This report is part of a series of studies that examines Europeans' awareness of and attitudes towards EU Regional Policy. It is based on 4 previous surveys (2017, 2015, 2013, 2010).

1. PURPOSE: This data set provides, in a single source, regionalised (NUTS-2) annual EU expenditure data (in current prices) for specific EU funds - ERDF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD/EAGGF and ESF. This data can be used, among other purposes, to facilitate analysis on the effects of the EU funds.

In terms of the regionalisation of EU payments made, this work expands and replaces data sets previous published on the ERDF and Cohesion fund with additional years and additional EU funds.
The following studies on ERDF and Cohesion fund expenditure are to a large extent now superseded:
- "Geography of expenditure" Work Package 13 of the ERDF and CF ex-post evaluation 2007-2013 - http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ec/2007-2013/#13
- "Final Report - ERDF and CF Regional Expenditure" (2000-2006) - SWECo 2008 - http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2006/expenditure_final.pdf
- "The Territorial Effects of the Structural Funds" (1994-1999) - ESPON 2005, study 2.2.1 - http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_ESPON2006Projects/Menu_PolicyImpactProjects/structuralfundsimpact.html

The dataset does not contain any identification of the thematic nature of the investments made. This is because there was no harmonised system or information available across funds and across programme periods to estimate the thematic composition of the investments. For the ERDF and Cohesion Fund the studies cited above provided some thematic information for specific programme periods.

2. SCOPE

2.1 REGIONALISATION: This dataset provides the most complete historic picture available to date on the annual EU payments made - in EUR in current prices of the year in question (not adjusted or expressed as “in 2015 prices”) - under different shared management funds mapped to or estimated by NUTS-2 regions;
=> presented in the column "EU_payment_annual".

The work undertaken to regionalise the payment data is predominantly based on the NUTS-2013 version as described in the final report of the 2016 WIIW study (link below). In case the EU funded programmes covered more than one NUTS-2 region the regionalisation of the payments was carried out using either (1) regionalised data provided by the managing authorities or (2) the application of certain apportioning rules to the payments in order to estimate the share of the payment by NUTS-2 region.

In regionalising the data, information on the specific national or regional funding programme, which were the source of the payments, was not retained in the processing of the dataset.

2.2 MODELLING OF “REAL” EXPENDITURE: The yearly breakdown of the dataset follows the cycle of the European Commission payments to the Member States and not the date on which real expenditures took place on the ground. This characteristic may negatively affect any subsequent analytic work to carry out policy assessments.

In order to develop a more realistic estimate of the annual profile of real expenditure, the Commission tasked BERGEN to undertake work to develop a modelling of the “real” annual expenditure on the ground, and to test the robustness and sensitivity of assumptions used (see link to final report below).
=> the modelled annual expenditure is presented in the column "Modelled_annual_expenditure" and it represents the mean of 100 000 simulations on the annual EU payments to estimate real expenditure.
=> The column "Standard_Deviation_of modelled_annual_expenditure" provides the standard deviation of the “modelled_annual_expenditure" which is the root mean square of the set of deviations between each estimated annual payment in 100 000 simulations and the mean of the estimations, presented in the column "Modelled_annual_expenditure”.
=> The column "Standard_Error_of_modelled_annual_expenditure" provides the Standard Error of the "Modelled_annual_expenditure", which is a measure of how far this mean is likely to be from its expected value; that is, its scatter in repeated ex

WHAT IS EUSF? The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was set up to respond to major natural disasters and express European solidarity to disaster-stricken regions within Europe. The Fund was created as a reaction to the severe floods in Central Europe in the summer of 2002. Since then, it has been used for disasters covering a range of different catastrophic events including floods, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and drought.

The dataset presents financial and other information on the applications submitted for EUSF support between 002 and 2020.

For more information: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/solidarity-fund/

The source data used in this analysis are :
1. Based on EDGAR, the global GHG emissions database from the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The reported data include emissions from energy, industry, buildings, transport, agriculture, and waste but they exclude emissions from shipping and aviation. These latter emissions cannot be assigned to individual regions. GHG include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gasses. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
2. GDP and population data: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/territorial/ardeco-database_en

1. PURPOSE: This data set provides, in a single source, regionalised (NUTS-2) annual EU expenditure data (in current prices) for specific EU funds - ERDF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD/EAGGF and ESF. This data can be used, among other purposes, to facilitate analysis on the effects of the EU funds.

In terms of the regionalisation of EU payments made, this work expands and replaces data sets previous published on the ERDF and Cohesion fund with additional years and additional EU funds.
The following studies on ERDF and Cohesion fund expenditure are to a large extent now superseded:
- "Geography of expenditure" Work Package 13 of the ERDF and CF ex-post evaluation 2007-2013 - http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ec/2007-2013/#13
- "Final Report - ERDF and CF Regional Expenditure" (2000-2006) - SWECo 2008 - http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2006/expenditure_final.pdf
- "The Territorial Effects of the Structural Funds" (1994-1999) - ESPON 2005, study 2.2.1 - http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_ESPON2006Projects/Menu_PolicyImpactProjects/structuralfundsimpact.html

The dataset does not contain any identification of the thematic nature of the investments made. This is because there was no harmonised system or information available across funds and across programme periods to estimate the thematic composition of the investments. For the ERDF and Cohesion Fund the studies cited above provided some thematic information for specific programme periods.

2. SCOPE

2.1 REGIONALISATION: This dataset provides the most complete historic picture available to date on the annual EU payments made - in EUR in current prices of the year in question (not adjusted or expressed as “in 2015 prices”) - under different shared management funds mapped to or estimated by NUTS-2 regions;
=> presented in the column "EU_payment_annual".

The work undertaken to regionalise the payment data is predominantly based on the NUTS-2013 version as described in the final report of the 2016 WIIW study (link below). In case the EU funded programmes covered more than one NUTS-2 region the regionalisation of the payments was carried out using either (1) regionalised data provided by the managing authorities or (2) the application of certain apportioning rules to the payments in order to estimate the share of the payment by NUTS-2 region.

In regionalising the data, information on the specific national or regional funding programme, which were the source of the payments, was not retained in the processing of the dataset.

2.2 MODELLING OF “REAL” EXPENDITURE: The yearly breakdown of the dataset follows the cycle of the European Commission payments to the Member States and not the date on which real expenditures took place on the ground. This characteristic may negatively affect any subsequent analytic work to carry out policy assessments.

In order to develop a more realistic estimate of the annual profile of real expenditure, the Commission tasked BERGEN to undertake work to develop a modelling of the “real” annual expenditure on the ground, and to test the robustness and sensitivity of assumptions used (see link to final report below).
=> the modelled annual expenditure is presented in the column "Modelled_annual_expenditure" and it represents the mean of 100 000 simulations on the annual EU payments to estimate real expenditure.
=> The column "Standard_Deviation_of modelled_annual_expenditure" provides the standard deviation of the “modelled_annual_expenditure" which is the root mean square of the set of deviations between each estimated annual payment in 100 000 simulations and the mean of the estimations, presented in the column "Modelled_annual_expenditure”.
=> The column "Standard_Error_of_modelled_annual_expenditure" provides the Standard Error of the "Modelled_annual_expenditure", which is a measure of how far this mean is likely to be from its expected value; that is, its scatter in repeated ex

This report is part of a series of studies that examines Europeans' awareness of and attitudes towards EU Regional Policy.

Respondents were asked about the domains that should be targeted for investment They were asked whether they think each of 11 domains are more or less important for their city or region . All but one of the domains are mentioned among the more important for their city or region by at least a relative majority of respondents.

More than nine in ten respondents (91%) consider education, health or social infrastructures one of the more important domains for investment for their city or region, followed by the environment (90%) and renewable and clean energy (87%). At least eight in ten respondents also mention support for small and medium-sized businesses (81%) and research and innovation (80%) are more important.

Smaller majorities mention the other investment domains. At least three quarters of respondents say investment in vocational training (78%) and transport facilities (75%) are the more important, while over six in ten identify energy networks (63%) and just under six in ten say tourism and culture (57%).

Finally, just over half the respondents say that broadband Internet access (51%) is one of the more important domains for investment for their city or region, while just under half say the same about investment in the reception and integration of migrants and refugees (48%).

This data story explains the regional gender indices of female advantage and female disadvantage:
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/Regional-gender-equality-in-the-EU/vtrw-h5vm