Kosovo Mosaic Public Services and Local Authorities in Focus

Acknowledgments Team Leader Uliks Osmani – Managing Director of UBO Consulting

UBO Consulting - Team of analysts and writersKalterina LatifiBerat AbdiuIlirjana KacanikuAferdita Rushiti

UNDP Support Staff:Mytaher Haskuka, Head of Policy UnitFaton Bislimi, Programme Coordinator, EWS/HDR Armend Muja, Team Leader CommunicationsAiko Watanabe, Programme Analyst, Democratic Governance ClusterDanijela Mitic, Communication AnalystBurbuqe Dobranja, Public Information Officer, Emrush Ujkani, Acting Head of Democratic Governance Cluster

Steering Committee:Izet Sadiku, Senior Advisor to Minister, Ministry of Local Government AdministrationSazan Ibrahimi, Executive Director, Association of Kosovo MunicipalitiesBarry J. Reed, Chief of Party, Effective Municipal Initiative/USAIDRreze Duli, Project Manager, Support to Decentralisation in Kosovo, UNDPKrenar Loshi, Head, Democratic Governance Cluster, UNDPAndre Durr, Programme Specialist, Democratic Governance Cluster, UNDP

English Language EditorAmanda Morgan

Design and Printashagraphics.com

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of either UNDP or USAID.The Mosaic Report 2009 would not have been published without the generous assistance of the Norwegian Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTSForeword 7Executive Summary 8Introduction 9

Kosovo’s political context 11Kosovo’s socio-economic context 12Methodology and survey design 14Organisation of this report 14

Chapter I: Economic Well-being 15Household expenditures 17Financial outlook 19Household well-being 21Household possessions 22Optimism about the future 25Chapter summary and lessons learned 26

Chapter II: Public Services 27Perceptions about responsibility for public services 31Water supply 32Sewage disposal 34Electric power supply 34Sanitation 35Public transportation 37Heating 38Chapter summary and lessons learned 39

Chapter III: Participation in Municipal Government 41Municipal public meetings 44Voting 46Other ways to influence decision-making 47Satisfaction with municipal administration 48Opinions on decentralisation 53Chapter summary and lessons learned 55

Chapter IV: Employment, Farming and Entrepreneurship 57Employment 59Land ownership and farming 62Business ownership 63Chapter summary and lessons learned 64Conclusions 64

Annex1. Summary of main results 65

LIST OF TABLESTable 1. Average monthly household expenditures in euro 18Table 2. Current financial outlook and expectations for the future 21Table 3. Household possessions 23Table 4. Perceived problems in Kosovo 23Table 5. Perceived problems in municipalities 24Table 6. Responses to “I am optimistic about the future of Kosovo in general”

according to respondents' age and ethnicity 25Table 7. Optimism about municipality’s future by ethnicity 25Table 8. Public services perceived to need improvement 30Table 9. Percentage of respondents with access to basic public services 30

Table 10. Perceived causes for lack of cleanliness in municipalities rated “very dirty” 37Table 11. Use of green areas 37Table 12. Use of public transportation—top five municipalities 38Table 13. Municipalities rated most open to citizen participation 45Table 14. Top six municipalities for town hall attendance 46Table 15. Index of satisfaction with municipal administration, 2003–2009 49Table 16. Rating of specific elements of municipal government service, 2009 50Table 17. Respondents’ employment status 59Table 18. Employment by mean age 59Table 19. Respondents’ education levels 60Table 20. Education by mean age 60

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. Monthly household expenditures 17Figure 2. Household expenditures by category 19Figure 3. Perceived financial status 19Figure 4. Top and bottom five municipalities by the Household Wellbeing Index 21Figure 5. Percentage of households with a computer 23Figure 6. Percentage of households connected to the Internet 23Figure 7. Satisfaction with public services in 2006 and 2009 29Figure 8. Perceptions on the responsibilities of central and municipal governments 32Figure 9. Connection to water supply 33Figure 10. Satisfaction with water quality 33Figure 11. Satisfaction with sewage and sanitation system 34Figure 12. Satisfaction with electricity supply 35Figure 13. Municipality’s cleanliness 35Figure 14. Perceived reasons for lack of cleanliness 36Figure 15. Ways to improve cleanliness of municipalities 36Figure 16. “My municipal government welcomes citizen participation” 45Figure 17. Percentage of citizens informed about municipal public meetings 45Figure 18. Reasons for choosing to vote 46Figure 19. Ways to influence municipal decision-making 47Figure 20. Participation in political activities to influence decision-making 48Figure 21. Perceived trustworthiness of municipal government on fund management 50Figure 22. Five most and least visited municipal offices 51Figure 23. Top and bottom five municipalities regarding success of requests

for information or documents from a municipal office 52Figure 24. Knowing where to go for help 52Figure 25. “How informed do you feel about the work that your municipality is doing?” 53Figure 26. Sources for information on decentralisation 54Figure 27. Opinions on who will benefit from decentralisation 54Figure 28. Opinions on who will benefit from decentralisation by ethnic group 55Figure 29. Employment rates by education level 61Figure 30. Percentage of respondents’ unemployed and looking for work 61Figure 31. Ownership of private business by municipality 63

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSEU European UnionGDP Gross Domestic ProductHDI Human Development Index K-Albanians Kosovo AlbaniansKEK Kosovo Energy CorporationK-Serbs Kosovo SerbsKMS Kosovo Mosaic StudyMEF Ministry of Economy and Finance

FOREWORD Kosovo Mosaic is the third report in a series of surveys designed to measure citizens’ perceptions

and awareness of a variety of topics that affect their everyday lives and their interaction with local gov-ernment. This report presents the views of 6,400 respondents and is an important source of informationabout the real conditions of Kosovo people. Since the last 2006 report, Kosovo has undergone substantialchange, democratic elections for both central and local government, and the unilateral declaration of in-dependence in February 2008. This wide-ranging and detailed report, including the trend analysis andcomparisons with 2003 and 2006 would provide a significant and relevant analysis of the effects thatthese changes could have had.

The report is designed to contribute to the ongoing debate and reform of the local governments byhighlighting priorities, bottlenecks in service delivery, people’ willingness to participate in public policyprocess and municipalities’ openness to local demands. Respondents were asked to answer How theyfelt about their local government? Which services were they least satisfied with? What are the biggestconcerns looking ahead? To whom did they attribute responsibility for key public services? How trans-parent their government was? etc. KMS 2009 collected primary data through face-to-face interviewsusing a custom-designed research tool. Each of Kosovo’s thirty-three municipalities was assigned a pro-portional number of respondents based on population figures and the sample was split equally betweenurban and rural areas, to reflect the differing nature of Kosovo’s human complexion and to ensure thatthe sample fairly represented the whole of Kosovo.

The findings will be of interest to an array of different groups and organisations throughout Kosovoand internationally about the current state-of-play in Kosovo, including policy makers, civil society lead-ers, and the government,. It has the potential therefore, to shape the direction and focus of Kosovo’sdevelopment in years to come. We remain confident that the rich data and content will stimulate andprovoke further thoughts and ideas, promote meaningful and participatory discussions among readersand attract the attention of relevant and responsible actors in Kosovo.

The first chapter presents the findings on matters of well-being and economic outlook at thehousehold level. It uses the ‘Wellbeing Index’, as well as household purchasing power, to assess thechanging economic status of Kosovo citizens. Secondly, it explores topics concerning public service, inparticular it focuses on where services need to improve, and the way that citizens’ understanding of thedivision of services between central and municipal government has evolved. Public participation in localgovernment is described in the third chapter. The final chapter reports on issues affecting livelihoodssuch as employment, land and business ownership, and education. Each part illustrates how trends havedeveloped since 2003, and highlights both Kosovo’s progress and its remaining problems.

We extend our appreciation to UBO Consulting for carrying out the study, to Steering Committeemembers for their valuable insights, to the Government of Norway and USAID for their generous financialcontribution, and to all those involved in the completion of this report.

Parviz FartashUNDP/ Kosovo Director

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe 2009 Kosovo Mosaic Survey (KMS) measures Kosovo citizen’s opinions, perceptions and

awareness on a variety of topics revolving around their everyday lives and their interactions with theirlocal government. KMS 2009 is the third in a series of surveys (having previously been conducted in 2003and 2006), which have been developed principally for describing Kosovo citizens’ satisfaction with theirlocal government, assessing their access to basic public services as well as showing the impact ofKosovo’s development on their well-being.

Continuing the methodological approach from previous KMS surveys, KMS 2009 conducted 6,400in-person interviews with respondents from 33 municipalities, including the newly established munic-ipalities of Mamushë/Mamuša, Junik/Junik, and Hani i Elezit/Ðeneral Janković. Continuing from KMS2006, the Wellbeing Index, an indicator of financial status, was used in this study along with additionalquestions on household expenditures.

In order to effectively share and compare the results of KMS 2009 with previous KMS surveys, in-formation is presented in four chapters. The first chapter, “Economic Wellbeing”, presents informationon respondents’ assessments of their current and expected future financial well-being, their expectationsfor the future, as well as the extent to which Kosovo’s development has benefited their households. Re-sults comparing survey trends from 2003, 2006 and 2009 are also presented, providing useful informa-tion.

The second chapter, “Public Services”, examines in detail respondents’ reported access to publicservices, their satisfaction with public service delivery, as well as their awareness on the level of gov-ernment in charge for various public services. From the use of public transportation to the availabilityof running water, this chapter provides valuable data on the services Kosovo citizens use and deem im-portant for their well-being.

“Participation in Municipal Government”, the third chapter in KMS 2009, describes respondents’attitudes towards their local administration, and the degree to which they are involved in the shapingof public policies in their communities. This chapter also addresses respondents’ perceptions on thetrustworthiness of, as well as their overall satisfaction with, their local government.

The final chapter of KMS 2009, “Employment, Farming and Entrepreneurship”, describes in moredetail the respondents’ immediate economic environment. Information on respondents’ employment,their land ownership, as well as their ownership of small businesses is provided. KMS 2009 survey datais also provided according to respondents’ municipality and region, in order to unveil important regionaldifferences and disparities.

INTRODUCTION

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

11

INTRODUCTIONThe Kosovo Mosaic Survey 2009 is the third in aseries of surveys aimed at exploring the attitudesand perceptions of Kosovo citizens regarding publicservices and their local government. The first sur-vey was conducted in 2003, followed by a secondsurvey in 2006 and the newest survey was com-pleted in February 2009. As part of this survey, re-spondents were asked for their perceptions of whowas responsible for managing different publicservices and their opinions on the quality of publicservices, the management of their municipalities,the transparency of municipal government and thedecentralisation process.

This report outlines the most important results ofthe survey. It provides information that can beused for public policy development and public ad-ministration reform, as well as to provide supportto the decentralisation process. Results from thissurvey may be used by the Ministry of Local Gov-ernment Administration and individual municipal-ities as a basis for evaluating their effectiveness inproviding public services, which could ultimatelylead to the improvement of services and hence, inthe quality of life for all Kosovo citizens.

KOSOVO’S POLITICAL CONTEXTSince October 2006 when the second KMS waspublished, Kosovo has undergone rapid politicaldevelopments, not the least of which include the

conclusion of negotiations on Kosovo’s status,democratic elections for both central and localgovernment, and the unilateral declaration of inde-pendence in February 2008.

The elections of November 2007 heralded a newparadigm of political participation. The open-listvoting system enabled Kosovans to vote directlyfor candidates for the Kosovo and municipal as-semblies as well as for mayoral candidates, in-stead of voting for political parties. However, evenwith the open-list voting system, which was ex-pected to improve the already-declining voterturnout, the 2007 elections had the worst turnoutsince record-keeping began in 2000. Nonetheless,these elections led to the establishment of a newpolitical leadership. The Democratic Party ofKosovo, which had been sitting in the oppositionsince the 2004 elections, formed a coalition gov-ernment with the Democratic League of Kosovo onJanuary 9, 2008.

The unilateral declaration of independence in Feb-ruary 2008 resulted in the re-configuration of theinternational presence in Kosovo. The United Na-tions Mission in Kosovo continues to exercise someauthority based on Security Council Resolution1244, passed in 1999. International authority isalso vested in the International Civilian Office, ledby the International Civilian Representative, andin the European Union Rule of Law Mission inKosovo, launched under the European Security andDefence Policy.

The Constitution of Kosovo was approved by theparliament on April 9, 2008, and entered into forcetwo months later on June 15, 2008. It promises to“provide for the protection of human rights andcommunities according to international and Euro-pean standards1” .In 2005, the Kosovo Parliament initiated a decen-tralisation process that aimed to provide local gov-ernments with greater administrativeresponsibilities and increased financial resources,thus raising their ability to provide more and betterpublic services to its citizens. This course of actionfocuses its attention on special needs and con-cerns of non-majority communities in Kosovo. Theongoing process thus far has resulted in the cre-ation of three new municipalities - Junik/Junik, Ma-mushë/Mamuša and Hani i Elezit/ĐeneralJanković.

KOSOVO’S SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXTKosovo’s population is estimated at 2.1 million2,with the breakdown of 88% Kosovo Albanians, 7%Kosovo Serbs, and 5% other minorities. Kosovo’seconomic performance remains poor. Estimates ofeconomic growth from 2007 to 2008 range from3.5%3 to 5.4%4 . The per capita value of grossdomestic product (GDP) is estimated to be be-tween 1,150 euro5 and 1,600 euro6 .

While the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF)says the Kosovan economy has been resilient inthe face of the global financial crisis, it reports thatthe crisis period of 2008 saw significant inflationat a rate of 9.3%. This number is considerablyhigher compared to those recorded in the EU(3.9%) and SEE (7.6%) during the same period7.According to MEF, high oil and food prices in inter-national markets are the main cause of the in-creased inflation, as Kosovo is highly dependenton imported goods8.

Kosovo’s trade deficit was 37% of GDP in 2006and 41% of GDP in 2007. This trend continued in2008, with the trade deficit reaching 43%9. In2009 imports of goods increased by 22%, whileexports increased by 20% compared to the sameperiod a year earlier10. The current negative tradedeficit is expected to increase as a result of theglobal financial crisis11.

Kosovo has among the highest rates of unemploy-ment and poverty in the Balkans and in Europe.The Macroeconomic Department at MEF estimatesthat between 39 and 46% of employable, job-seeking Kosovans are unemployed12. In June 2008,the total number of registered job-seekers reached335,935, and over 60% of them were unskilled.Of great concern is the fact that 90% of these job-seekers have been registered as long-term unem-ployed13. The World Bank’s latest assessment ofpoverty in Kosovo, published in October 2007, es-

1 Commission of the European Communities, Kosovo (Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99) 2008 Progress Report (Brussels: Commissionof the European Communities, 11 May 2008), 8.2 Ministry of Trade and Industry, Kosovo at a Glance, Prishtina, June, 2008, 4.3 Early Warning Report Number 20/21 Special Edition (Pristina, Kosovo: United Nations Development Programme, June 2008), 6.4 Semiannual Macroeconomic Bulletin Issue 1 (January–June 2008), 6. Macroeconomic Department, Ministry of Finance and Economy.5 Early Warning Report Number 20/21 Special Edition (Pristina, Kosovo: United Nations Development Programme, June 2008), 6.6 Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book, August, 2009, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2004.html 7 Central Bank of Republic Of Kosovo, Annual Report 2008, Prishtine, June 2009, 44.8 Semiannual Macroeconomic Bulletin Issue 1 (January–June 2008), 6. Macroeconomic Department, Ministry of Finance and Economy.9 Central Bank of Republic Of Kosovo, Annual Report 2008, Prishtine, June 2009, 44.10 Ibid, 41-4311 GAP Institute for Advanced Studies, The Effects of Global Financial Crises in Kosovo,, Prishtina November 20, 2008, 2. 12 Arbër Domi, Labour Market In Kosovo: A projection on the Relationship Between GDP Growth and Unemployment (Ministry of Economy and Finance –

Macroeconomics Department, Prishtina, September, 2008), 5.13 Ministry of Economy and Finance, Semiannual Macroeconomic Bulletin (Macroeconomics Department,Prishtina, June, 2008), 8–9.14 The World Bank Kosovo Poverty Assessment, Volume I: Accelerating Inclusive Growth to Reduce Widespread Poverty October 3, 2007), 7–9. Pu

blic S

ervice

s and

Loca

l Auth

oritie

s in F

ocus

12

timated a 45% povertyrate, with 15% living in ex-treme poverty1 4 . MEF estimates that Kosovo’s cur-rent GDP growth will maintain unemployment ratesat the current level. In order to reduce unemploy-ment rate by 50 percent, by the year 2020, a GDPgrowth rate of 7.3% would be needed15. MEF esti-mates that this reduction in unemployment can beachieved through investments in the Kosovaneconomy in the amount of 1,508 billion euro in2010 and 1,618 billion euro in 201116.

A similar amount has been estimated by the gov-ernment of Kosovo’s Medium Term ExpenditureFramework, which identifies socio-economic de-velopment needs for 2008–2011. This frameworkwas presented at the 2008 Donors’ Conference forKosovo held in Brussels, and succeeded in raising1.2 billion euro from 37 countries and 16 interna-tional organisations. The donors “highlighted theneed to make rapid progress in accelerating eco-nomic growth, improvement in civil service, accel-eration of public administration reform tosignificantly improve the effectiveness of publicservice delivery, and in strengthening the judicialsystem and the fight against corruption”17.

Kosovo’s economy is heavily dependent on remit-tances. Although estimates of their extent differ, astudy conducted by Forum 2015 estimated that in2007 the total value of remittances sent by Koso-vans living abroad was 317 million euro—170million in cash, 22 million euro in-kind and 125million euro spent on “diaspora tourism”18. Withoutthe safety net provided by migration and remit-

tances, the financial welfare of many Kosovanswould be worse19. The Forum 2015 report statesthat 45% of the remittances are used for privateconsumption, 19% for house construction, 17%for health care needs and 16% for education, whileonly 3% is invested in entrepreneurial activity20.

It is anticipated that the global financial crisis willimpact the Kosovan economy through a decline inremittances. Some Kosovans working abroad maylose their jobs as large corporations downsize21.Foreign investment in Kosovo, already low, couldfurther decrease22. Among the first to be affectedby the crisis was the Kosovo Pension Trust. Its ini-tial investment value has declined by almost 30%,a value of 106 million euro, since 200823. However,the banking sector in Kosovo seems to be relativelyunaffected by the financial crisis, which can be at-tributed to the fact that banks in Kosovo have moredeposits than loans.

The privatisation of socially owned enterprises hasyielded significant funds that could boost Kosovo’seconomy. But this process may also be affectedby the global crisis. By mid-2008, the accumulatedproceeds from the sale of privatised assets hadreached over 383 million euro or around 11.5% ofGDP. Proceeds continued to be kept in the KosovoTrust Agency Fund, frozen and withheld from eco-nomic activity,24 even after the PrivatisationAgency of Kosovo replaced the internationally-managed Kosovo Trust Agency25. Assuming all pri-vatisation commitments (tender proceeds,liquidation sales and investments) are honoured,

15 Arbër Domi, Labour Market In Kosovo: A projection on the Relationship Between GDP Growth and Unemployment (Ministry of Economy and Finance ofKosovo – Macroeconomics Department, Prishtina, September, 2008), 5.

16 ibid, 6. 17 European Commission, Kosovo Donors’ Conference, Brussels, 11 July 2008, Conclusions of the Chair, 1. 18 Mustafa,M., Kotorri, M., Gashi, P., Gashi, A, Demukaj, V. Diaspora and Migration Policies, Forum 2015, Prishtina, December 2007, 38. 19 The World Bank Kosovo Poverty Assessment, Volume I: Accelerating Inclusive Growth to Reduce Widespread Poverty, Prishtina, October 3, 2007).-Mustafa,M., Kotorri, M., Gashi, P., Gashi, A, Demukaj, V. Diaspora and Migration Policies, Forum 2015, Prishtina, December 2007, 38. 43. 21 GAP Institute, The Effects of Global Financial Crises in Kosovo, 2.22 ibid 23 Trusti ka humbur 106 milionë, [Kosovo Pension Fund lost 106 Million Euro]” Gazeta Express, 14 May 2009, http://www.gazetaexpress.com/index.php/ar-

tikujt/lexo/7786/C4/C1324 Forum 2015, Privatization and Post-Privatization in Kosovo- Glass Half Empty or Half Full, Prishtina, September 2008, 12.25 Kosovo Stability Initiative, Who’s the Boss?, Prishtina, December, 2008, 4. 26 Forum 2015, Privatization and Post-Privatization in Kosovo- Glass Half Empty or Half Full, Prishtina, September 2008, 12.

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

13

more than half a billion euro has been raisedthrough the privatisation programme26. A Forum2015 study on the effects of privatisation on theKosovan economy surveyed 103 privatised enter-prises and found that only 66 of them remainedactive. Of the active 66, nearly 60% were engagedin production, 21% were in the service sector andthe remaining 19% were in the trade sector27.

METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY DESIGNKMS 2009 collected primary data through face-to-face interviews using a custom-designed researchinstrument. Primary data collection was conductedusing a multistage random sampling model, whereKosovo’s 33 municipalities were assigned propor-tionate sampling quotas based on their estimatedpopulation. Further, the sample was split equally be-tween urban and rural settlements within the deter-mined municipal quotas, and municipal data fromthe Organization for Security and Co-operation in Eu-rope28 were used to randomly select initial points ofdata collection. Within data collecting points in urbanareas, the selected household was every fourth ad-dress/house on the left-hand side of the street. Inapartment complexes, the selected household wasevery fifth apartment, counting them from the first tothe left of the entrance. In rural areas, the selectedhousehold was every fourth habitable dwelling houseon both sides of the interviewer's route. Within theselected household, only one person aged 18 or olderwas selected by asking birthdays of residents andselecting the person whose birthday was the firstfrom the date of the interview. A total of 6,400 face-to-face interviews were conducted by pen and pencilmethod. The detailed sample structure can be viewedin Annex 1, together with information on gender, ageand urban/rural attributes.

The survey design and methodology was developedby the Mosaic Committee, which consisted of rep-resentatives of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, the United States Agency for Interna-tional Development, the Ministry of Local Govern-ment Administration and the Association of KosovoMunicipalities. The KMS 2009 questionnaire wasdeveloped from further elaboration of the KMS2003 and 2006 questionnaires.

Statistical analyses and data processing were con-ducted using the SPSS (Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences) software. The statistics for thereport have a margin of error of less than 5%.

ORGANISATION OF THIS REPORTThe report has four chapters, each addressingseparate segments of the perceptions and opinionsof Kosovans regarding municipal services and au-thorities. The first chapter reports findings on mat-ters of well-being and economic outlook at thehousehold level and the second chapter explorestopics concerning public service. The third chapterdescribes public participation in local government,and the final chapter reports on issues affectinglivelihoods such as employment, land and busi-ness ownership, and education. Each chapter il-lustrates how trends have developed since KMS2003 and 2006, and highlights both Kosovo’sprogress and its remaining problems.

27 ibid, 15. 28 OSCE Mission in Kosovo, Municipal Profiles, Prishtina,22 April 2009, http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html.Pu

blic S

ervice

s and

Loca

l Auth

oritie

s in F

ocus

14

CHAPTER I

17

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

ECONOMIC WELL-BEINGKMS 2006 established a Wellbeing Index combining a number of different indicators including householdincome and possessions. Household purchasing power often determines the well-being of a communityand provides reliable macroeconomic data. For this purpose, KMS 2009 introduced monthly householdexpenses as a key indicator, while also maintaining the Wellbeing Index, which recorded respondents’evaluations of their own financial condition as well as their possession of appliances first presented inKMS 2003 and 2006. This indicator makes it possible to compare the wellbeing of different municipalitiesand to compare current trends with those observed in previous surveys.

HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURESThe average monthly household expenditure of the 2009 respondents was 352 euro. Approximately halfof households spent between 201 and 400 euro per month (Figure 1.). Some 19% spent 200 euro or less.Household expenses depend on family size; the majority (60%) of respondents had three to five membersin their family, while about 23% of respondents had six to nine members.

Figure 1. Monthly household expenditures

Zveçan/Zvečan respondents reported the highest average expenditures, totalling 1,027 euro per month.Gjakovë/Đjakovica and Prizren/Prizren were next, at 490 and 443 euro, respectively, followed by Fushë

Kosovë/Kosovo Polje and Prishtinë/Priština.Respondents from predominantly rural municipal-ities had lower household expenditures. The fivemunicipalities with the lowest expenditures wereLipjan/Lipljan, Dragash/Dragaš, Skenderaj/Srbica,Mamushë/Mamuša and Shtime/Štimlje, with ex-penditures ranging from 153 to 200 euro permonth.

The declared average monthly household expen-diture for Kosovo is 352 euro; the average familysize is 4.7 members; simple average expenditureper person per month is 74.9 euro and theweighted mean expenditure per month per personis around 77.8 euro. Both simple and weighted av-erage of expenditure per person per month showsimilar values.

18

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

Municipality Average monthly expenditure (in euro)

Deςan/Dečani 331Dragash/Dragaš 163Ferizaj/Uroševac 335Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje 425Gjakove/Đjakovica 490Gjilan/Gnjilane 359Gllogovc/Glogovac 378Hani i Elezit/Đeneral Janković 292Istog/Istok 301Junik/Junik 367Kaçanik/Kačanik 259Kamenicë/Kamenica 292Klinë/Klina 322Leposaviq/Leposavić 410Lipjan/Lipljan 153Malishevë/Mališevo 411Mamushë/Mamuša 198Mitrovicë/Mitrovica 342Novobërdë/Novo Brdo 363Obiliq/Obilić 242Pejë/Peć 378Podujevë/Podujevo 415Prishtinë/Priština 416Prizren/Prizren 443Rahovec/Orahovac 410Shtërpcë/Štrpce 397Shtime/Štimlje 200Skenderaj/Srbica 197Suharekë/Suva Reka 227Viti/Vitina 349Vushtrri/Vučitrn 324Zubin Potok/Zubin Potok 406Zveçan/Zvečan 1027Average 352

Table 1. Average monthly household expenditures in euroNote: Expenditures were calculated without consideration of household size and do not representper-person expenditures.

Household expenditures include food, clothing, alcohol, tobacco and other items. Figure 2 shows house-hold expenditures by category. About 40% of household income is spent on food. Expenditures for housingand clothing represent 13% each. Medication/health care and transportation each total less than 10%.

Figure 2. Household expenditures by category

FINANCIAL OUTLOOK To measure well-being, KMS 2009 recorded, among other things, respondents’ evaluations of their fi-nancial condition29. Comparing these results with those from previous surveys, a number of trends wereobserved (see Table 2 and Figure 3). More families are satisfied with their current financial status nowthan in 2003 or 2006, but fewer families are optimistic about their future financial status.

Figure 3. Perceived financial status

When evaluating current financial status, compared to KMS 2003 and 2006, respondents in the followingmunicipalities have shown positive trends: Deçan/Dečani, Ferizaj/Uroševac, Gllogovc/Glogovac, Ka-

19

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

29 In KMS 2006, respondents’ evaluations of financial conditions served as a key indicator of municipal well-being.

menicë/Kamenica, Lipjan/Lipljan and Pejë/Peć. Onthe other hand, municipalities ofGjakovë/Đjakovica, Mitrovicë/Mitrovica andNovobërdë/Novo Brdo continue to have a pes-simistic outlook on their financial status.

In contrast to previous KMS survey findings, KMS2009 shows that when evaluating their financialstatus for the past 12 months, respondents believethat their financial conditions have improved. Al-though the majority of respondents report improve-ment in their current financial conditions,respondents from Dragash/Dragaš, FushëKosovë/Kosovo Polje, Gjilan/Gnjilane,Shtërpcë/Štrpce and Zveçan/Zvečan report signif-icant deterioration in their financial status duringthe past 12 months. Respondents from these mu-nicipalities have continuously reported deteriora-tion in their financial conditions, as first noted inKMS 2003.

Consistent with trends observed in previous KMSsurveys, KMS 2009 respondents indicate that theyare optimistic regarding their financial conditionfor the upcoming year (see table 2). While KMS2009 respondents expect financial improvementsin the future, they are considerably less optimisticthan they were in 2003 or 2006. However, thisoverall positive trend is not shared by respondentsin a number of municipalities. For example, re-spondents from Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje, Gji-lan/Gnjilane, Shtërpcë/Štrpce and Zveçan/Zvečan,which are municipalities with large K-Serb minori-ties, show high levels of pessimism over their fu-ture financial conditions. Additionally, respondentsfrom these municipalities have also reported thehighest levels of deterioration in their financialconditions during the past 12 months. On the con-trary, respondents from Deçan/Dečani,Gllogovc/Glogovac and Leposaviq/Leposavić con-tinue to be significantly optimistic regarding theirfuture financial conditions, even surpassing previ-ous levels of optimism.

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

20

Municipality Current outlook Future expectations2003 2006 2009 Trend 2003 2006 2009 Trend

Deçan/Dečani 0.031 -0.236 0.438 + 0.578 0.450 0.630 +Dragash/Dragaš -0.321 -0.194 -0.303 - 0.238 0.291 0.230 -Ferizaj/Uroševac -0.238 -0.251 0.339 + 0.435 0.472 0.429 -Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje -0.052 -0.100 -0.820 - 0.476 0.478 -0.775 -Gjakovë/ jakovica -0.083 -0.387 -0.096 + 0.366 0.367 0.296 -Gjilan/Gnjilane -0.281 -0.261 -0.345 - 0.052 0.312 -0.147 -Gllogovc /Glogovac -0.229 -0.059 0.331 + 0.370 0.469 0.760 +Hani i Elezit/ eneral Janković NA NA 0.200 NA NA NA 0.611 NAIstog/Istok -0.096 0.104 0.257 + 0.323 0.420 -0.024 -Junik/Junik NA NA -0.079 NA NA NA 0.225 NAKamenicë/Kamenica -0.208 -0.253 0.354 + 0.202 0.148 0.283 +Kaçanik/Kačanik -0.155 -0.159 0.319 + 0.612 0.425 0.313 -Klinë/Klina -0.133 -0.225 0.355 + 0.152 0.387 0.130 -Leposaviq/Leposavić -0.256 -0.329 0.187 + -0.024 -0.171 0.275 +Lipjan/Lipljan -0.194 -0.146 0.408 + 0.430 0.152 0.417 +Malishevë/Malisevo -0.159 0.093 0.267 + 0.103 0.396 0.533 +Mamushë/Mamuša NA NA 0.209 NA NA NA 0.187 NAMitrovicë/Mitrovica -0.271 -0.319 -0.037 + 0.529 0.229 0.025 -Novobërdë/Novo Brdo -0.344 -0.399 -0.202 + -0.034 -0.238 0.190 +Obiliq/Obilić -0.103 -0.112 0.189 + 0.459 0.415 0.283 -Pejë/Peć -0.233 -0.257 0.334 + 0.664 0.543 0.353 -Podujevë/Podujevo -0.257 -0.218 -0.160 + 0.437 0.286 0.057 -

Table 2. Current financial outlook and expectations for the futureNote: Index of current outlook and future expectations - in the range from (-1) "has become worse/will becomeworse" to (+1) "has become better/will become better"

HOUSEHOLD WELL-BEINGAnother indicator of household well-being was calculated by the amount of household utilities and ap-pliances in possession and assigning each item a proportional weight.A household that declared to be in possession of all items listed in the questionnaire was considered tohave a Household Wellbeing Index of 100%30. While this model is not an absolute measure of well-being, it does provide for comparative analysis.

Based on this index, the five municipalities with the highest level of household well-being wereGjakovë/Đjakovica, Prishtinë/Priština, Vushtrri/Vučitrn, Kaçanik/Kačanik and Deçan/Dečani. Those withthe lowest level of well-being were Skenderaj/Srbica, Shtime/Štimlje, Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje, Lep-osaviq/Leposavić and Hani i Elezit/Đeneral Janković.

Figure 4. Top and bottom five municipalities by the Household Wellbeing Index Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

21

Prishtinë/Priština -0.229 -0.209 0.159 + 0.247 0.127 0.538 +Prizren/Prizren -0.307 -0.295 0.082 + 0.279 0.401 0.474 +Rahovec/Orahovac -0.197 -0.228 -0.064 + 0.162 0.026 0.344 +Shtërpcë/Štrpce 0.156 -0.116 -0.522 - 0.366 0.134 -0.567 -Shtime/Štimlje -0.211 -0.244 0.045 + 0.323 0.440 0.807 +Skenderaj/Srbica -0.087 0.054 0.695 + 0.308 0.426 0.856 +Suharekë/Suva Reka -0.035 -0.035 0.180 + 0.666 0.673 0.262 -Viti/Vitina -0.060 -0.160 0.110 + 0.343 0.176 0.333 +Vushtrri/Vučitrn -0.105 -0.219 0.262 + 0.455 0.436 0.506 +Zubin Potok/Zubin Potok -0.175 -0.298 -0.189 + 0.043 -0.135 -0.133 +Zveçan/Zvečan -0.283 -0.344 -0.458 - 0.122 -0.116 -0.458 -Average -0.191 -0.191 0.100 + 0.352 0.317 0.290 -

30The category of tractors was not included in this index, because it was not relevant to urban dwellers, which made up 50% of the sample.

Municipalities of Skenderaj/Srbica and Shtime/Štimlje continue to rank among the lower five municipal-ities in the Household Wellbeing Index, while Prishtinë/Priština and Leposavic/Leposavić continue torank among the top five. A pattern that indicates association between low Household Wellbeing Indexand low HDI 31 can be noticed for municipalities of Skenderaj/Srbica, Shtime/Štimlje, and Hani iElezit/Đeneral Janković.

HOUSEHOLD POSSESSIONSPossession of common household appliances such as televisions and mobile phones, and other spe-cialised items such as tractors and power supply generators have not shown significant increases or de-creases since KMS 2006. The only household possessions that showed a significant increase werecomputers and Internet connections. This can be attributed to the expansion of fibre optic cables through-out Kosovo and the expanded presence of Internet providers.

Table 3. Household possessions

There were significant differences between municipalities in terms of the possession of computers. Thepercentage of households with computers was highest in Klinë/Klina, Prishtinë/Priština, Istog/Istok,Pejë/Peć and Dragash/Dragaš, and lowest in Mamushë/Mamuša, Shtime/Štimlje, Skenderaj/Srbica,Malishevë/Mališevo and Leposaviq/Leposavić. The data shows that there is a positive trend in nine cat-egories of household items, and a negative trend in three categories, resulting in an overall positivetrend.

There were also differences between municipalities in terms of the number of Internet connections.Households in urban areas (Prishtinë/Priština, Pejë/Peć and Prizren/Prizren) had higher rates of Internetconnections than municipalities with a predominantly rural character such as Shtime/Štimlje,Novobërdë/Novo Brdo, Malishevë/Mališevo and Mamushë/Mamuša. Nevertheless, possession of com-puters and Internet connection has increased in all areas since 2006. This is especially true inDragash/Dragaš, which in KMS 2006 had one of the five lowest rates of Internet connection but now hasthe highest rate, at 65%.

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

22

2003 2006 2009 TrendRadio 87% 89% 91% +Television 96% 98% 98% =Video recorder 58% 61% 63% +Satellite antenna 67% 63% 64% +Computer 12% 28% 59% +Internet connection 2% 9% 45% +Camera 31% 42% 45% +Mobile telephone 54% 84% 82% -Landline telephone 36% 34% 40% +Washing machine 77% 88% 94% +Refrigerator 85% 91% 94% +Car 57% 63% 59% -Tractor 23% 23% 23% =Generator 14% 34% 30% -Air conditioner NA NA 12%

31 United Nations Development Program, KHDR 2004, http://www.kosovo.undp.org/repository/docs/KHDR2004.pdf

Figure 5. Percentage of households with a computer

Figure 6. Percentage of households connected to the Internet

A number of studies conducted over the past few years have revealed that Kosovans are more concernedabout economic and social development than about political issues32. In its latest Kosovo Poverty As-sessment33, the World Bank stated that living standards in Kosovo remain unchanged mainly becausereal economic growth has been slow and labour market conditions have been poor as a result.

Table 4. Perceived problems in Kosovo* Data not available from KMS 2006 Ko

sovo

Mos

aic Su

rvey 2

009

23

2006 2009Average K-Albanian K-Serb Other Average K-Albanian K-Serb Other

ethnicities ethnicities

Unemployment 50% 51% 10% 67% 32% 34% 15% 36%Lack of economic growth * * * * 16% 17% 5% 13%Corruption 2% 3% 1% 1% 13% 13% 5% 27%Lack of electricity 2% 2% 1% 2% 10% 11% 10% 5%Poverty/low standard of living 2% 2% 2% 4% 12% 10% 23% 7%Inadequate infrastructure * * * * 2% 3% 1% 0%Crime * * * * 3% 3% 6% 2%Lack of general or per. security 2% * 24% 2% 2% 1% 8% 0%Limited freedom of movement 2% * 22% 4% 3% 1% 18% 4%Inter-ethnic relations * * * * 1% 1% 4% 1%

32 Early Warning Report #23 (Pristina, Kosovo: United Nations Development Programme, Prishtina,December, 2008). 33 Kosovo Poverty Assessment, Volume I: Accelerating Inclusive Growth to Reduce Widespread Poverty (The World Bank, October 3, 2007)

In terms of problems facing Kosovo as a whole, in KMS 2006, 50% of respondents declared unemploy-ment as the worst. In KMS 2009, unemployment remained the number one problem, chosen by 32% ofrespondents overall, with a breakdown by ethnicity of 36% of Kosovo’s other minorities, 34% of KosovoAlbanians, and 15% of Kosovo Serbs. This marked a decrease for Kosovo Albanians and other minoritiesand an increase for Kosovo Serbs.

The lack of economic growth, included in KMS for the first time in 2009, was rated as the second problemfor Kosovo by respondents as a whole (16%)—including 17% of Kosovo Albanians, 5% of KosovoSerbs, and 13% of other Kosovo minorities.

Kosovo Serb responses showed a different pattern from the Kosovo average. They ranked poverty/lowstandard of living as the worst problem (23%, up from 2% in 2006), followed by limited freedom ofmovement (18%, down from 22% in 2006).

Regarding problems in their respective municipalities, 32% of respondents declared unemployment thenumber one problem. Other minorities were the most concerned about unemployment in their munici-palities, just as they were for Kosovo as a whole.

For respondents overall, lack of economic growth was the second perceived problem at the municipallevel (16%). But amongst ethnicities, only Kosovo Albanians gave it second place. Kosovo Serbs viewedpoverty/low standard of living and limited freedom of movement as the top two problems in their mu-nicipalities. Among other minorities, unemployment was ranked first, followed by corruption.

Table 5. Perceived problems in municipalities

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

24

Average K-Albanian K-Serb Other ethnicitiesUnemployment 32% 34% 15% 36%Lack of economic growth 16% 17% 5% 13%Corruption 13% 13% 5% 27%Electricity (Frequent power cuts) 10% 11% 10% 5%Poverty/low standard of living 12% 10% 23% 7%Crime 3% 3% 6% 2%Inadequate infrastructure 2% 3% 1% 0%Environmental pollution 2% 2% 1% 3%Poor state of water supply 2% 2% 2% 2%Lack of general or personal security 2% 1% 8% 0%Poor governance 1% 1% 1% 0%Limited freedom of movement 3% 1% 18% 4%Poor health care 1% 1% 1% 0%Inter-ethnic relations 1% 1% 4% 1%

OPTIMISM ABOUT THE FUTURERespondents were asked for the first time in KMS 2009 to agree or disagree with the statement: “I amoptimistic about the future of Kosovo in general”. Close to 75% responded they remained optimistic.Kosovo Albanians (78%) and other ethnicities (49%) were more optimistic than Kosovo Serbs (24%).A relationship between age and optimism was also observed (see Table 6), with younger people tendingto express more optimism.

Table 6. Responses to “I am optimistic about the future of Kosovo in general” according to respon-dents’ age and ethnicity

Respondents were also asked to agree or disagree with the statement “I am optimistic about the futureof my municipality”. Kosovo Albanians were the most optimistic with 78% (“Strongly agree” and “Iagree”), followed by other minorities (49%) and Kosovo Serbs (24%). Respondents expressed less op-timism about their own municipalities (64%) than about Kosovo (72%).

Table 7. Optimism about municipality’s future by ethnicity

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

25

Categories Mean age All K-Albanian K-Serb Other ethnicities ethnicities

Strongly agree 35 36% 40% 9% 8%I agree 37 36% 38% 15% 41%Neither agree nor disagree 39 15% 13% 31% 34%Disagree 40 7% 5% 25% 8%Strongly disagree 40 4% 2% 17% 3%Don't know 45 2% 2% 3% 6%

Categories Mean age All K-Albanian K-Serb Other ethnicities ethnicities

Strongly agree 35 28% 32% 8% 8%I agree 37 36% 37% 22% 41%Neither agree nor disagree 39 22% 20% 36% 36%Disagree 39 7% 5% 20% 8%Strongly disagree 38 5% 4% 13% 2%Don't know 43 2% 2% 1% 5%

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND LESSONS LEARNEDWhile it is clear that many problems still affect Kosovo’s citizens, the latest macroeconomic indicatorspoint towards an improving economic condition for Kosovo. When the Kosovo Mosaic Survey was firstadministered in 2003, Kosovo’s GDP was 1.32 billion euro. It had increased to 3.18 billion euro by thetime KMS 2006 was administered, and keeping in line with this trend in 2008, the last year for whichfull data is available, the GDP increased to 3.86 billion euro34. KMS 2006 was administered, and keepingin line with this trend in 2008, the last year for which full data is available, the GDP increased to 3.86billion euro . KMS 2009 aimed at examining whether this progress had translated into improved well-being for Kosovo’s citizens and whether it is reflected in respondents’ attitudes and perceptions.

KMS 2009 shows that respondents are more content with their financial well-being than they were inthe past and they remain optimistic for future financial improvements, although less so than reportedin prior KMS surveys. However, trends revealing a regional disparity in economic well-being observedin KMS 2003 and 2006 remain. K-Serb majority municipalities continue to lead in household expenditure,and regional centres such as Gjakovë/Đjakovica, Prizren/Prizren and Prishtinë/Priština follow suit. Mu-nicipalities of Dragash/Dragaš, Lipjan/Lipljan and Skenderaj/Srbica remain well below the Kosovo av-erage of household expenditure and the Wellbeing Index, a clear indicator of disproportionate gains fromKosovo’s development.

KMS 2009 shows that Kosovo is quickly embracing technology and making it a part of everyday life. Thisis shown by the fivefold increase in Internet connections in just three years, which serves as proof ofan improved economic environment. Optimism still reigns in Kosovo, with most K-Albanians and otherminorities believing in further improvements in Kosovo. K-Serbs on the other hand, were less optimistic,a reflection of their main concerns - security and freedom of movement.

A lack of job opportunities remains the main concern for respondents. While fewer respondents identifiedunemployment as the main concern in 2009 compared to 2006, one in three respondents perceived alack of jobs to be the main problem facing their community. KMS 2009 results point to a somewhat im-proving economic environment, with increased economic satisfaction and an optimistic future outlook.However, large disparities and divisions remain between municipalities, an issue which is in need of im-mediate attention.

26

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

CHAPTER II

29

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

CHAPTER II: PUBLIC SERVICESThis chapter will explore citizens’ satisfaction with basic public services such as water supply, energy,public transportation and heating, and with the cleanliness of parks and green zones. Respondent an-swers for satisfaction with public services were aggregated to produce the Index of Satisfaction with Pub-lic Services on a scale from (-100) "very dissatisfied" to (+100) "very satisfied". The Index of Satisfactionwith Public Services enables the ranking of public services by satisfaction and also the comparison ofthe same Index from KMS 2006, thus providing for trend inference. Respondents expressed more dissatisfaction with the delivery of public services in 2009 than in 2006(see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Satisfaction with public services in 2006 and 2009* Index of satisfaction with public services - in the range from (-100) "very dissatisfied" to (+100)"very satisfied"

30

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

usSatisfaction with fire and emergency services saw the most significant decrease since 2006, while an-other negative trend observed was regarding public transportation. Both these services are managed bythe municipalities. Satisfaction of respondents with local and inter-city road maintenance, sewage andsanitation has shown improvement compared to KMS 2006.

In 2009, respondents as a whole said that the public service most urgently in need of attention is elec-tricity, followed by primary health care facilities and waste collection. Kosovo Albanians also gave theimprovement of these three services the greatest urgency. Kosovo Serbs gave the highest priority toelectricity, followed by road maintenance and water supply. Other Kosovo minorities gave highest priorityto electricity, waste collection and road maintenance. Respondents reported that since 2006, their accessto sewage and sanitation has increased by 10%, access to drinking water supply by 7%, and accessto central heating by about 3%, but access to electricity has decreased.

Table 8. Public services perceived to need improvement

Table 9. Percentage of respondents with access to basic public services

Average K-Albanian K-Serb Other ethnicities

Electricity 15% 15% 16% 15%Ambulance 13% 13% 9% 11%(primary health care)Waste collection 10% 10% 11% 14%Road maintenance 10% 9% 12% 13%Water supply 9% 9% 12% 12%Education 8% 8% 7% 3%Sewage and sanitation 7% 7% 10% 11%Social housing 7% 8% 4% 7%Curbing illegal construction 5% 5% 2% 5%Parks and recreational facilities 4% 4% 4% 2%Sports 4% 4% 5% 1%Issuing civil documents 3% 4% 2% 1%Pedestrian and biking areas 2% 2% 3% 0%Procedures for tax payment 2% 2% 1% 3%Open market areas 1% 1% 2% 1%

2003 2006 2009 TrendRunning water 68% 74% 84% +Sewage and sanitation 51% 61% 71% +Central heating 3% 6% 9% +Electricity 97% 99% 96% -

31

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

PERCEPTIONS ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SERVICES In Kosovo, responsibility for public services is divided between municipal governments and the centralgovernment. Competencies of municipal governments are regulated by the Law on Local Self Government03/L04035. For example, services such as local public transportation, and social services such as cashassistance schemes are managed by the local government. Services delivered by publicly owned com-panies are managed by the central government. Currently, water supply service is overseen by the centralgovernment; however, it is anticipated that through the decentralisation process this authority will betransferred to local governments. Some sport and cultural services are jointly managed by local govern-ment institutions, although they fall in the domain of the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports.

In order to accurately assess the performance of local and central government administrations, seek ac-countability and evaluate service improvements, Kosovo citizens must correctly identify the level of gov-ernment responsible for specific pubic services. KMS 2009 shows that as with previous KMS surveys,confusion persists on who is in charge of what service. For the most part, respondents have a similarunderstanding of the responsible party for the various public services measured as in previous KMSsurveys. However, there were also notable exceptions. For example, in contrast to previous years, con-siderably more respondents accurately identified primary and secondary education to be a responsibilityof the local government, with 62% holding the municipal government accountable for the delivery of pri-mary and secondary education, whereas approximately 25% consider the central government to be incharge.

Regarding the delivery of primary health care service, the majority of respondents were aware that pri-mary health care services were the responsibility of the local government, a result in line with previousKMS survey results. Only about 20% of respondents identified the central government to be in chargeof this service.

Concerning local road maintenance, a local government duty, significantly fewer KMS 2009 respondentsconsidered the local government to be in charge of this service, compared to prior KMS results. Regardingelectricity supply, the administration of pensions, and management of inter-municipality roads and high-ways, the majority of respondents accurately identify the central government to be in charge. However,in a show of confusion, the majority of respondents believed that the local government is responsiblefor issuing passports, a service provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. KMS 2009 results show that although the majority of respondents identified the accurate governmentinstitutions in charge of services provided, respondents continued to exhibit high levels of uncertaintyon the level of government in charge. Such situation poses a serious challenge when demanding improve-ments in public services, and high levels of uncertainty may also inhibit respondents in seeking govern-mental accountability.

35 Official Gazette. Law on Local Self Government 03/L040 http://www.gazetazyrtare.com/e-gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147&Itemid=56

Figure 8. Perceptions on the responsibilities of central and municipal governments

WATER SUPPLYFive reservoirs—Ujmani/Gazivoda, Batllava/Batlava, Badovc/Badovac, Përlepnic/Prilepnica andRadoniq/Radonic—supply Kosovo with drinking water. The water supply is managed by regional com-panies, which are licensed by the Waste and Water Regulatory Office. Annual water consumption reaches75–80 million cubic meters of water. Securing water has become a challenge for many companies, andvery few municipalities are supplied with water 24 hours a day.

32

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

33

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Of the KMS 2009 respondents, 54% were supplied with water more than 11 hours per day or had un-restricted access, while 17% were not connected to the public water system at all. The highest percent-age of respondents reporting unrestricted water access were Skenderaj/Srbica (98%), Zveçan/Zvečan(86%), Deçan/Dečani (71%), Gjakovë/Đjakovica (79%) and Zubin Potok/Zubin Potok (43%).Skenderaj/Srbica respondents were both the most connected to water supply and the most satisfied(62%).

Figure 9. Connection to water supply

Fewer than 50% of the respondents said their water quality was good. Those most satisfied with waterquality were primarily in rural municipalities, and the least satisfied were in small cities such as Ra-hovec/Orahovac (where only 9% of respondents said water quality was good) and Novobërdë/Novo Brdo(14%).

Figure 10. Satisfaction with water quality

34

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

SEWAGE DISPOSALIn Kosovo, there is no wastewater treatment system; rather, sewage is emptied into open areas. Accessto sewage disposal does not appear related to ethnicity – 71% of Kosovo Albanians, 69% of KosovoSerbs and 80% of other minorities reported that they had access.The municipalities most and least satisfied with the sewage and sanitation system are shown in Figure

11. The Kosovo average is 2.5 on a scale of 4, with 1 being very satisfied and 4 being very unsatisfied.The municipalities shown below are a mixture of urban and rural, indicating that sewage disposal is aconcern for all residents, regardless of ethnicity or location.

Figure 11. Satisfaction with sewage and sanitation system

ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLYKosovo possesses the world’s fifth largest proven reserves of lignite (14.7 million tons), which is extractedfrom two strip mines, and feeds into two local coal-burning power stations. However, in the past threeyears, there has been an increase in dissatisfaction with the electricity supply. In the index produced fromthe service satisfaction scale measurements, in a range of (-100) to (+100), the index for satisfactionwith electricity supply has moved from -3.0 in 2006 to -11.4 in 2009, and is similar among all ethnicgroups. A move in the negative direction suggests a growing dissatisfaction with electricity supply. Given that the Kosovo Energy Corporation (KEK) is the only electricity supplier in Kosovo, it is not sur-prising that 56% of respondents said that the central government is responsible for supplying electricity.A quarter of respondents said that local authorities were responsible. Only 7% said, correctly, thatelectric power is a public enterprise.

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being very satisfied and4 being very unsatisfied. Those who were the most satisfied with electricity supply were from

Zveçan/Zvečan, Skenderaj/Srbica, Hani i Elezit/Đeneral Janković, Lipjan/Lipljan and Shtime/Štimlje.Those who were the least satisfied were from Shtërpcë/Štrpce, Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje,Mamushë/Mamuša, Junik/Junik, and Rahovec/Orahovac.

Figure 12. Satisfaction with electricity supply

SANITATIONThe cleanliness of Kosovo and its municipalities depends on the frequency of waste collection and onpublic awareness, as well as on other factors such as construction activity. The majority of respondentsrated their respective municipalities as “somewhat clean”.

Figure 13. Municipality’s cleanliness

Respondents rated their municipalities as “very dirty” were then asked why that was the case. Almosthalf (46%) answered that the citizens were to blame. Others blamed a lack of garbage bins (20%) andthe bins’ distance from dwellings (15%).

35

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Figure 14. Perceived reasons for lack of cleanliness

Regarding ways to improve the cleanliness of their municipalities, over one third of respondents chose“Public education/appeal”, which is a logical choice given how many believed that poor civic behaviourwas the cause of the lack of cleanliness. Almost one quarter called for more frequent waste collectionand almost another quarter for the provision of more garbage containers. 13% of respondents saw theimprovement of waste collection as a possible measure to enhance the state of cleanliness in their mu-nicipalities.

Figure 15. Ways to improve cleanliness of municipalities

The five municipalities most often characterised as “very clean” by respondents were Leposaviq/Lep-osavić (57%), Kaçanik/Kačanik (16%), Ferizaj/Uroševac (16%), Lipjan/Lipljan (14%), and ZubinPotok/Zubin Potok (12%).

64% of respondents from Mamushë/Mamuša rated their municipality as “very dirty”. Other municipal-ities rated as “very dirty” include Mitrovicë/Mitrovica, Gjilan/Gnjilane, Zveçan/Zvečan and Vushtrri/Vučitrn

36

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

(49 %, 48 %, 46 % and 43 %, respectively). Most respondents blamed the condition and appearanceof their municipalities on poor civic behaviour. The availability, location and state of garbage bins werealso perceived as a considerable problem. For example, 83% of Mamushë/Mamuša respondents attrib-uted the lack of cleanliness to poor civic behaviour. Respondents from Mitrovicë/Mitrovica attributed theproblem both to poor civic behaviour and to the unavailability of garbage containers, the latter of whichis the responsibility of public utility companies. This indicates that responsibility lies within the munic-ipalities and public utility companies as well as with the citizens. Thus there is a need for the government,the Kosovan people and public utility companies to work together to create a cleaner Kosovo.

Table 10. Perceived causes for lack of cleanliness in municipalities rated “very dirty”

PARKS AND GREEN ZONESOnly one in five respondents said they visit city parks. 35% of respondents declared that they would useparks as a venue for recreation if they were available. However, 56% of the respondents stated that theydo not use parks. Almost all respondents (97%) said that their municipalities did not have enough treesand grassy areas. Dissatisfaction rates were diverse, but the perceived shortage of recreational areaswas highest (56%) in Mitrovicë/Mitrovica.

Do you use city parks or other recreational green areas?Yes 18%I would use, but there are none 35%No 47%

Table 11. Use of green areas

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONKosovo’s urban road infrastructure and inter-city road networks have undergone significant refurbish-ment since the conflict in 1999. However, the need for improved roads and infrastructure is far from ful-filled. Public passenger transportation services in Kosovo are limited to inter- and intra-city transitbuses, city van pool services and commuter trains. Bus services, both within and between cities, rep-resent the main mode of public transportation in Kosovo. Railway passenger traffic was recently re-es-tablished, but only operates in two inter-city lines with a minimal number of passengers. KMS 2009 37

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica 43% 41% 10% 16% 15% 3% 14% 0%Gjilan/Gnjilane 46% 34% 6% 11% 37% 4% 4% 4%Vushtrri/Vučitrn 48% 48% 4% 15% 18% 2% 14% 1%Zveçan/Zvečan 49% 29% 2% 9% 17% 12% 31% 0%Mamushë/Mamuša 64% 83% 9% 6% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Top five dirtiestmunicipalities

"Ver

y dirt

y"

ratin

g

Poor

civic

be

havio

ur

Dust

from

co

nstru

ction

Bins

are

fa

r awa

y

No b

ins

Resid

ual

cons

truct

ion

debr

is

Garb

age

arou

nd b

ins

Othe

r

38

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

MunicipalityPercentage ofrespondents

who use publictransportation

Several timesa day (morethan twice)

Once or twicedaily

Once or twicea week

Once or twicein a month

Several timesa year or less

Frequency of public transportation use

results show that approximately 19% of survey respondents are regular users of public transportation,with the majority reporting that they only use public transportation once or twice a week. Results show that municipalities with the highest reported use of public transportation are FushëKosovë/Kosovo Polje, Zveçan/Zvečan, Leposaviq/Leposavić, and Lipjan/Lipljan. It is worth noting thatthese municipalities border larger regional centres such as Prishtinë/Priština and Mitrovicë/ Mitrovica,which have more extensive road networks. When asked about the frequency of public transportationuse, the majority of respondents from Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje, the municipality with the highest re-ported use of public transportation, declared that they used public transportation only once or twice aweek, compared to respondents from Zveçan/Zvečan, Leposaviq/Leposavić and Prishtinë/Priština, wherethe majority use public transportation on a daily basis.

KMS 2009 shows that approximately 35% of survey respondents identified the poor condition of busesas a major problem with public transportation, and some 25% reported the overcrowding of buses asanother major problem. The cost of tickets was also considered a major issue by 10% of survey re-spondents. These results indicate that the availability of road networks, the quality of the road infrastruc-ture and the management of transportation services directly contribute to the use of public transportationin Kosovo

Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje 89% 2% 32% 59% 7% 0%Zveçan/Zvečan 67% 26% 74% 0% 0% 0%Leposaviq/Leposavić 55% 25% 56% 19% 0% 0%Lipjan/Lipljan 51% 48% 26% 16% 10% 1%Prishtinë/Priština 44% 10% 66% 20% 3% 0%

Table 12. Use of public transportation—top five municipalities

Survey respondents in a number of municipalities indicated that public transportation services wereunreliable, operating with frequent delays and variable schedules. Service delays and limited frequencyappear to be the most common in Podujevë/Podujevo, as half of public transportation users claimed thatas a result of service delays or service disruptions, they do not reach their destination on time. About aquarter of respondents from Junik/Junik expressed the same dissatisfaction. On the other hand, publictransportation in Prishtinë/Priština and Mitrovicë/Mitrovica, both with extensive public transportation net-works, received the highest satisfaction rates, with 98% and 91%, respectively.

HEATINGHeavy oil- and diesel-based district heating is a relatively new service in Kosovo. It is offered to a numberof residents in only four municipalities - Prishtinë/Priština, Gjakovë/Đjakovica, Mitrovicë/Mitrovica andZveçan/Zvečan. Electric heaters and wood-burning stoves are the main options for those with no accessto district heating systems.

39

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

The largest district heating supplier is Termokos, a publicly owned enterprise created in 1970 in Prisht-inë/Priština. Its two furnaces burn heavy oil to heat water and distribute it through 28 km of pipes to 245substations. Heat transmitted to substations is then distributed to apartment blocks, and individualhouses. However, due to bad maintenance, leaks, lack of insulation, and damaged tubes, 20-25% of heatis lost during distribution.

KMS found that access to district heating increased from 3% in 2003 to 6% in 2006 and 9% in 2009.Kosovo Serbs reported the most access to district heating, at 17%, followed by Kosovo Albanians(8%) and other minority groups (4%).

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND LESSONS LEARNEDAs Kosovo’s economy grew steadily over the past years, its revenues also grew and expanded the modeststate budget. From 600 million euro in 2003, when KMS was first administered, Kosovo’s budget grewclose to 1.4 billion euro in 2009. Increased budget revenues, and the resulting higher expenditures wereexpected to directly improve the delivery of public services. In addition, capital investments in infrastruc-ture, education and other areas, as part of budget expenditures, were also thought to improve the avail-ability and delivery of public services. While improvements in public services tend to be lengthy andshow modest immediate results, KMS 2009 asked respondents to express their assessment of serviceavailability and delivery in their local communities.

Compared to previous surveys, KMS 2009 respondents reported significantly higher access to basicservices, including running water, sewage and sanitation as well as central heating, marking an importantaccomplishment of local and central government. However, with a slight drop in its access, electricityremains the biggest concern for Kosovo citizens.

Increased access to basic services does not seem to influence overall satisfaction with service delivery.KMS 2009 shows that respondents judge power shortages in need of the most immediate attention, fol-lowed by primary health care, road maintenance and water supply. While most public services are con-sidered to be delivered somewhat satisfactorily, respondents are less pleased with their deliverycompared to previous KMS surveys, indicating a more critical respondent assessment.

One in five Kosovo citizens regularly use public transportation, with some relying extensively on it. Over-crowding, poor bus conditions and poor road networks are identified as areas requiring the most imme-diate attention from local governments. Continued infrastructure investments, especially in areas thatare connected to larger road networks and in inter-city road infrastructure, should further encourage the use of public transportation in Kosovo.

Respondents’ continued uncertainty regarding who is in charge of delivering specific public servicescan be seen as a negative contributor to the low satisfaction levels with public service delivery. Eventhough respondents are increasingly more accurate in identifying those in charge of service provisioncompared to previous years, respondents continue to be uncertain in many areas, directly inhibiting re-spondents from seeking governmental accountability.

CHAPTER III

PARTICIPATION IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTSince the administration of the last KMS in 2006, Kosovo municipal governments have undergone sig-nificant changes. In an attempt to create a sustainable and effective system of local governance andassure local self-governance for minority communities, a shift of authority from the central governmentto municipal governments has taken place. This ongoing transition of power was initially marked withseveral major initiatives.

Working under UNMIK Regulations 2007/27 and 2007/30, the November 2007 local elections markedone of such major initiatives. This election resulted in the first direct election of municipal mayors acrossKosovo. Open party lists also allowed the direct election of municipal and Kosovo assembly represen-tatives. Although an anticipated increase in voter turnout did not occur, the direct election of mayors wasexpected to bring significant changes in the political scene in a number of municipalities.

A major initiative that directly contributed to this authority shift was the incorporation of the Compre-hensive Proposal for a Status Settlement for Kosovo36 into the Constitution and legislation of Kosovo, andthe commitment of Kosovo institutions to carry out proposed actions. The Comprehensive Proposal fora Status Settlement for Kosovo, known as the “Ahtisaari Plan”, was drafted by a team headed by Pres-ident Martti Ahtisaari, Special Envoy of then-UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. One of the issues ad-dressed in this proposal is the issue of decentralisation which shifts authority from central to localgovernments, in order to promote good governance, transparency and effectiveness in public services.Through the decentralisation of authority, the proposal also aims at easing the concerns of the K-Serbcommunity, by promising K-Serbs a higher degree of control over their own affairs.

According to the Kosovo Government’s action plan on the implementation of decentralisation37, a numberof laws that address actions proposed by the Ahtisaari Plan and extend local government reform wereadopted by the Assembly of Kosovo in 2008. For example, the Law on Municipal Administrative Bound-aries (2008/03-L041), which regulates the territorial organisation of local self-governments in Kosovo,also establishes new municipalities, as proposed by the Plan. Additionally, this law converts MunicipalPilot Units (MPU) of Junik/Junik, Mamushë/Mamuša and Hani i Elezit/Đeneral Janković into fully fledgedmunicipalities, further expanding the decentralisation of authority.

43

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

36 United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Kosovo. Comprehensive proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement (2007).Http://www.unosek.org/unosek/en/statusproposal.html37 Government of Kosovo. (2008). Action Plan on the Implementation of Decentralization. Prishtina

The Law on Local Government Finance (2008/03-L049) provides for new competencies for local gov-ernments including responsibility for their own budget and provides expanded competencies and financialautonomy to all municipal governments. Additionally, as set out by the Ahtisaari Plan, all municipalitieswill be entitled to their own financial resources, including its own sources of revenue.

Another enacted law, the Law on Local Self-Government (2008/03-L040), represents another major ini-tiative in the shift of authority. This law, which defines the legal status of municipalities, also sets theframework for the organisation and functioning of municipal bodies and regulates inter-municipal agree-ments and cooperation. Also, as set forth by the Ahtisaari Plan, the law regulates the relationshipbetween municipalities and the central government, which further contributes to the decentralisation ofauthority.

Such local government reforms, including the decentralisation of authority, aim at promoting trans-parency, accountability and effectiveness in public services, as well as bringing the government closerto its constituents. In addition to voting in local or central government elections, citizens in Kosovo havedifferent means of influencing the makeup of their government or the government’s policies. Thesemeans include the use of the media, volunteering, joining organisations and attending town hall meetings.While social activism is being used more frequently to seek transparent governance, other methods ofinfluencing decision-making are being used less frequently. In particular, voter turnout, which was highin the first elections after the conflict, has declined significantly in the last elections. It was expectedthat election reform—the introduction of the proportional system with open lists and the direct electionof mayors—would reverse the decline in voter turnout; however, fewer than 40% of Kosovans turnedout to vote in the November 2007 elections.

The previous Mosaic surveys showed that the majority of Kosovans are not interested in voicing theiropinions on public policy, a lack of interest reflected in the decline in voter turnout. This chapter explorespossible reasons for that apathy.

MUNICIPAL PUBLIC MEETINGS Engagement in any activity is often determined by how welcoming the activity is deemed to be. The ma-jority of KMS 2009 respondents believe that their municipality somewhat welcomes citizen participation.Another factor contributing to the degree of involvement in activities is the awareness of opportunitiesto participate. In KMS 2006, 23% of respondents said they were aware of meetings organised by theirmunicipality. In 2009, this figure was higher—on average, one in three respondents reported of beingaware of municipal public meetings organised by the municipality within the last year though only 8%attended a municipal public meeting. Kosovo Serbs (86%) were less informed about municipal publicmeetings than Kosovo Albanians (68%).

44

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

Figure 16. “My municipal government welcomes citizen participation”

Figure 17. Percentage of citizens informed about municipal public meetings

The municipalities that were rated as the most open to input from their citizens are shown in Table 13.

Municipality Feel welcome Feel informed Attended meeting(s)Skenderaj/Srbica 83% 75% 12%Dragash/Dragaš 77% 1% 0%Rahovec/Orahovac 60% 15% 2%Shtime/Štimlje 56% 0% 0%Gllogovc/Glogovac 50% 35% 3%

Table 13. Municipalities rated most open to citizen participation

45

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

46

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

usA very high percentage of respondents from Skenderaj/Srbica said they were informed of meetings, andmore than 80% perceived the local government as welcoming their input. However, in the same munic-ipality, only 12% of respondents said they attended municipal public meetings. In Dragash/Dragaš, re-spondents said they felt welcome, though only 1% of respondents claimed to be informed and nonesaid they had attended meetings within the last year.

As in KMS 2003 and 2006, the participation rates of Kosovo Serbs were higher than average, as theytended to value municipal public meetings more than other citizens. Among the five municipalities withthe highest attendance rates, two were predominantly Serb. Fewer than 10% of Zubin Potok/Zubin Potokand Leposaviq/Leposavić respondents had attended a municipal public meeting in the past year. Respon-dents from Skenderaj/Srbica showed more interest, with 12% of surveyed citizens having attended mu-nicipal public meetings. No respondents from Dragash/Dragaš, Lipjan/Lipljan or Mamushë/Mamušahad attended a municipal public meeting in the last year.

Municipality Attended Skenderaj/Srbica 12%Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok 9%Leposaviq/Leposavić 8%Pejë/Peć 7%Gjilan/Gnjilane 4%Gjakovë/Đjakovica 4%

Table 14. Top six municipalities for town hall attendance

Holding high perceptions on municipal governments as welcoming, and being informed about municipalpublic meetings, therefore does not directly correlate to high citizen participation in such meetings.

VOTINGVoter turnout in 2007 (40%) was the lowest since the first post-conflict elections in 2001. When askedto name the single most important reason for voting, respondents gave the following answers: belief inthe promises of the political party (32%), belief that the vote had meaning (17%),the feeling that theywere helping Kosovo (17%), belief in a better life (12%), belief in positive changes (11%), I like politicalparty people that I voted for (5%), know personally people I voted (2%), because my family membervoted (2%), and because of other and unspecified reasons (1%).

Figure 18. Reasons for choosing to vote

47

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

OTHER WAYS TO INFLUENCE DECISION-MAKINGKMS 2009 sought to identify what respondents considered as the most effective way of influencing gov-ernmental decision-making. Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of various modes of in-fluencing municipal government policies and decisions. The results show that respondents consider theuse of media to be the most effective mode of impacting government policies, in stark contrast to par-ticipation in public protests, which was identified as one of the least effective modes in achieving policychange at the local level. It is worth noting that voluntary work in organisations and personal contactwith representatives of the municipal government were deemed to be more effective methods of influ-encing municipal government policies than attending public protests. However, it is somewhat discour-aging that, although considered somewhat effective, attending municipal public meetings is believed tobe less effective in achieving policy change than participation in public protests.

Figure 19. Ways to influence municipal decision-making

Respondents reported that they most frequently resorted to simpler forms of influence, such as petitionsand participation in public protests to express concern or dissatisfaction with the government’s perform-ance or policies. KMS 2009 results show that over the past year, one in five K-Albanian respondents hadsigned a petition, and some 17% had participated in a public protest, with approximately the samenumber having attended a municipal public meeting. Over the same period, 26% of K-Serb respondentsreported to having signed a petition, and over 40% to have participated in a public protest, much higherthan the 23% that reported to have attended a municipal public meeting. When compared to K-Albaniansand K-Serbs, fewer respondents from other minorities in Kosovo indicated having participated in publicprotests. Only 14% of respondents reported participating in such protests. Some 14% of minority re-spondents also reported having signed petitions as a means of influencing policy.

Although respondents consider participating in public protests to be among the least effective modes ofinfluencing municipal decision making, KMS 2009 shows that for K-Albanians, it is the second most fre-quently used mode, after petition signing. More K-Serbs respondents reported having attended publicprotests than having signed a petition, attended a public debate or attended a municipal public meeting.

Last Effective Most Effective

Figure 20. Participation in political activities to influence decision-making

The Law on Local Self Governance requires that each municipal government organises two annual mu-nicipal public meetings with its constituents. These meetings are perceived as having the ability to affectdecisions of the mayor and the municipal assembly. Making one’s voice heard is done through signinga petition, protesting in the streets or participating in discussions at municipal public meetings. Inessence, these actions are peripheral forms of affecting decision-making, while voting has direct im-pact.

Evaluation of listed forms of citizen participation can be seen as less effective, and is asserted with theresult where 55% of respondents stated that municipal representatives do not consider the opinions ofcitizens when making decisions.

SATISFACTION WITH MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIONLocal government reform, the November 2007 elections and the decentralisation of authority from centralto local governments have been expected to significantly impact the efficiency of local administrations.In addition to measuring general satisfaction with municipal government administrations and analysingsatisfaction trends, KMS 2009 aimed at reporting respondents’ perceptions on their municipal govern-ment’s trustworthiness, its accessibility and respondents’ attitudes towards access to information anddocumentation at their local government offices. KMS 2009 also intended to describe respondents’knowledge of the functions of their municipal governments and whom they needed to address when re-questing help from their local government.

When asked to express their satisfaction with their local administration, respondents revealed somewhatmixed satisfaction levels. Compared to previous KMS, KMS 2009 respondents were somewhat moresatisfied with their local governments than respondents in 2006, but less satisfied than respondents fromthe first Kosovo Mosaic Survey in 2003. Although the overall satisfaction across all of Kosovo’s munic-ipalities was positive, the results varied considerably across regions. For example, respondents from Sk-enderaj/Srbica, a municipality with a K-Albanian majority and respondents from Leposaviq/Leposavić,a K-Serb majority municipality, were very satisfied with their local governments. In stark contrast, re-spondents from Rahovec/Orahovac and Prizren/Prizren reported the highest levels of discontent with theirmunicipal government.

48

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

49

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Table 15. Index of satisfaction with municipal administration, 2003–2009*

*Index of satisfaction with local authorities - in the range from (-100) "very dissatisfied" to (+100)"very satisfied"Source: Kosovo Mosaic 2003, Kosovo Mosaic 2006, Kosovo Mosaic 2009

When asked to rate the overall performance of their local government’s service delivery, the majority ofrespondents reported being generally satisfied, with 51% indicating that local governments had done agood job in delivering services, and another 12% reporting that they had done an excellent job. It is im-

Municipalities 2003 2006 2009 Trend

Deqan/Dečani 42 22 16 -Dragash/Dragaš 14 33 25 -Ferizaj/Uroševac 27 15 39 +Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje 35 23 27 +Gjakove/Đakovica 27 -26 14 +Gjilan/Gnjilane 26 -18 -17 +Gllogovc/Glogovac 21 -2 51 +Hani i Elezit/Đeneral Janković N/A N/A 31 N/AIstog/Istok 30 26 -5 -Junik/JunikN/A N/A 38 N/AKaçanik/Kačanik 14 -27 43 +Kamenicë/Kamenica 16 6 30 +Klinë/Klina 27 11 4 -Leposaviq/Leposavić -23 -13 52 +Lipjan/Lipljane -25 -29 33 +Malishevë/Mališevo 13 40 13 -Mamushë/Mamuša N/A N/A 4 N/AMitrovicë/Mitrovica 21 12 -6 -Novobërdë/Novo Brdo -6 -16 5 +Obiliq/Obilić 1 16 7 -Pejë/Peć 16 -2 8 +Podujevë/Podujevo 29 8 6 -Prishtinë/Priština 5 -15 36 +Prizren/Prizren 12 36 -33 -Rahovec/Orahovac 6 -23 -43 -Shtërpcë/Štrpce -4 -14 -33 -Shtime/Stimlje 66 45 -30 -Skenderaj/Srbica 16 15 94 +Suharekë/Suva Reka 53 40 16 -Viti/Vitina 25 21 30 +Vushtrri/Vučitrn 31 -15 14 +Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok 7 14 -16 -Zveçan/Zvečan -34 7 8 +Total 19 7 14 +

portant to note that while the overall performance received a passing grade, some 46% of respondentsbelieved their local governments did a poor or a very poor job when it came to solving the problems oftheir constituents. Additionally, 63% of respondents believed their local governments are doing an ex-cellent or good job in providing clear and precise information, and the majority (54%) thought their mu-nicipality did a poor or a very poor job in tackling corruption.

Excellent Good Poor Very poor Don’t know

Overall performance 12% 51% 31% 3% 3%Clear and precise information 14% 49% 31% 4% 3%Ease of contacting the right person 18% 38% 36% 5% 3%Ability to solve the problem 12% 39% 40% 6% 3%Convenience of office hours 19% 46% 27% 4% 3%Timeliness of service 17% 37% 35% 8% 3%Courtesy of employees 21% 41% 27% 9% 3%Anti-corruption measures 10% 20% 31% 24% 16%

Table 16. Rating of specific elements of municipal government service, 2009

The perception that local municipal governments lack anti-corruption measures is also expressed whenrespondents were asked to rate the trustworthiness of their local governments in managing municipalfunds and assets. Overall, respondents had a mixed view of their local government’s ability to reliablymanage municipal funds. Some 39% said that they were “Somewhat trustful” while another 19% con-sidered the local government “Trustworthy’ or “Very trustworthy” in managing municipal funds. Fewerrespondents (32%) regarded the local government as untrustworthy when it came to managing funds.

Figure 21. Perceived trustworthiness of municipal government on fund management

In the last year, one in three respondents visited a municipal office to request documents of personalinterest—such as the Kosovo identity card and passport, which the government started to issue in July

50

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

2008. In some municipalities, almost every respondent had gone to request some kind of document. Mu-nicipalities with the highest number of visits were Lipjan/Lipljan, Kaçanik/Kačanik, Ferizaj/Uroševacand Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje. Only 6.6% of respondents in the new municipality of Mamushë/Mamušahad sought the assistance of the municipal office during the last year, whilst more respondents in themunicipalities of Dragash/Dragaš (16%) and Suharekë/Suva Reka (14%) had sought municipal assis-tance.

Figure 22. Five most and least visited municipal offices

High rates of visits to municipal offices do not always imply effectiveness of service delivery. Of the fivemost visited municipalities, Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje’s service was ranked the best, with close to97% of respondents reporting that their requests were met. Ferizaj/Uroševac and Kaçanik/Kačanik followed with more than 86% of respondents reporting success.Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje is in the most-visited group, and the respondents from this municipality re-ported high success in obtaining documents.

Overall, respondents reported that 8% of requests were unmet. Skenderaj/Srbica was ranked withinthe top five most responsive municipalities, with 98% of respondents receiving their documents. In thenew municipality of Junik/Junik, 97% of respondents said that their requests were met.

Respondents from Malishevë/Mališevo reported the highest rate of negative answers to their requests,with 43%. In Suharekë/Suva Reka, 33% of requests were unmet, and in Novobërdë /Novo Brdo, 29%.In Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje, respondents stated that their requests to the municipal administrationwere met 99% of the time. In municipalities of Lipjan/Lipljan, Vushtrri/Vučitrn, Obiliq/Obilić, and Sk-enderaj/Srbica, more than 95% of requests for information were met. On the contrary, respondents fromObiliq/Obilić and Suharekë/Suva Reka reported only a 5% success rate.

51

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

52

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

Figure 23. Top and bottom five municipalities regarding success of requests for information or documents froma municipal office

When respondents were asked if they knew where to address their problems within the municipal ad-ministration, only a fifth of surveyed respondents said they did not know who to address. One fifth saidthat they were confident as to where to address their problems, and a same proportion of respondentsdeclared that they “somewhat” knew where to address their problems in the municipal administration.Novobërdë/Novo Brdo respondents most often said they were well informed (93%), followed by Sk-enderaj/Srbica with 84%.

Seven out of ten respondents from Podujevë/Podujevo and Gllogovc/Glogovac reported knowing whichdepartments to address. However, in Shtërpcë/Štrpce, half of the respondents said that they did notknow. Four out of ten Suharekë/Suva Reka respondents, and more than a third of the respondents fromKlinë/Klina, Vushtrri/Vučitrn and Mitrovicë/Mitrovica, declared the same lack of information.

Figure 24. Knowing where to go for help

A substantial number of all respondents (37%) said that they did not have sufficient information abouttheir municipality’s activities. In Mamushë/Mamuša, 67% of respondents did not believe they were in-formed. The Kosovo Serb community had the highest percentage both of respondents who felt very in-formed (7%, compared to 4 or 5% for the other groups) and of those who felt they were not informedat all (35%, compared to 18 or 20% for the other groups).

Figure 25. “How informed do you feel about the work that your municipality is doing?”

OPINIONS ON DECENTRALISATION Local government reforms, promoted by the Ahtisaari Plan, include the decentralisation of authorityfrom central governmental institutions to local, municipal governments. This decentralisation of authorityis intended to promote accountability, good governance, transparency and a much-needed increase inthe effectiveness of public services. Decentralisation is also expected to provide additional freedom tothe K-Serb community, by assuring a higher degree of control over their own affairs.

This process of shifting authority allows municipalities to manage their own budget and sources of rev-enue, as well as allowing municipalities to forms partnerships with other municipalities for mutual ben-efit. Additionally, decentralisation provides new competencies for municipalities, such as control overtheir primary and secondary schools, planning local economic development and managing public primaryhealth care. Majority K-Serb municipalities would have enhanced responsibilities, including authority overhospitals and the protection and promotion of cultural and religious affairs at the local level, amongothers.

When asked on various topics related to decentralisation, KMS 2009 results show that respondents re-ceive most of their information on topics of decentralisation from television and the radio. 76% of re-spondents said they learned about decentralisation through these two media sources, while newspapersaccounted for 15%. Public debates were a source of information for only 7% of respondents, while 2%of respondents responded with the internet as the primary source of information about decentralisation.

53

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

54

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

Figure 26. Sources for information on decentralisation

When asked on the concepts they associate with decentralisation, more than half of respondents (52%)related decentralisation to the creation of new municipalities. One in ten respondents considered decen-tralisation to be a requirement of the Ahtisaari Plan. Of the remainder, 10% believed that decentralisationwas supposed to improve public services, 9% believed it would result in expanded competencies for localgovernments, and 8% thought it is intended to integrate the Kosovo Serb minority. Very few respondentsbelieved it was a requirement for European integration, and even fewer respondents saw it as an obli-gation that originated from the Constitution of Kosovo.When asked to identify the group that would benefit most from decentralisation, 43% of respondents de-clared that ‘ethnic groups’ would benefit most, although only approximately 1% of respondents specif-ically identified Serbs as the beneficiaries of decentralisation. Another 40% said that all of Kosovo’scitizens would benefit from decentralisation, whereas government officials were identified by 11% of re-spondents as the group to gain.

Figure 27. Opinions on who will benefit from decentralisation

When examining respondents’ answers on the groups to benefit from decentralisation by their ethnicity,some differences can be seen. For example, the majority (56%) of other minority respondents believe

55

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

that decentralisation will benefit all of Kosovo’s citizens, in contrast to fewer than 40% of K-Albaniansand K-Serbs who answered the same. Some 45% of K-Albanian respondents considered ‘ethnic groups’would be the beneficiaries of decentralisation, in contrast to 32% of K-Serbs. Also 10% of K-Albanianand 8% of K-Serb respondents identified government officials as the group to benefit from decentrali-sation, which reflects a level of misunderstanding and mistrust on how the process of decentralisationis currently being handled.

Figure 28. Opinions on who will benefit from decentralisation by ethnic group

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND LESSONS LEARNEDSince 2006, when the last KMS survey was administered, efforts to create a sustainable and effectivesystem of local governance and assure local self-governance for minority communities has increasedin pace. Local government reforms, including the shift of authority and responsibility from central gov-ernment to local, municipal governments was expected to have a lasting impact on the efficiency andtransparency of local government performance. KMS 2009 intended to measure respondents’ attitudestowards their local administrations, on the assumption that their attitudes would reflect the changes inthe organisation of local government and their additional responsibilities.

Results show that Kosovo citizens remain active when it comes to making their voices heard, althoughthe modes chosen to do this continue to differ somewhat between communities. Importantly, respondentsacknowledge that attending protests on the street is not the most effective way of affecting governmentalpolicy, but a large number of respondents still report having attended such public demonstrations of dis-satisfaction at least once.

Media continues to lead as the mode of choice when it comes to influencing governmental policies,while town hall meetings are not deemed to be very effective by the respondents. This is further demon-strated by results indicating a minimal number of respondents having attended town hall meetings inthe past. It is worth noting, however, that respondents considered their local governments as open to cit-izen participation, while also maintaining that municipal representatives do not consider the opinionsof citizens when making decisions. This discrepancy is important to emphasise as mixed messagestend to frustrate respondents and directly influences satisfaction levels with the local government.

Kosovo citizens continue to show mixed levels of satisfaction with their local governments, although animprovement in satisfaction levels is noted. It is believed that due to increased spending on local infra-structure developments, new school buildings, and educational investments, Kosovo’s citizens are show-ing an improved level of content with their local government. Although satisfaction levels are higherthan in 2006, a lack of corruption measures continues to be among the main concerns for Kosovo citi-zens. In order to improve the rapport with their constituents and increase their trustworthiness, it iscrucial for local government officials to promptly address this concern.

57

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

CHAPTER IV

59

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

59

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

EMPLOYMENT, FARMING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIPKMS 2009 respondents pointed to unemployment and the lack of economic growth as the two leadingchallenges to Kosovo’s development. This chapter explores the household economy relative to employ-ment, land ownership and entrepreneurship.

EMPLOYMENT Unemployment continues to be pervasive in Kosovo. Only 48% of respondents said they were employed.Kosovo Albanian and Kosovo Serb respondents reported lower employment rates than Kosovo-Other re-spondents. Male respondents reported higher employment rates than female respondents in both urbanand rural areas. Of male respondents, 58% were employed, while 42% of female respondents wereemployed.

All K-Albanian K- Serb Other ethnicities Male Female Rural Urbanrespondents

Working 48% 48% 49% 62% 57% 40% 46% 51%Unemployed 28% 29% 19% 26% 18% 37% 32% 26%Student 16% 16% 11% 8% 15% 16% 12% 15%Retired 6% 5% 17% 3% 8% 5% 8% 5%Disabled 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Other 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Table 17. Respondents’ employment status

The mean age of working male respondents was 38 years, and that of females was 37 years. The meanage for both female and male students was 22 years.

Average Male Female Working 38 38 37Unemployed 37 37 38Student 22 22 22Retired 64 65 63Disabled 47 47 46Other 44 44 43

Table 18. Employment by mean age

60

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

Education LevelAll

respondents K-Albanian K-Serb

Other minorities

Male Female

When asked on their education levels, over half of the respondents (62%) said they had completed sec-ondary education, and 11% had completed higher education, an increase from KMS 2006. Kosovo Al-banians and Kosovo Serbs remain similar in secondary and higher education levels (81% and 82%,respectively). Most of the individuals who do not have education are females (70%), while less than onethird are males (30%). When looking at the population with a higher education, the mean age for maleswithin this education level is 36 years, while the mean age of females is 34.Male survey respondents reported higher education levels than female respondents. Education levels aresummarised in the table below.

No formal education 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%Elementary 4% 4% 4% 10% 3% 4%Primary 19% 19% 17% 18% 13% 24%Secondary 62% 61% 72% 60% 65% 59%Higher 15% 16% 7% 11% 19% 12%

Table 19. Respondents’ education levels

Age and education levels also appear to be related. For example, the small number (less than 0.5%) ofrespondents with no formal education were considerably older—their average age was 62, comparedto an average age of 38 for the rest of the respondents.

Average Male FemaleNo formal education 59 62 58Elementary 50 53 49Primary 44 48 42Secondary 34 35 33Higher 35 36 34

Table 20. Education by mean age

Education levels also varied among municipalities. Respondents in Pejë/Peć, Prizren/Prizren, Junik/Junik,Zveçan/Zvečan and Istog/Istok had higher levels of education than other municipalities. The percentageof respondents in Prishtinë/Priština, Podujevë/Podujevo, Deçan/Dečani, Viti/Vitina, Lipjan/Lipljan andFushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje without formal education was higher than in other municipalities.

Respondents’ levels of education correlated positively with their employment levels - those with moreeducation were more likely to be employed. About 67% of respondents with higher education said theywere employed, compared to only 14% of those with no formal education.

61

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Figure 29. Employment rates by education level

Municipalities with the highest number of respondents who were unemployed and looking for work werein rural areas and central Kosovo—for example, Malishevë/Mališevo (45%), Lipjan/Lipljan (27%),Viti/Vitina (27%), Kaçanik/Kačanik (26%) and Dragash/Dragaš (25%). The northern part of Kosovo anda few larger municipalities had lower unemployment rates: between 3% and 10% in northern Kosovoand between 6% and 9% in major cities such as Prizren/Prizren, Gjakovë/Đjakovica, Mitrovicë/Mitrovica,Pejë/Peć and the capital, Prishtinë/Priština (see Figure 30).

Figure 30. Percentage of respondents’ unemployed and looking for work

LAND OWNERSHIP AND FARMINGTwo other factors that influence household economic conditions in Kosovo are the possession of farmlandand of a private business. While farming has been a tradition in rural and semi-rural areas of Kosovo,it was often abandoned in the post-conflict period. This was initially due to security issues, as landmines left over from the conflict prevented people from farming. Once the land was cleared of mines,high costs of and the unavailability of agricultural machines, seeds and fertilisers became a new im-pediment to agricultural development.

Of the 1.1 million hectares of land in Kosovo, 53% is cultivable38. This land is largely owned by residentsof rural areas. 67% of rural and 47% of urban respondents said they owned land.

Land ownership has not changed significantly since 2006; rural households in poorer municipalitiescontinue to own more land than those in urban areas. This suggests that land ownership does not suf-ficiently reduce poverty rates, and rather, it is the agricultural activity conducted on the land that affectsthe decline of poverty and improvement of livelihoods.

BUSINESS OWNERSHIPIt is generally assumed that if one owns a business, one is less likely to be poor. In 2009, 19% of re-spondents said they owned a private business, compared to 15% in 2006. In a number of municipalities,the survey results indicated that a very small number of residents owned a business. Such municipalitiesare located mainly in the central and southern regions of Kosovo, including Skenderaj/Srbica,Dragash/Dragaš, Junik/Junik, Novobërdë/Novo Brdo and Hani i Elezit/ eneral Janković. Business own-ership rates in these municipalities ranged from 2% to 6%. Residents in Klinë/Klina, Kaçanik/Kačanik,Zveçan/Zvečan, Ferizaj/Uroševac and Mitrovicë/Mitrovica were most frequently to be self-employed,with the majority of them owning a business. In Klinë/Klina, every second respondent owned a busi-ness—a major increase since 2006, when only 8% of respondents ran their own businesses (see Figure31).

Compared to 2006, much has changed in municipalities traditionally known for their flourishing small-business sector. Business ownership has declined by 7% in Prizren/Prizren during the last three years,but it has increased by 10% in Gjakovë/Đjakovica, and by 13% in Pejë/Peć.

62

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

38 Ministry of Trade and Industry, Kosovo at a Glance, Prishtina, June, 2008, 4.

Figure 31. Ownership of private business by municipality

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND LESSONS LEARNEDKosovo’s accelerated economic growth is expected to boost the establishment of new businesses as wellas the creation of new jobs. While governmental policies that make use of increased state and municipalbudgets to improve the economic environment for Kosovo citizens tend to be laborious and be imple-mented over extended periods of time, some positive indicators are noticeable.

While still low, some 20% more Kosovo citizens reported their own businesses today than in 2006. Thispositive trend is a strong indicator of a continued improvement of the business and economic environ-ment in Kosovo. Given that small businesses and family-owned businesses are among the biggest em-ployers in Kosovo, this trend provides some optimism for future job availability.

Employment remains a main concern among Kosovo’s citizens and KMS 2009 shows that only 1 out of2 respondents is currently employed, with marked inequality in employment across regions of Kosovo.

63

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Municipalities with the highest number of unemployed respondents and those looking for work were inrural areas and central Kosovo, with a significantly lower proportion of respondents reporting being un-employed in regional centres and K-Serb municipalities. The trend is clear that divisions remain and dis-parities are significant across municipalities and regions. It is very important that local and centralgovernments make genuine effort in sharing Kosovo’s economic development with all of its regions.KMS 2009 results show that in addition to very low employment, Kosovo’s central regions remain in theworst shape when compared to other regions, including being the most pessimistic for their future eco-nomic well-being.

CONCLUSIONSFrom tripling its GDP and doubling its budget in 6 years, to implementing extensive local governmentalreforms, the past few years were marked with significant developments for Kosovo. The role of KMS2009 was to examine whether this progress has translated into improved well-being for Kosovo’s citizensand whether it is reflected by respondents’ attitudes and perceptions.

When analysing the extensive information provided in KMS 2009, a complex image becomes apparent.Kosovo’s citizens appear to be more content with their current financial well-being than they were in thepast, and yet, they remain hopeful for future financial gain. This image also shows that Kosovo’s largeyoung population is leading the way in Kosovo’s embrace of technology, which can be attributed to a man-ifestation of an improved economic environment. Increased reported business ownership is another sig-nificant sign of an expanding economy.

Increased budgets and higher expenditures seem to be improving the quality of life of Kosovo’s citizens,resulting in significantly higher access to basic services, as reported in this survey. Kosovo citizens con-tinue to be uncertain at times of who is in charge for various services in Kosovo, leading to frustrationand dissatisfaction. Such frustration influences their assessment of the work of local government. Evenwith an improved level of satisfaction, Kosovo’s citizens remain very critical of their local governments,demanding that their voice be heard and did not express hesitation in taking to the streets when dis-satisfied.

Unemployment continues to lead as the main concern for Kosovo’s citizens, but reflecting the improvedeconomic environment, it seems that slightly less people consider it to be the most important issue. How-ever, optimism still reigns in Kosovo, with most Kosovo citizens believing in further improvements, ex-cluding K-Serbs, who are still troubled by their lack of security and freedom of movement.While KMS 2009 portrays an improving picture of Kosovo citizen’s well-being, significant regional dis-parities remain. Kosovo’s central municipalities continuously fare worse than their neighbouring munic-ipalities, and special attention must be paid to their needs.

64

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

ANNEX1. SUMMARY OF MAIN RESULTS

67

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani iElezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6396

561

324

362

363

464

314

283

232

173

91

169

169

155

122

196

190

181

128

208

87

329

142

111

107

84

90

90

83

168

150

89

91

90

Str

ongly

agre

e47%

69%

25%

38%

54%

42%

42%

41%

29%

97%

78%

60%

62%

68%

24%

38%

54%

41%

36%

1%

0%

61%

61%

69%

27%

37%

47%

8%

15%

73%

47%

63%

1%

83%

I agre

e33%

18%

39%

28%

35%

45%

30%

41%

42%

2%

22%

17%

17%

25%

33%

47%

31%

46%

35%

44%

98%

33%

30%

20%

50%

52%

26%

20%

66%

16%

35%

25%

60%

10%

Neit

her

agre

e n

or

dis

sagre

e10%

6%

16%

23%

4%

7%

19%

3%

18%

1%

0%

8%

7%

7%

0%

9%

6%

4%

18%

34%

2%

3%

1%

7%

13%

2%

6%

26%

13%

5%

9%

7%

39%

1%

Dis

agre

e5%

3%

11%

6%

4%

3%

7%

4%

3%

0%

0%

7%

9%

0%

43%

0%

7%

2%

6%

7%

0%

1%

2%

1%

3%

1%

7%

20%

6%

2%

5%

5%

0%

0%

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e4%

4%

9%

5%

3%

3%

2%

10%

7%

1%

0%

8%

6%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5%

2%

1%

0%

2%

6%

0%

4%

5%

16%

26%

0%

4%

2%

0%

0%

3%

Don't

know

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

6%

2%

2%

3%

13%

0%

0%

0%

4%

4%

2%

0%

1%

0%

0%

3%

1%

0%

2%

Q-1

I a

m o

ptim

istic

about

my

futu

re

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Cou

nt

639

856

23

24

36

13

65

46

431

42

84

23

31

73

91

16

81

69

15

51

21

19

619

01

81

12

82

08

88

32

91

42

11

11

07

84

90

90

83

168

15

08

991

89

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

36

%7

3%

10

%2

5%

38

%1

1%

34

%37

%2

4%

95

%2

3%

52

%55

%6

0%

33

%1

2%

9%

43

%2

6%

4%

0%

51

%44

%2

6%

27

%31

%3

2%

0%

0%

69

%44

%5

8%

0%

69%

I a

gre

e36

%1

5%

47

%2

7%

47

%4

1%

32

%36

%3

7%

4%

6%

27

%23

%3

0%

23

%6

8%

67

%45

%4

7%

43

%8

5%

41

%46

%5

5%

47

%46

%1

7%

6%

7%

21

%39

%2

6%

57

%2

3%

Neith

er

ag

ree

nor

dis

sa

gre

e15

%5

%19

%3

1%

7%

34%

23

%17

%2

5%

0%

53%

6%

7%

8%

0%

13%

7%

7%

20%

31

%1

5%

5%

6%

12%

16

%7

%1

4%

10

%2

2%

4%

7%

8%

43

%2

%

Dis

agre

e7

%4

%11

%8

%4

%1

3%

9%

4%

6%

1%

17%

7%

10

%1

%4

4%

2%

13

%0%

4%

8%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

8%

14

%42

%2

9%

1%

4%

5%

0%

3%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

4%

3%

11

%6

%3

%1

%1

%6%

3%

1%

2%

8%

6%

0%

0%

0%

1%

3%

2%

1%

0%

2%

2%

1%

4%

5%

21

%39

%2

3%

3%

2%

1%

0%

1%

Don

't k

no

w2

%1

%1%

2%

1%

0%

1%

1%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

5%

4%

2%

2%

13

%0

%0

%0%

5%

5%

2%

1%

3%

19%

2%

3%

2%

0%

2%

Q1.2

Opti

mis

t about

the futu

re o

fKoso

va in g

enera

l

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/KosovoPolje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6401

562

324

362

365

464

314

283

233

173

91

169

169

155

122

196

190

181

128

208

88

329

142

111

107

84

90

90

83

168

150

89

91

90

Str

ongly

agre

e28%

70%

5%

16%

24%

11%

28%

31%

17%

94%

22%

19%

24%

48%

1%

15%

4%

40%

23%

3%

6%

38%

27%

31%

24%

21%

16%

3%

1%

64%

26%

60%

0%

62%

I agre

e36%

16%

45%

31%

51%

43%

33%

28%

39%

2%

19%

46%

52%

37%

56%

59%

45%

30%

43%

38%

36%

38%

47%

27%

36%

49%

33%

11%

30%

20%

38%

25%

53%

26%

Neit

her

agre

e n

or

dis

sagre

e23%

5%

24%

34%

16%

36%

26%

22%

25%

2%

47%

17%

6%

12%

43%

18%

45%

21%

22%

36%

58%

17%

17%

37%

27%

19%

16%

22%

41%

5%

18%

7%

47%

4%

Dis

agre

e7%

6%

12%

9%

6%

9%

10%

7%

8%

1%

12%

7%

12%

3%

0%

3%

3%

3%

6%

8%

0%

3%

4%

0%

2%

2%

13%

34%

17%

4%

11%

6%

0%

1%

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e5%

3%

14%

8%

3%

1%

4%

10%

4%

2%

0%

11%

6%

0%

0%

1%

1%

4%

3%

3%

0%

3%

6%

1%

5%

5%

22%

28%

7%

6%

4%

1%

0%

2%

Don't

know

2%

0%

1%

3%

2%

0%

1%

3%

8%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

5%

2%

2%

2%

13%

0%

2%

1%

5%

6%

4%

0%

1%

4%

0%

3%

2%

0%

4%

Q-1

I am

op

tim

isti

c a

bo

ut

the f

utu

re i

n m

y m

un

icip

ali

ty

68

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/KosovoPolje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/ ZubinPotok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/DeneralJankovic

Count

63

89

562

32

43

62

358

46

43

14

284

23

31

73

91

16

91

69

155

12

21

96

190

18

11

28

207

88

329

138

11

11

07

84

90

90

83

16

71

50

89

91

90

Lack

ofeco

nom

ic g

row

th22

%28%

29

%2

0%

25%

28

%3

3%

37%

16

%2

0%

0%

41

%3

1%

34%

0%

3%

2%

24

%2

9%

40%

2%

15%

9%

10

%3

5%

24%

27

%7%

1%

13

%6%

12%

1%

16%

Inadequate

infr

ast

ruct

ure

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

0%

5%

2%

2%

0%

1%

4%

4%

3%

0%

1%

1%

0%

2%

1%

1%

6%

4%

1%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

3%

0%

19%

Lack

ofgenera

l or

pers

onal se

curi

ty2

%1

%4%

1%

1%

0%

4%

1%

0%

0%

6%

1%

3%

1%

0%

1%

4%

0%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

0%

0%

7%

22

%3%

23%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Lim

ited fre

edom

of m

ovem

ent

3%

2%

6%

5%

2%

0%

2%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

4%

1%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

5%

12

%2

3%

49%

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

Unem

plo

ym

ent

44

%52%

31

%2

7%

36%

33

%3

8%

49%

45

%6

2%

26%

34

%2

0%

37%

25

%5

7%

69%

59

%2

9%

30%

94

%4

7%

49%

84

%4

7%

29%

20

%1

0%

10%

65

%71

%6

3%

91

%5

0%

Cri

me

3%

1%

6%

1%

3%

1%

2%

3%

1%

0%

9%

1%

3%

3%

0%

4%

3%

3%

9%

5%

0%

2%

6%

0%

2%

0%

8%

8%

0%

0%

4%

0%

6%

1%

Corr

upti

on

7%

3%

4%

4%

6%

20

%5%

3%

10

%2%

24%

0%

10%

5%

32

%1

0%

2%

3%

17%

13%

0%

8%

5%

1%

11%

7%

1%

2%

1%

3%

8%

2%

0%

2%

Povert

y/L

ow

sta

ndard

oflivin

g7

%5

%2%

33%

7%

1%

5%

1%

3%

6%

7%

5%

12%

3%

43

%2%

5%

2%

5%

5%

1%

2%

3%

3%

3%

10%

3%

14%

11%

7%

0%

9%

1%

7%

Inte

r-eth

nic

rela

tions

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

11%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

6%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Ele

ctri

city

7%

2%

12

%2%

10%

10

%5%

3%

18

%3%

14%

8%

8%

9%

0%

4%

10%

3%

2%

0%

0%

16%

17%

1%

0%

7%

0%

7%

0%

5%

7%

10%

0%

0%

Poor

state

of w

ate

rsu

pply

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

0%

2%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

0%

1%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Poor

state

of heati

ng s

upply

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Envir

onm

enta

l polluti

on

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

5%

1%

1%

0%

3%

0%

2%

0%

4%

0%

12%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

1%

2%

1%

0%

0%

1%

Poor

healt

hca

rese

rvic

e1

%0

%1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

2%

2%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Poor

public

transp

ort

serv

ices

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Lack

of/

underd

evelo

ped p

ost

serv

ice

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Poorl

y funct

ionin

g r

ubbis

h c

ollect

ion s

erv

ice

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

Lack

offu

nct

ionin

g a

dm

inis

trati

on

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Poor

pri

mary

and s

eco

ndary

educa

tion

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Ille

gal co

nst

ruct

ion

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Legal fr

am

ew

ork

ofKoso

vo

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Poor

Govern

ance

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Koso

vo s

tatu

s0

%1

%0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Keepin

g t

he p

eace

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Rese

ttling r

efu

gees/

dis

pla

ced

pers

ons

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Air

polluti

on

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Oth

er

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Refu

ses

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Don't

know

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Q-2

a.

And

wha

t is

cu

rre

ntly

the

mo

st im

po

rta

nt

pro

ble

m f

acin

g y

ou

r m

un

icip

alit

y?

69

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6379

562

32

3362

35

946

4314

279

233

173

91

169

16

91

55

12

2195

190

181

128

207

88

328

13

6111

107

84

90

90

83

16

6150

89

91

90

Lack

of eco

nom

ic g

row

th9%

7%

4%

4%

10%

18%

5%

16

%6%

49%

1%

2%

8%

4%

0%

3%

1%

17%

4%

4%

0%

7%

8%

16%

7%

18%

2%

10%

0%

11%

7%

25

%0%

12%

Inadequate

infr

ast

ruct

ure

3%

3%

0%

3%

4%

0%

2%

8%

3%

1%

1%

6%

7%

3%

0%

1%

1%

2%

11%

4%

1%

4%

3%

1%

2%

2%

0%

2%

1%

5%

0%

7%

0%

9%

Lack

of genera

l or

pers

onalse

curi

ty2%

1%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

10%

8%

2%

1%

4%

0%

0%

0%

16%

1%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Lim

ited fre

edom

of m

ovem

ent

2%

0%

2%

22

%3%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

6%

1%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

2%

18%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

Unem

plo

ym

ent

18%

20%

23%

19

%2

1%

14%

17%

27

%22%

21%

6%

24%

15%

5%

43%

9%

5%

20%

15%

31%

2%

17%

16%

11%

53

%27%

14%

12%

16%

17%

13%

12

%2%

14%

Cri

me

4%

2%

12%

3%

4%

1%

2%

8%

2%

0%

29%

4%

8%

2%

0%

4%

2%

2%

11%

14%

2%

1%

1%

0%

7%

4%

10%

2%

0%

2%

5%

3%

0%

0%

Corr

upti

on

18%

9%

14%

10

%1

2%

37%

24%

13

%8%

3%

12%

7%

13%

9%

24%

30

%63

%14%

26%

11%

18%

22%

15%

11%

12

%1%

7%

0%

2%

8%

19%

6%

95%

28%

Povert

y/L

ow

sta

ndard

oflivin

g16%

36%

3%

21

%1

1%

1%

19%

12

%5%

19%

10%

7%

16%

3%

0%

2%

18

%24%

16%

13%

74%

17%

11%

31%

18

%25%

26%

19%

19%

28%

9%

18

%3%

16%

Inte

r-eth

nic

rela

tions

2%

2%

3%

2%

3%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%

4%

4%

4%

3%

0%

1%

0%

1%

2%

1%

0%

2%

2%

0%

0%

1%

6%

3%

2%

0%

1%

1%

0%

2%

Ele

ctri

city

14%

8%

24%

8%

21%

15%

19%

7%

30%

1%

21%

19%

15%

48%

1%

19

%1%

12%

0%

4%

0%

20%

28%

0%

2%

5%

3%

10%

5%

11%

35%

26

%0%

0%

Poor

state

of w

ate

rsu

pply

3%

0%

0%

2%

2%

1%

0%

1%

12%

0%

4%

17%

4%

1%

32%

2%

3%

2%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

5%

0%

1%

1%

2%

4%

5%

7%

0%

0%

1%

Poor

state

of heati

ng

supply

1%

0%

2%

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

3%

0%

0%

1%

2%

3%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Envir

onm

enta

l polluti

on

3%

6%

2%

1%

4%

5%

4%

1%

3%

1%

0%

2%

1%

9%

0%

8%

0%

2%

0%

1%

0%

2%

3%

23%

0%

0%

0%

0%

7%

8%

0%

1%

0%

6%

Poor

healt

hca

rese

rvic

e1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

4%

0%

2%

0%

3%

0%

1%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

0%

4%

0%

1%

5%

1%

1%

0%

0%

2%

Poor

public

transp

ort

serv

ices

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Lack

of/

underd

evelo

ped p

ost

serv

ice

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Poorl

y funct

ionin

g r

ubbis

hco

llect

ion

serv

ice

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

6%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Lack

of fu

nct

ionin

g a

dm

inis

trati

on

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

1%

3%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Low

level of ta

xpaym

ent

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Poor

pri

mary

and s

eco

ndary

educa

tion

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Ille

gal co

nst

ruct

ion

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Terr

itori

alre

configura

tion/N

ew

munic

ipal boundari

e0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Legal fr

am

ew

ork

of Koso

vo

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Poor

Govern

ance

2%

0%

1%

1%

1%

4%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

1%

0%

16

%1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

1%

6%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Perf

orm

ance

of politi

cal part

ies

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Koso

vo s

tatu

s0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Keepin

g t

he p

eace

1%

1%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

7%

6%

9%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Rese

ttling r

efu

gees/

dis

pla

ced

pers

ons

1%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

8%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Air

polluti

on

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

1%

0%

0%

4%

Refu

ses

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Don't k

now

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Q-2

b. A

nd w

ha

t is

curr

ently the

second m

ost im

po

rtant

pro

ble

m f

acin

g y

ou

r m

unic

ipalit

y?

70

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Co

un

t6364

561

323

362

365

464

311

282

233

174

91

169

167

146

122

194

188

181

127

201

88

327

138

111

106

84

90

90

83

166

150

89

91

90

Gott

en b

ett

er

28%

27%

7%

11%

45%

17%

25%

19%

37%

70%

29%

46%

38%

45%

1%

23%

20%

31%

48%

49%

5%

42%

44%

0%

37%

12%

7%

2%

5%

40%

40%

8%

23%

28%

Sta

yed t

he s

am

e52%

61%

82%

42%

40%

73%

39%

45%

49%

29%

60%

42%

48%

49%

68%

60%

53%

48%

39%

31%

96%

49%

41%

18%

43%

52%

67%

39%

45%

52%

46%

75%

75%

40%

Gott

en w

ors

e18%

11%

11%

45%

12%

9%

35%

35%

11%

1%

10%

11%

13%

1%

31%

5%

26%

20%

13%

9%

0%

8%

12%

82%

18%

32%

26%

54%

51%

7%

13%

16%

2%

8%

Re

fuse

s1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

5%

0%

1%

1%

0%

2%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

13%

Don't

know

2%

0%

0%

2%

3%

0%

1%

1%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

12%

1%

2%

1%

7%

0%

2%

1%

0%

1%

4%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

11%

Q-4

a. C

om

pare

d to

a y

ear

ago

, d

o y

ou

th

ink

the

fin

an

cia

l sta

tus o

fyou

r ho

useh

old

re

sid

ing

here

ha

s

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Cou

nt

63

62

561

324

361

36

3464

311

283

23

3174

91

169

169

146

122

19

5186

180

127

20

688

324

134

11

1106

84

90

90

83

167

15

089

91

90

Get

bett

er

43%

64

%15%

23%

42%

53

%39%

34%

55%

86%

43%

36%

24

%66%

23%

40%

51

%39%

43%

48%

83

%49%

42%

3%

44%

33%

14%

1%

5%

78%

62%

39

%20%

62%

Sta

y t

he s

am

e32%

23

%65%

22%

36%

33

%49%

25%

34%

13%

39%

39%

33

%24%

1%

32%

27

%27%

41%

35%

15

%36%

29%

17%

16%

39%

48%

22

%45%

17%

28%

40

%79%

11%

Get

wors

e14%

10

%13%

38%

7%

5%

9%

28%

5%

1%

15%

23%

26

%3%

0%

13%

16

%6%

14%

6%

2%

7%

10%

80%

16%

14%

28%

58

%51%

2%

9%

17

%1%

1%

Refu

ses

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

2%

0%

1%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

43%

2%

1%

0%

0%

4%

0%

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

4%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

11%

Don't k

now

9%

3%

6%

16%

14%

8%

2%

12%

5%

1%

2%

1%

17

%8%

33%

14%

5%

28%

2%

6%

0%

7%

19%

0%

22%

13%

10%

14

%0%

3%

1%

2%

0%

14%

Q-4

b. A

nd

over

the

ne

xt

yea

r, d

o y

ou

exp

ect th

at

the

fin

an

cia

l sta

tus o

f you

r h

ouse

hold

re

sid

ing

he

re w

ill

71

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hanii Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6404

56

23

24

362

36

54

64

315

28

42

33

17

491

16

91

69

155

12

21

96

190

18

11

28

20

888

32

91

42

111

10

784

90

90

83

16

81

50

89

91

90

Am

bula

nce

26

47

55

-31

916

-34

33

35

81

77

-832

12

-45

-19

26

22

56

24

47

25

36

34

13

27

62

61

76

28

-346

50

53

Hosp

ital

15

33

50

-15

12

17

-40

11

34

76

71

22

27

9-4

5-2

11

818

19

16

42

20

22

-90

12

12

59

28

51

23

-15

550

2

Public h

ealt

hca

re16

41

40

-17

12

14

-43

15

26

70

46

424

8-4

60

16

19

19

17

26

16

21

24

77

52

20

38

26

-10

22

46

9

Managin

g e

lem

enta

ry a

nd s

eco

ndary

educa

tion

21

51

35

-10

23

19

-37

14

28

74

62

121

75

-47

53

018

16

18

35

15

16

54

615

42

15

-46

46

-419

38

41

Wast

e C

ollect

ion

51

97

-54

10

-7-1

2-1

97

825

-91

24

-6-7

-18

8-6

21

37

19

12

48

-96

-62

-51

13

-24

18

27

1

Wate

r su

pply

10

42

22

-11

14

-35

30

-26

79

5-1

010

64

-70

-38

323

25

37

13

25

-77

19

31

7-6

90

17

-34

57

24

11

Sew

age a

nd s

anit

ati

on

33

95

-20

-85

06

-15

77

35

-6-1

4-3

66

0-1

21

-22

346

-57

-14

6-7

-14

-77

-57

19

-5-1

418

25

Main

tenance

oflo

cal ro

ad n

etw

ork

33

21

-27

-13

6-1

38

-10

76

33

-4-2

0-8

50

-3-2

23

26

50

-41

45

76

-4-8

1-7

925

-16

12

13

8

Main

tenance

of in

terc

ity r

oads

54

3-2

-21

-18

9-1

717

26

425

-12

-22

-9-2

5-1

-422

28

38

-312

74

019

-15

-69

-19

38

-10

10

-44

6

Tra

fic

and p

ark

ing r

egula

tion

-32

71

-37

-14

-20

-28

-10

-56

936

-7-2

5-9

-23

4-2

8-1

523

25

28

-38

35

-10

-31

-56

40

19

-14

-4-1

9-2

Ele

ctri

city

supply

-11

21

-26

-35

-26

-18

-40

-3-3

06

67

-5-4

5-3

4-2

4-1

2-4

4-3

7-5

28

25

623

-64

-13

01

8-8

384

16

-35

-55

-55

46

Tele

phone a

nd p

ost

alse

rvic

es

15

48

10

-15

13

15

-14

-217

78

55

-1-3

55

22

-2-1

3-5

38

26

36

10

12

-63

-4-9

23

-174

48

-758

91

1

Envir

onm

ent

pro

tect

ion

-21

1-1

-34

-6-7

-16

-23

-56

554

10

-23

16

69

-7-6

-12

32

24

38

-14

18

-82

-3-2

1-9

-67

-54

31

724

-20

Pro

tect

ion o

fla

nd a

nd landsc

ape

and w

ildlife

-31

9-6

-38

-1-8

-37

-25

-56

653

15

-20

04

54

-21

-14

32

24

38

-17

20

13

-1-2

2-1

9-7

3-6

42

39

32

-33

Cult

ura

l act

ivit

es

11

32

12

-22

23

15

-46

-16

41

71

51

9-1

40

74

19

14

-17

64

26

48

615

48

-12

-14

-16

-73

-23

23

15

-11

30

9

Sport

s act

ivie

s13

34

16

-18

22

14

-47

-17

39

71

59

22

-13

18

023

17

-12

58

20

41

310

49

-11

-17

11

-52

-25

33

15

031

4

Fir

efighti

ng a

nd

em

erg

ency

serv

ices

15

44

10

-17

18

11

-42

-221

73

59

-610

-67

517

16

053

22

28

811

56

11

10

-29

41

47

20

13

17

13

Rura

l and u

rban p

lannin

g1

28

-3-3

48

-7-4

1-2

111

64

39

-29

-76

89

0-2

918

19

31

-82

22

-13

-29

-3-6

3-4

635

00

-3-5

Soci

al se

rvic

es

-16

6-4

-48

-16

-29

-39

-27

-46

320

1-2

5-4

-2-9

-55

-48

01

938

-11

7-7

3-1

7-2

2-2

0-6

1-7

02

-50

2-7

0-2

9

Pensi

ons

-20

1-9

-56

-22

-31

-39

-28

-10

62

14

-2-3

0-2

-8-9

-57

-55

-11

16

36

-13

11

-89

-22

-21

-7-3

7-5

2-1

4-5

7-1

9-7

6-3

4

Tax p

aym

ent

pro

cedure

s1

38

-1-3

42

0-3

2-1

34

73

27

-43

4-2

7-3

5-2

911

16

40

-12

13

30

-6-1

1-1

7-2

98

31

04

-62

14

Public t

ransp

ort

ati

on

54

3-5

-25

617

-32

-24

66

938

17

-61

11

-22

-28

29

15

41

-15

11

51

-6-1

94

-44

29

39

817

-35

-25

Pro

tect

ion

of cu

ltura

l heri

tage

03

3-1

0-2

5-8

2-3

9-1

88

67

21

-4-6

-7-7

9-1

3-3

331

16

43

-10

769

-11

-13

-10

-76

-50

29

41

-27

6

Tenders

Pro

cure

ment

-72

4-1

2-2

9-1

5-7

-37

-44

-36

411

4-1

2-3

-12

10

-27

-48

11

15

44

-612

-1-2

1-3

94

-60

-12

16

-21

-17

-10

6

Recr

uit

ment

ofci

vil s

erv

ants

-43

6-1

0-3

0-1

0-5

-34

-36

36

59

6-7

1-3

210

-39

-49

51

631

414

12

-31

-42

-6-7

6-3

229

-24

037

9

Managem

ent

of m

unic

ipal fu

nds

-33

4-9

-31

-18

-4-2

7-3

82

66

37

4-1

8-2

-53

13

-5-6

66

16

35

720

9-3

2-4

56

-61

-422

-25

140

10

Public lig

hti

ng

53

312

-33

-19

32

-11

-36

76

851

9-2

024

-14

13

14

-53

30

16

39

20

24

-9-3

3-5

01

1-5

8-7

241

0-1

343

-6

Sid

ew

alk

s4

26

19

-41

-26

11

-13

-35

76

554

20

-19

24

-59

19

-49

52

16

48

20

20

1-2

9-5

42

3-6

2-8

151

913

46

-7

Q-5

. T

ell

me

to

wh

at

exte

nt

are

yo

u s

atisfied

with

the

perf

orm

an

ce

of

the

fo

llow

ing

serv

ice

s.e

rvic

es.

(Ave

rage

s f

rom

-100

to

100)

72

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani iElezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6378

560

324

362

364

463

312

283

232

174

91

169

168

155

122

196

187

181

124

208

88

328

141

110

107

84

90

89

82

168

149

89

90

88

Very

cle

an

7%

9%

4%

2%

3%

7%

5%

6%

4%

3%

53%

8%

8%

1%

1%

1%

5%

2%

11%

14%

2%

16%

16%

7%

2%

4%

12%

3%

0%

12%

9%

5%

2%

7%

Som

ew

hat

clean

67%

73%

47%

49%

57%

89%

70%

67%

52%

96%

44%

59%

64%

70%

34%

78%

70%

85%

66%

72%

96%

66%

62%

77%

81%

58%

81%

60%

54%

69%

61%

83%

33%

64%

Very

dir

ty23%

17%

49%

48%

40%

3%

25%

23%

43%

1%

0%

33%

27%

28%

0%

17%

23%

10%

11%

3%

2%

17%

16%

16%

12%

38%

6%

35%

46%

19%

28%

12%

64%

17%

Refu

ses

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

66%

1%

2%

1%

2%

6%

0%

0%

6%

0%

3%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

9%

Don't

know

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

3%

1%

0%

3%

0%

1%

1%

0%

4%

1%

2%

10%

6%

0%

2%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

3%

Q-6

H

ow

would

you

rate

the

cle

an

liness in

you

r m

unic

ipalit

y

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hanii Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6186

553

321

354

361

452

309

221

233

172

89

166

167

154

120

158

186

179

120

208

87

325

139

111

88

78

90

88

82

164

146

89

90

86

Yes

18%

44%

6%

9%

4%

4%

38%

2%

24%

2%

55%

2%

4%

5%

20%

1%

11%

0%

20%

51%

1%

16%

9%

89%

3%

5%

28%

1%

67%

25%

36%

8%

3%

5%

No

75%

56%

94%

69%

78%

96%

62%

74%

75%

98%

43%

97%

68%

94%

48%

83%

89%

93%

73%

45%

99%

83%

89%

11%

86%

81%

68%

86%

33%

73%

64%

85%

97%

70%

Refu

ses

3%

0%

0%

1%

18%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

28%

1%

32%

4%

0%

3%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

10%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

17%

Don't

know

4%

0%

1%

21%

0%

0%

0%

24%

1%

0%

2%

1%

1%

0%

1%

11%

0%

4%

4%

3%

0%

0%

3%

0%

10%

14%

0%

2%

0%

2%

0%

7%

0%

8%

Q-7

a. D

oyou u

se p

ublic

transp

ort

ati

on

inyour

munic

ipality

?

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6341

561

324

348

362

464

311

276

233

174

86

169

169

154

121

192

188

180

127

206

88

326

138

111

107

84

90

89

80

165

149

89

90

90

(1 t

o 4

)hours

16%

8%

14%

8%

1%

10%

1%

4%

55%

0%

1%

4%

2%

1%

76%

8%

50%

21%

3%

11%

53%

10%

12%

23%

27%

17%

0%

9%

1%

4%

57%

0%

97%

60%

(5 t

o 6

)hours

13%

15%

28%

6%

4%

17%

5%

12%

9%

0%

1%

18%

5%

3%

23%

12%

34%

16%

9%

6%

21%

13%

8%

41%

19%

26%

24%

15%

0%

9%

6%

2%

3%

6%

(11

or

more

) hours

26%

51%

20%

17%

43%

44%

4%

46%

6%

1%

59%

56%

50%

3%

0%

13%

1%

22%

23%

14%

0%

25%

36%

16%

21%

5%

28%

40%

0%

38%

4%

83%

0%

6%

Unre

stri

ctre

d25%

25%

24%

18%

36%

23%

79%

24%

4%

98%

24%

12%

25%

71%

0%

3%

7%

11%

17%

11%

26%

13%

18%

0%

33%

10%

43%

15%

86%

11%

0%

12%

0%

1%

Q-8

a. O

n a

vera

ge,

duri

ng t

he l

ast

year,

how

man

y h

ours

per

day y

ou h

ad

runnin

g w

ate

r?

73

Koso

vo M

osaic

Surve

y 200

9

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

Zubin Potok/Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6315

560

323

347

362

460

307

276

230

174

89

169

168

153

122

190

188

179

125

207

88

324

140

110

107

82

90

85

82

163

148

89

90

88

Yes

19%

22%

19%

6%

39%

8%

24%

24%

14%

1%

47%

43%

27%

10%

57%

7%

9%

7%

29%

0%

0%

24%

41%

20%

0%

6%

9%

4%

72%

2%

30%

7%

1%

2%

No,I w

ould

use

but

there

are

none

35%

23%

16%

37%

9%

5%

7%

34%

24%

99%

8%

46%

21%

64%

1%

62%

7%

69%

17%

83%

0%

45%

36%

78%

82%

66%

44%

54%

6%

73%

10%

83%

31%

85%

No

47%

55%

65%

57%

52%

87%

69%

42%

62%

1%

45%

11%

52%

26%

43%

31%

84%

24%

54%

17%

100%

31%

23%

2%

18%

28%

47%

42%

22%

25%

60%

10%

68%

13%

Q-9

. D

o y

ou

use

city p

ark

s o

r o

the

rre

cre

ation

alg

ree

n a

reas?

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

ZubinPotok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Tota

l6298

561

324

362

358

462

309

280

231

172

91

167

169

153

121

182

190

179

116

197

87

320

137

111

106

83

89

90

83

164

150

89

91

74

Am

bula

nce

52%

66%

58%

69%

25%

28%

92%

56%

25%

65%

10%

2%

28%

59%

13%

95%

62%

42%

53%

85%

36%

42%

22%

79%

74%

52%

55%

10%

46%

65%

98%

35%

90%

34%

Wast

e_co

llect

ion

41%

56%

30%

37%

34%

40%

41%

42%

46%

17%

47%

6%

23%

22%

32%

82%

79%

24%

13%

31%

92%

10%

10%

96%

28%

51%

54%

40%

22%

49%

96%

23%

99%

10%

Wate

r_su

ppl y

37%

31%

23%

48%

11%

42%

48%

28%

56%

26%

46%

29%

17%

14%

42%

74%

66%

21%

19%

10%

60%

25%

10%

99%

9%

68%

47%

51%

24%

53%

92%

23%

96%

18%

Sew

age_Sanit

ati

on

30%

17%

17%

37%

30%

19%

55%

24%

17%

13%

17%

14%

17%

50%

10%

29%

56%

15%

21%

13%

78%

15%

7%

78%

22%

49%

61%

52%

47%

43%

65%

70%

97%

4%

Road_m

ain

tenance

39%

32%

32%

44%

31%

47%

75%

34%

24%

19%

41%

24%

24%

39%

78%

57%

52%

23%

14%

15%

53%

22%

21%

55%

27%

37%

58%

53%

65%

34%

80%

48%

97%

8%

Ele

ctri

cit y

63%

64%

75%

74%

43%

94%

86%

52%

83%

67%

82%

7%

43%

75%

56%

84%

55%

51%

42%

50%

54%

45%

54%

46%

69%

63%

43%

70%

8%

69%

97%

91%

92%

1%

Pro

cedure

s_fo

r_ta

x_paym

ent

8%

5%

8%

4%

6%

3%

23%

19%

2%

0%

8%

4%

7%

3%

3%

7%

21%

5%

7%

8%

8%

5%

5%

2%

3%

6%

8%

7%

1%

11%

47%

6%

30%

1%

Curb

ing_ille

gal_

const

ruct

ion

19%

28%

7%

19%

17%

29%

68%

27%

7%

12%

3%

5%

12%

24%

3%

8%

18%

11%

16%

6%

12%

12%

10%

12%

5%

10%

8%

34%

1%

22%

51%

14%

11%

3%

Soci

al_

housi

ng

30%

46%

13%

27%

12%

39%

45%

49%

10%

24%

3%

5%

18%

19%

26%

76%

16%

30%

26%

36%

8%

20%

16%

87%

31%

33%

18%

17%

11%

50%

81%

9%

8%

26%

Issu

ing_ci

vil_docu

ments

14%

18%

14%

19%

10%

4%

52%

23%

16%

30%

1%

1%

11%

13%

3%

2%

8%

12%

10%

5%

31%

6%

7%

3%

11%

8%

6%

14%

1%

10%

55%

10%

1%

4%

Educa

tion

32%

50%

26%

43%

12%

19%

38%

56%

18%

74%

6%

1%

8%

27%

73%

18%

12%

45%

23%

31%

5%

18%

19%

3%

48%

41%

20%

57%

49%

34%

83%

43%

0%

28%

Sport

s16%

34%

10%

23%

11%

2%

24%

32%

9%

1%

3%

1%

4%

20%

7%

3%

7%

16%

8%

7%

0%

10%

4%

2%

19%

30%

21%

40%

16%

25%

68%

10%

0%

16%

Park

s_and_re

creati

ons

16%

32%

6%

11%

3%

2%

21%

23%

8%

13%

2%

1%

3%

20%

66%

5%

17%

17%

2%

24%

0%

2%

0%

77%

19%

11%

18%

14%

53%

40%

33%

19%

0%

14%

Pedest

rian_and_bik

ingare

as

9%

20%

7%

13%

13%

0%

9%

18%

4%

1%

0%

1%

13%

5%

2%

3%

2%

17%

2%

4%

0%

0%

2%

2%

10%

10%

9%

8%

41%

18%

51%

8%

0%

1%

Open_m

ark

et_

are

as

6%

19%

4%

3%

1%

0%

7%

16%

2%

0%

3%

1%

3%

1%

0%

1%

1%

12%

4%

2%

0%

1%

2%

1%

5%

8%

10%

8%

36%

20%

9%

12%

0%

4%

Q17 M

ost

urg

ent

needed s

erv

ices

in m

unic

ipalit y

Total

Prishtinë/Pristina

Mitrovicë/Mitrovica

Gjilan/Gnjilane

Pejë/Pec

Prizren/Prizren

Gjakovë/Djakovica

Podujevë

Vushtrri/Vucitrn

Skenderaj/Srbica

Leposaviq/Leposavic

Klinë/Klina

Istog/Istok

Decan/Decane

Dragash/Dragas

Suharekë/Suvareka

Rahovec/Orahovac

Viti/Vitina

Kamenicë/Kamenica

Lipjan/Lipljane

Shtime/Stimlje

Ferizaj/Urosevac

Kacanik/Kacanik

Fushë Kosova/Kosovo Polje

Obiliq/Obilic

Novobërda/Novo Brdo

ZubinPotok/ Zubin Potok

Shtërpca/Strpce

Zvecan/Zvecane

Gllogovc/Glogovac

Malisheva/Malisevo

Junik/Junik

Mamushë/Mamusa

Hani i Elezit/Deneral Jankovic

Count

6388

561

324

362

362

464

314

284

233

174

90

169

169

155

122

195

190

181

128

203

88

329

142

111

105

84

90

90

83

166

150

89

91

90

Very

sati

sfie

d17%

22%

4%

8%

10%

6%

45%

12%

6%

95%

20%

23%

14%

12%

7%

2%

3%

4%

32%

3%

6%

28%

16%

43%

3%

25%

0%

7%

23%

38%

25%

30%

6%

9%

Som

ew

hat

sati

sfie

d55%

63%

68%

43%

59%

48%

42%

57%

65%

3%

53%

34%

52%

59%

88%

62%

75%

75%

45%

64%

88%

57%

65%

31%

51%

39%

41%

17%

63%

57%

37%

55%

95%

51%

Som

ew

hat

dis

sati

sfie

d16%

9%

12%

37%

20%

37%

10%

14%

17%

2%

11%

20%

13%

16%

6%

12%

10%

12%

9%

14%

7%

11%

8%

19%

38%

11%

39%

7%

10%

1%

11%

10%

0%

7%

Very

dis

sati

sfie

d9%

5%

15%

9%

11%

8%

3%

14%

10%

0%

1%

18%

14%

11%

0%

9%

12%

9%

13%

2%

0%

2%

12%

1%

5%

24%

13%

21%

0%

4%

27%

3%

0%

6%

Refu

ses

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

2%

5%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

1%

4%

0%

0%

0%

1%

2%

1%

2%

22%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

13%

Don't

know

3%

1%

1%

2%

0%

1%

0%

3%

2%

0%

13%

3%

2%

2%

0%

14%

1%

1%

1%

12%

0%

1%

0%

5%

1%

0%

4%

27%

2%

1%

0%

1%

0%

14%

Q-1

8a. H

ow

sati

sfie

d a

re y

ou w

ith t

he M

ajo

r and h

is job

Publi

c Serv

ices a

nd Lo

cal A

uthori

ties i

n Foc

us

74