Download July 2006 Issue - Malaysian Institute of Planners

10 April 2006 : The Swiss cities of
Geneva and Zurich offer the best
quality of life according to research
published by Mercer Consulting in
April 2006. Vancouver (Canada) is
placed third, followed by Vienna
(Austria), Auckland (New Zealand)
and Düsseldorf (Germany).
Baghdad, not surprisingly, is the
lowest ranking city in the survey.
EIU names Vancouver,
Melbourne and Vienna as 'best'
cities in the world
The analysis is part of Mercer
Consulting's annual 'World-wide
Quality of Living Survey', covering
more than 350 cities. Each city is
based on an evaluation of 39
criteria, including political, social,
economic and environmental
factors, personal safety and health,
education, transport, and other
public services. Cities are ranked
against New York as the base city,
which has an index score of 100.
Europe & Middle East
Zurich again named best city in the world to live in
A report by Mercer Consulting
Extracted from: http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html
Almost half the top 30 scoring cities
are in Western Europe. In this
region, Vienna follows Zurich and
Geneva in 4th position with a score
of 107.5. Other highly-rated cities
include Düsseldorf (107.2),
Frankfurt (107.0) and Munich
(106.8) in positions 6, 7 and 8
respectively. Athens remains the
lowest scoring city in Western
Europe, scoring 86.8 at position 79.
London is the UK’s highest ranking
city and is stable at position 39
(score 101.2). The two other UK
cities covered in the survey are
Birmingham and Glasgow, which
both score 98.3 and climb one
place to joint 55th position.
Dublin has dropped two places to
24th position, scoring 103.8, mainly
due to increased traffic congestion.
As predicted, cities in Eastern
Europe such as Budapest,
Ljubljana, Prague, Vilnius, Tallinn
and Warsaw continue to benefit
from incremental score increases
and are gradually climbing the
rankings.
“The standard of living in many
Eastern European cities is
gradually improving, as the
countries that most recently joined
the EU attract greater investment,”
commented Slagin Parakatil,
Senior Researcher at Mercer. “Yet
cities such as Dubai may still offer
a wider variety of facilities
demanded by expatriates - for
example, well-connected
international airports and better
opportunities for recreation and
leisure activities - compared to
many Eastern European cities.”
Positions for most cities in Europe
and the Middle East are generally
unchanged, with the exception of
Cairo which has tumbled nine
places to position 131 and scores
71.2 due to the political turmoil and
terrorist attacks in the city and
surrounding area.
Baghdad ranks as the least
attractive city for a third consecutive
year, with a score of 14.5.
The Americas
Honolulu, the highest ranking city
in the U.S., drops two positions to
27th with a score of 103.3. San
Francisco remains at 28th position
and scores 103.2. Boston,
Washington, Chicago and Portland
follow in positions 36, 41, 41 and
43 respectively (scores 101.9,
100.4, 100.4 and 100.3) while
Houston remains the lowest
ranking city in the U.S. at position
68 (score 95.4). Overall, U.S. cities
continue to slip slightly or remain
stable in the rankings, except
Chicago which has moved up 11
places due to decreased crime
rates.
“Economies in the developed world
tend to be relatively stable overall.
Fluctuations in the quality of living
in these regions are usually driven
by factors such as increased air
pollution, crime rates and traffic
congestion, or external events like
terrorism, disease outbreaks or
natural disasters,” said Mr.
Parakatil.
In South America, scores vary
considerably due to differences in
economic and political stability.
“Argentina’s steady economic
recovery is likely to push its cities
up in the rankings in the next few
years,” commented Mr. Parakatil.
Asia-Pacific & Africa
Auckland and Wellington have both
moved up the rankings from 8th to
5th and 14th to 12th places
respectively, mainly due to strong
internal stability relative to other
cities, while Sydney remains at
position 9 with a score of 106.5.
In Asia, Singapore ranks 34th (score
102.5) followed by Tokyo, Japan’s
highest scoring city, at position 35
(score 102.3). Hong Kong’s modern
and efficient infrastructure, including
its airport (which is considered one
of best in the world), has pushed it
up from 70th to 68th position with a
score of 95.4.
The top-ranking city in China is
Shanghai in 103rd place (score
80.1). “Beijing and Shanghai are on
the rise and should experience
rapid improvements in quality of
living in the coming years. This is
mainly due to greater international
investment driven by the availability
and lower cost of labour and
manufacturing expertise,”
explained Mr. Parakatil.
Though cities in India generally
rank lower than their Chinese
counterparts, they are also
showing signs of development in
the region.
“The quality of living in Indian cites
such as Mumbai and Bangalore is
increasing slowly but steadily,
primarily due to India’s improved
political relationships with other
countries,” said Mr. Parakatil.
“Investment from multinationals
setting up operations in India may
prompt further improvements,
boost economic growth and
contribute to economic stability. In
turn, this will encourage the local
authorities to focus on improving
quality of living standards.”
Other low-ranking cities for overall
quality of living include Congo in
Brazzaville (score 30.3) and
Bangui in the Central African
Republic and Khartoum in Sudan
(30.6 and 31.7).
The world's top cities offering the
best quality of life
(New York is the base city with a
score of 100 points)
2006 2005 City Country Points
Rank Rank
1 1 Zurich Switzerland 108.2
2 2 Geneva Switzerland 108.1
3 3 Vancouver Canada 107.7
4 3 Vienna Austria 107.5
5 8 Auckland New Zealand 107.3
6 5 Düsseldorf Germany 107.2
7 6 Frankfurt Germany 107.0
8 7 Munich Germany 106.8
9 9 Bern Switzerland 106.5
9 9 Sydney Australia 106.5
11 11 Copenhagen Denmark 106.2
12 14 Wellington New Zealand 105.8
13 12 Amsterdam Netherlands 105.7
14 13 Brussels Belgium 105.6
15 16 Toronto Canada 105.4
16 16 Berlin Germany 105.1
17 14 Melbourne Australia 105.0
18 18 Luxembourg Luxembourg 104.8
18 21 Ottawa Canada 104.8
20 19 Stockholm Sweden 104.7
21 20 Perth Australia 104.5
22 22 Montreal Canada 104.3
23 22 Nürnberg Germany 104.1
24 22 Dublin Ireland 103.8
25 25 Calgary Canada 103.6
26 25 Hamburg Germany 103.4
27 25 Honolulu USA 103.3
28 28 San Francisco USA 103.2
29 29 Adelaide Australia 103.1
29 29 Helsinki Finland 103.1
31 31 Brisbane Australia 102.8
31 32 Oslo Norway 102.8
33 33 Paris France 102.7
34 35 Singapore Singapore 102.5
35 34 Tokyo Japan 102.3
36 36 Boston USA 101.9
37 37 Lyon France 101.6
37 37 Yokohama Japan 101.6
39 39 London UK 101.2
40 40 Kobe Japan 101.0
41 41 Washington USA 100.4
41 52 Chicago USA 100.4
43 42 Portland USA 100.3
44 43 Barcelona Spain 100.2
45 44 Madrid Spain 100.1
46 46 New York City USA 100.0
47 46 Seattle USA 99.9
48 47 Lexington USA 99.8
49 48 Winston Salem USA 99.7
51 50 Osaka Japan 99.6
51 51 Milan Italy 99.6
51 50 Milan Italy 98
53 52 Lisbon Portugal 97.5
53 52 Tsukuba Japan 97.5
Survey methodology
Data was collected largely between September
and November 2005 and was updated regularly
to take account of changing circumstances. In
particular, the assessments will be revised in the
case of any new developments. Only 215 cities
have been considered in the Quality of Living
2006 rankings.
The overall quality of living ranking is based on an
evaluation of 39 criteria. New York has been used
as the base score for quality of living, which has
a total index equal to 100.
Mercer’s study is based on detailed assessments
and evaluations of 39 key quality of living
determinants, grouped in the following
categories:
• Political and social environment (political
stability, crime, law enforcement, etc.)
• Economic environment (currency exchange
regulations, banking services, etc.)
• Socio-cultural environment (censorship,
limitations on personal freedom, etc.)
• Medical and health considerations (medical
supplies and services, infectious diseases,
sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.)
• Schools and education (standard and
availability of schools, etc.)
• Public services and transportation (electricity,
water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc.)
• Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas,
sports and leisure, etc.)
• Consumer goods (availability of food/daily
consumption items, cars, etc.)
• Housing (housing, household appliances,
furniture, maintenance services, etc.)
• Natural environment (climate, record of natural
disasters)
NEWSLETTER OF THE MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS 13