Whitepaper handler

A report by The Economist Intelligence Unit
The Global Liveability Report 2017
A free overview

The world leader in global business intelligence
The Economist Intelligence Unit (The EIU) is the research and analysis division of The Economist Group, the sister company to The
Economist newspaper. Created in 1946, we have over 70 years’ experience in helping businesses, financial firms and governments to
understand how the world is changing and how that creates opportunities to be seized and risks to be managed.
Given that many of the issues facing the world have an international (if not global) dimension, The EIU is ideally positioned to be
commentator, interpreter and forecaster on the phenomenon of globalisation as it gathers pace and impact.
EIU subscription services
The world’s leading organisations rely on our subscription services for data, analysis and forecasts to keep them informed about what
is happening around the world. We specialise in:
• Country Analysis: Access to regular, detailed country-specific economic and political forecasts, as well as assessments of the
business and regulatory environments in different markets.
• Risk Analysis: Our risk services identify actual and potential threats around the world and help our clients understand the
implications for their organisations.
• Industry Analysis: Five year forecasts, analysis of key themes and news analysis for six key industries in 60 major economies.
These forecasts are based on the latest data and in-depth analysis of industry trends.
EIU Consulting
EIU Consulting is a bespoke service designed to provide solutions specific to our customers’ needs. We specialise in these key sectors:
• Consumer: Providing data-driven solutions for consumer-facing industries, our management consulting firm, EIU Canback,
helps clients to enter new markets and deliver greater success in current markets. Find out more at: eiu.com/consumer
• Healthcare: Together with our two specialised consultancies, Bazian and Clearstate, The EIU helps healthcare organisations
build and maintain successful and sustainable businesses across the healthcare ecosystem. Find out more at: eiu.com/
healthcare
• Public Policy: Trusted by the sector’s most influential stakeholders, our global public policy practice provides evidence-based
research for policy-makers and stakeholders seeking clear and measurable outcomes. Find out more at: eiu.com/publicpolicy
The Economist Corporate Network
The Economist Corporate Network (ECN) is The Economist Group’s advisory service for organisational leaders seeking to better
understand the economic and business environments of global markets. Delivering independent, thought-provoking content, ECN
provides clients with the knowledge, insight, and interaction that support better-informed strategies and decisions.
The Network is part of The Economist Intelligence Unit and is led by experts with in-depth understanding of the geographies and
markets they oversee. The Network’s membership-based operations cover Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and Africa. Through a
distinctive blend of interactive conferences, specially designed events, C-suite discussions, member briefings, and high-calibre
research, The Economist Corporate Network delivers a range of macro (global, regional, national, and territorial) as well as industry-
focused analysis on prevailing conditions and forecast trends.

A free overview
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20171
Contents
The findings of the latest liveability survey 2
Worldwide terrorism continues to shake up stability 2
Conflict in worst performers has been globally destabilising 5
The top and bottom ten cities 5
About The Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability survey 7
How the rating works 7
The suggested liveability scale 7
How the rating is calculated 8

A free overview
The findings of the latest liveability survey
Worldwide terrorism continues to shake up stability
For the seventh consecutive year, Melbourne in Australia is the most liveable urban centre of the 140
cities surveyed, closely followed by the Austrian capital, Vienna. In fact, only 0.1 percentage points
separate the top two cities, and just 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points separate Canada’s Vancouver and
Toronto (ranked 3rd and 4th, respectively), from Melbourne. Another Canadian city, Calgary, shares
joint fifth place with Adelaide in Australia.
Although the top five cities remain unchanged, the past few years have seen increasing instability
across the world, causing volatility in the scores of many cities. In Europe, cities have been affected
by the spreading perceived threat of terrorism in the region. At the same time, this year cities such
as Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland, and the Dutch capital, Amsterdam, have benefited from an
increasing cultural availability and falling crime rates, enabling them to register improvements in
living conditions.
Over the past six months 35 of the 140 cities surveyed have experienced changes in their ranking
position. This rises to 44 cities, or about one-third of the total number surveyed, when looking at
changes over the past 12 months. Overall, the survey shows a higher incidence of positive index
movements. In fact, of the 17 cities with an index movement since last year, 12 have seen an
improvement in their score, reflecting positive developments in other categories, despite heightened
threats of terrorism or unrest with which cities around the world continue to grapple.
The ongoing weakening of global stability scores has been made uncomfortably apparent by a
number of high-profile incidents that have shown no signs of slowing in recent years. Violent acts of
terrorism have been reported in many countries, including Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, France,
Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, the UK and the US. While not a new phenomenon, the frequency and spread
of terrorism have increased noticeably and become even more prominent.
Western Europe has become a focal point for mounting concerns, and repeated attacks in France and
UK have had a contagion effect, raising terror alerts and lowering stability scores in cities across the
region. However, there are other factors that could prove to be destabilising. Unrest has grown in some
countries, particularly over the migration crisis, and the British vote to leave the EU could pave the
way for further uncertainty and political conflict.
Terrorism has also been compounded by unrest and, in more extreme cases, civil war in some
countries. Iraq, Libya, Syria and Turkey remain the subject of high-profile civil unrest and armed
conflicts, while a number of other countries, such as Nigeria, continue to battle insurgent groups.
Meanwhile, even a relatively stable country such as the US has seen mounting civil unrest linked to the
Black Lives Matter movement and the policies proposed by the 45th US president, Donald Trump.
Beyond this, the world has also seen increased diplomatic tensions between countries that are
weighing on stability. Russia’s posturing in eastern Europe and the Middle East has been well reported,
Iran has seen diplomatic ties improve with some countries and deteriorate with others, and concerns
over geopolitical stability are growing in Asia owing to potential flashpoints involving a number of

A free overview
countries, including China and North Korea. It is therefore not surprising that declining stability
scores have been felt around the world.
On the flip side, however, cities moving up the ranking are located largely in countries that have
enjoyed periods of relative stability after previously reported falls in liveability. These include, for
example, Kiev in Ukraine, Tripoli in Libya and Colombo in Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, the improvements
have been marginal and have not seen liveability recover from previous levels or resulted in large shifts
up the ranking. Amsterdam, Reykjavik, Budapest, Singapore and Montevideo are among those that
have seen both their ranks improve. In total, there are 12 cities with scores that have improved over
the past 12 months, up from seven.
The impact of declining stability is most apparent when a five-year view of the global average scores
is taken. Overall, the global average liveability score has fallen by 0.8% to 74.8% over the past five
years. Weakening stability has been a key factor in driving this decrease. The average global stability
score has fallen by 2% over the past five years, from 73.4% in 2012 to 71.4% now.
Over five years, 95 of the 140 cities surveyed have seen some change in their overall liveability
scores. Of these cities, an overwhelming 66 have seen declines in liveability, but there is a silver lining,
as this number is actually down from 69 just six months ago. Two cities in particular, Damascus in Syria
and Kiev, have seen significant declines of 16 and 21 percentage points respectively, illustrating that
conflict is, unsurprisingly, the key factor in undermining wider liveability.
Although the most liveable cities in the world remain largely unchanged, there has been movement
within the top tier of liveability. Of the 65 cities with scores of 80 or more, six have seen a change in
score in the past 12 months. While most cities in the top tier have registered an improvement in their
scores, two of them, Manchester in the UK and Stockholm in Sweden, have seen their scores decline as
a result of recent, high-profile terrorist attacks.
Over the past few years several US cities have registered declines in their scores. This stems in part
from unrest related to a number of deaths of black people at the hands of police officers. In addition,
the country has seen protests held in response to President Trump’s policies and executive orders.
Sydney in Australia is another city that has seen a decline in its ranking, reflecting growing concerns
over possible terror attacks in the past three years. Sydney now ranks outside the top ten most liveable
cities, at number 11, down from seventh place just over a year ago. Nevertheless, with such high scores
already in place, the impact of these declines has not been enough to push any city into a lower tier
of liveability. Although 17.2 percentage points separate Melbourne in first place from Warsaw in 65th
place, all cities in this tier can lay claim to being on an equal footing in terms of presenting few, if any,
challenges to residents’ lifestyles.
Nonetheless, there does appear to be a correlation between the types of cities that sit at the very
top of the ranking. Those that score best tend to be mid-sized cities in wealthier countries with a
relatively low population density. These can foster a range of recreational activities without leading
to high crime levels or overburdened infrastructure. Six of the ten top-scoring cities are in Australia
and Canada, which have, respectively, population densities of 2.9 and 3.7 people per square kilometre.
Elsewhere in the top ten, Finland and New Zealand both have densities ranging between 15 and 18
people/sq km of land area. These densities compare with a global (land) average of 57 people/sq km

A free overview
and a US average of 35people/sq km, according to the latest World Bank statistics. Austria bucks this
trend with a density of 106 people/sq km, but compared with megacities such as New York, London,
Paris and Tokyo, Vienna’s population of nearly 1.8m (2.6m in the metropolitan area) is relatively small.
It may be argued that violent crime is on an upward trend in the top tier of cities, but these
observations are not always correct. Although crime rates are perceived as rising in Australia and
Europe, cities in these regions continue to boast lower violent and petty crime rates than the rest
of the world. Austria, for example, has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, at just 0.53 per
100,000 people in 2016. Similarly, its capital recorded yet another low-crime year, with most crime
categories remaining steady or falling: according to Vienna police statistics, there were 68 recorded
crimes against people last year, down from 83 in 2015 and 93 in 2012. In recent years Vienna has
seen just one homicide. This compares with 302 recorded homicides in Detroit in the US and 4,308 in
Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, in 2016 alone.
Global business centres tend to be victims of their own success. The “big city buzz” that they enjoy
can overstretch infrastructure and cause higher crime rates. New York, London, Paris and Tokyo are
all prestigious hubs with a wealth of recreational activities, but all suffer from higher levels of crime,
congestion and public transport problems than are deemed comfortable. The question is how much
wages, the cost of living and personal taste for a location can offset liveability factors. Although global
centres fare less well in the ranking than mid-sized cities, for example, they still sit within the highest
tier of liveability and should therefore be considered broadly comparable, especially when contrasted
with the worst-scoring locations.
Five biggest improvers (last five years)
City Country Rank (out of 140)
Overall Rating
(100=ideal)
five year movement %
Tehran Iran 127 50.8 5.0
Dubai UAE 74 74.7 4.6
Abidjan Cote d’Ivoire 129 49.7 3.8
Harare Zimbabwe 133 42.6 3.2
Colombo Sri Lanka 124 51 2.5
Five biggest decliners (last five years)
City Country Rank (out of 140)
Overall Rating
(100=ideal)
five year movement %
Kiev Ukraine 131 47.8 -21.4
Damascus Syria 140 30.2 -16.1
Tripoli Libya 138 36.6 -6.2
Detroit US 57 85 -5.7
Moscow Russia 80 72.8 -5.6

A free overview
Conflict in worst performers has been globally destabilising
Of the more poorly scoring cities, 12 continue to occupy the very bottom tier of liveability, where
ratings fall below 50% and most aspects of living are severely restricted. Continued threat from
groups such as Boko Haram acts as a constraint to improving stability in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city.
The liveability scores for Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, are still in a recovery that remains under threat from
unrest, economic instability and the ongoing conflict taking place in the Donbas region of the country.
Escalations in hostilities in Libya have prompted a sharp decline in liveability in Tripoli as the threat
to stability from Islamic State (IS, an extreme global jihadi group) continues to be felt across the
Middle East and North Africa. Damascus has seen a stabilisation in its dramatic decline in liveability but
remains ranked at the bottom of the 140 cities surveyed.
The relatively small number of cities in the bottom tier of liveability partly reflects the intended
scope of the ranking—the survey is designed to address a range of cities or business centres that
people might want to live in or visit. For example, the survey does not include locations such as Kabul
in Afghanistan or Baghdad in Iraq. Although few would currently argue that Damascus and Tripoli are
likely to attract visitors, their inclusion in the survey reflects cities that were deemed relatively stable
just a few years ago. With the exception of crisis-hit cities, the low number of cities in the bottom tier
also reflects a degree of convergence, where levels of liveability are generally expected to improve in
developing economies over time. This long-term trend has been upset by the heightened, widespread
reach of terrorism over the past five years.
Conflict is responsible for many of the lowest scores. This is not only because stability indicators
have the highest single scores but also because factors defining stability spread to have an adverse
effect on other categories. For example, conflict will not just cause disruption in its own right, it will
also damage infrastructure, overburden hospitals and undermine the availability of goods, services
and recreational activities. With the exception of Kiev, the Middle East, Africa and Asia account for
all 12 cities where violence, whether through crime, civil insurgency, terrorism or war, has played a
strong role.
The top and bottom ten cities
Below is a ranking of the top and bottom cities surveyed, accompanied by the liveability rating for
every city. The liveability score is the combination of all the factors surveyed across the five main
categories. Scores are also given for each category. The full ranking report can be purchased at http://
store.eiu.com

A free overview
The ten least liveable cities
Country City Rank
Overall Rating
(100=ideal)
Stability Healthcare
Culture
Environment
Education Infrastructure
Ukraine Kiev 131 47.8 35 54.2 48.6 75 42.9
Cameroon Douala 132 44 60 25 48.4 33.3 42.9
Zimbabwe Harare 133 42.6 40 20.8 58.6 66.7 35.7
Pakistan Karachi 134 40.9 20 45.8 38.7 66.7 51.8
Algeria Algiers 134 40.9 40 45.8 42.6 50 30.4
PNG Port Moresby 136 39.6 30 37.5 47 50 39.3
Bangladesh Dhaka 137 38.7 50 29.2 43.3 41.7 26.8
Libya Tripoli 138 36.6 20 41.7 40.3 50 41.1
Nigeria Lagos 139 36 10 37.5 53.5 33.3 46.4
Syria Damascus 140 30.2 15 29.2 43.3 33.3 32.1
The ten most liveable cities
Country City Rank
Overall Rating
(100=ideal)
Stability Healthcare
Culture
Environment
Education Infrastructure
Australia Melbourne 1 97.5 95 100 95.1 100 100
Austria Vienna 2 97.4 95 100 94.4 100 100
Canada Vancouver 3 97.3 95 100 100 100 92.9
Canada Toronto 4 97.2 100 100 97.2 100 89.3
Canada Calgary 5 96.6 100 100 89.1 100 96.4
Australia Adelaide 5 96.6 95 100 94.2 100 96.4
Australia Perth 7 95.9 95 100 88.7 100 100
New Zealand Auckland 8 95.7 95 95.8 97 100 92.9
Finland Helsinki 9 95.6 100 100 88.7 91.7 96.4
Germany Hamburg 10 95 90 100 93.5 91.7 100

A free overview
About The Economist Intelligence Unit’s
liveability survey
How the rating works
The concept of liveability is simple: it assesses which locations around the world provide the best
or the worst living conditions. Assessing liveability has a broad range of uses, from benchmarking
perceptions of development levels to assigning a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation
packages. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability rating quantifies the challenges that might
be presented to an individual’s lifestyle in any given location, and allows for direct comparison
between locations.
Every city is assigned a rating of relative comfort for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors
across five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and
infrastructure. Each factor in a city is rated as acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or
intolerable. For qualitative indicators, a rating is awarded based on the judgment of in-house analysts
and in-city contributors. For quantitative indicators, a rating is calculated based on the relative
performance of a number of external data points.
The scores are then compiled and weighted to provide a score of 1–100, where 1 is considered
intolerable and 100 is considered ideal. The liveability rating is provided both as an overall score and
as a score for each category. To provide points of reference, the score is also given for each category
relative to New York and an overall position in the ranking of 140 cities is provided.
The suggested liveability scale
Companies pay a premium (usually a percentage of a salary) to employees who move to cities where
living conditions are particularly difficult and there is excessive physical hardship or a notably
unhealthy environment.
The Economist Intelligence Unit has given a suggested allowance to correspond with the rating.
However, the actual level of the allowance is often a matter of company policy. It is not uncommon, for
example, for companies to pay higher allowances—perhaps up to double The Economist Intelligence
Unit’s suggested level.
Rating Description Suggested allowance (%)
80–100 There are few, if any, challenges to living standards 0
70–80
Day–to–day living is fine, in general, but some aspects of life may entail
problems
5
60–70 Negative factors have an impact on day-to-day living 10
50–60 Liveability is substantially constrained 15
50 or less Most aspects of living are severely restricted 20

A free overview
Category 2: Healthcare (weight: 20% of total)
Indicator Source
Availability of private healthcare EIU rating
Quality of private healthcare EIU rating
Availability of public healthcare EIU rating
Quality of public healthcare EIU rating
Availability of over-the-counter drugs EIU rating
General healthcare indicators Adapted from World Bank
Category 3: Culture Environment (weight: 25% of total)
Indicator Source
Humidity/temperature rating Adapted from average weather conditions
Discomfort of climate to travellers EIU rating
Level of corruption Adapted from Transparency International
Social or religious restrictions EIU rating
Level of censorship EIU rating
Sporting availability EIU field rating of 3 sport indicators
Cultural availability EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators
Food and drink EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators
Consumer goods and services EIU rating of product availability
Category 1: Stability (weight: 25% of total)
Indicator Source
Prevalence of petty crime EIU rating
Prevalence of violent crime EIU rating
Threat of terror EIU rating
Threat of military conflict EIU rating
Threat of civil unrest/conflict EIU rating
How the rating is calculated
The liveability score is reached through category weights, which are equally divided into relevant
subcategories to ensure that the score covers as many indicators as possible. Indicators are scored as
acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable. These are then weighted to produce
a rating, where 100 means that liveability in a city is ideal and 1 means that it is intolerable.
For qualitative variables, an “EIU rating” is awarded based on the judgment of in–house expert
country analysts and a field correspondent based in each city. For quantitative variables, a rating is
calculated based on the relative performance of a location using external data sources.

A free overview
Category 5: Infrastructure (weight: 20% of total)
Indicator Source
Quality of road network EIU rating
Quality of public transport EIU rating
Quality of international links EIU rating
Availability of good quality housing EIU rating
Quality of energy provision EIU rating
Quality of water provision EIU rating
Quality of telecommunications EIU rating
Category 4: Education (weight: 10% of total)
Indicator Source
Availability of private education EIU rating
Quality of private education EIU rating
Public education indicators Adapted from World Bank

World leaders in city research and data
Liveabilityproductsavailableforpurchase
LiveabilitySurvey
ThisserviceprovidesafullreportofTheEIU’sliveabilityratingsfor140citiesaroundtheworld.This
includesaone-pageoverviewforeachofthe140citiescoveredaswellasTheEIU’sratingsforeachcityon
thefullsetofover30qualitativeandquantitativefactors.Inthisranking:
•Eachofthe30factorsineachcityisratedasacceptable,tolerable,uncomfortable,undesirableor
intolerable.
•Thecategoriesarecompiledandweightedtoprovideanoverallratingof1–100,where1is
consideredintolerableand100isconsideredideal.
•Theliveabilityrankingconsidersthatanycitywitharatingof80ormorewillhavefew,ifany,
challengestolivingstandards.Anycitywithascoreoflessthan50willseemostaspectsofliving
severelyrestricted.
PurchasetheLiveabilitySurvey.
LiveabilityRankingandOverview
ThisserviceprovidesanoverviewandsummaryofTheEIU’sliveabilityratingsfor140citiesaroundthe
world.Thisincludes:
•Asummaryoffindingsandadescriptionofthemethodologyused.
•Tableslistingtherankingposition,overallliveabilityscoreandaveragescoresforallcitiesacrossfive
broadcategories:stability,healthcare,cultureenvironment,educationandinfrastructure.
PurchasetheLiveabilityRankingandOverview.
LiveabilityMatrix
TheLiveabilityMatrixisaninteractiveExcelworkbookthatranks140citiesonover30qualitativeand
quantitativefactorsacrossthefivecategories.
PurchasetheLiveabilityMatrix.
Related Reports
WorldwideCostofLiving
TheWorldwideCostofLivingSurveycontainsarankingof133citiesontheirrelativeexpensiveness,based
onasurveywhichcomparesmorethan400individualpricesacross160productsandservices.Inaddition
totherankingtable,thereportlooksatthekeytrendsaffectingthecostoflivingindifferentcitiesacross
theworld.
Findoutmoreat:eiu.com/topic/worldwide-cost-of-living

Copyright
© 2017 The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. All rights
reserved. Neither this publication nor any part of it may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior
permission of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited.
All information in this report is verified to the best of
the author’s and the publisher’s ability. However, the
Economist Intelligence Unit does not accept responsibility
for any loss arising from reliance on it.
While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy
of this information, The Economist Intelligence Unit
Ltd. cannot accept any responsibility or liability for
reliance by any person on this report or any of the
information, opinions or conclusions set out in this
report.
Cover image - © Sergey Nivens/Shutterstock

LONDON
20 Cabot Square
London
E14 4QW
United Kingdom
Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000
E-mail: london@eiu.com
NEW YORK
750 Third Avenue
5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States
Tel: (1.212) 554 0600
E-mail: americas@eiu.com
HONG KONG
1301 Cityplaza Four
12 Taikoo Wan Road
Taikoo Shing
Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2585 3888
E-mail: asia@eiu.com

Whitepaper handler

More Related Content

What's hot (14)

Similar to Whitepaper handler (20)

More from Victor Gridnev (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Whitepaper handler