
-
-
5.3 Gifted children are supported adequately
3,66
-
-
-
3,50
-
-
-
3,64
-
-
-
5.6 Routes from my home district to school are secure
3,76
-
-
-
5.7 The teachers in the school are competent and friendly
3,67
-
-
-
5.8 The employees of the school office are competent
3,73
-
-
-
5.9 The employees of the school office are friendly
3,74
-
-
-
3,78
-
-
-
3,67
-
-
-
5.12 The quality of teaching in the school is high
3,61
-
-
-
5.13 The availability of places in pre-schools is adequate
2,68
-
-
-
5.14 The availability of places in kinder gartens is adequate
2,62
-
-
-
Average for the Field 5. Schools
3,49
-
-
-
Field 5. Schools
The offer of special activities (school camp, special event
weeks) is adequate
The infrastructure of the school (way to school, schoolyard,
5.5
classrooms etc.) is adequate
5.4
5.10 The children feel secure in their schools
5.11
The transfer to further and higher education institutions
(grammar school, university) is well prepared
Difference
Note:
Field 5 has not been measured in St. Gallen
p. 44
Lublin
St.
Gallen
6.1 Lublin is a city of inspiration
3,70
3,37
8,9%

6.2 Personally I have a strong bond to my city
4,31
4,15
3,7%

6.3 In my city I have opportunities for personal development
3,12
4,06
-30,1%

6.4 Personally I am proud of my city
3,92
4,04
-3,1%

6.5 The quality of the drinking water corresponds to my needs
3,72
-
-
-
Local authority provides efficient support to new residential
building development
3,42
3,69
-7,9%

6.7 The entrepreneurs of the city are adequately supported
2,88
3,63
-26,0%

Activities undertaken by the local authority for economic
development are adequate
3,06
3,67
-19,9%

2,60
3,86
-48,5%

6.10 The offer of social services is adequate
2,72
4,08
-50,0%

6.11 During the day, I feel secure in my municipality
4,10
4,41
-7,6%

6.12 During the night, I feel secure in my municipality
3,39
3,39
0,0%

Average for the Field 6. Other
3,45
3,85
-11,6%

Field 6. Other
6.6
6.8
6.9 The amount of old people homes is sufficient
Difference
p. 45
Recapitulation of benchmark
Number of compared results (questions):
Number of results (questions) not compared:
Number of results (questions) better in Lublin than in St. Gallen:
Number of results (questions) worse in Lublin than in St. Gallen:
Number of results (questions) equal in Lublin and in St. Gallen:
46
20
3
41
2
Ranking of results of the largest positive differences between Lublin and St. Gallen
Rank
Difference
Questions
1
8,9%
2
3,7%
3
2,2%
Ranking of results of the largest negative differences between Lublin and St. Gallen
Rank
Difference
Questions
1
-57,2%
2
-52,3%
The winter service of the walking zones and cycling paths is conducted in
time
3
-50,0%
4
-48,5%
5
-45,7%
6
-43,8%
7
-42,4%
8
-42,2%
9
-37,3%
10
-32,7%
p. 46
Completion of inhabitants satisfaction survey in Lublin ensues:
Identification of well and weakly rendered public services
Diagnosis of citizens’ and stakeholders’ needs
Rise of citizens’ engagement in local affairs
Improvement of the image of Lublin City Council among local society
Establishment of cooperation between city councils of Lublin (Poland)
and St. Gallen (Switzerland) as a result of the benchmark project
Acquisition of Swiss knowledge and experience in the area of strategic
decision making on the background of local society engagement.
The City of Lublin has set out to continue cyclical research in following years.
Next step is to promote the Swiss benchmark method in other Polish cities to
create Polish benchmark index. The city of Lublin welcomes any joint
projects and exchange of know-how with other municipalities.
p. 47

We use the experience – Swiss benchmark in Lublin

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

List of projects rejected for formal reasons

PDF

Limited liability partnership

zapytanie ofertowe - perfect drop sp. z oo

przyimki z miejscownikiem

1) Philip is a …….. . He never stops working!!